'Sounds familiar' - Articles, letters, and Documents
relative to promises and statements of 'bigger plans for PCMS' and
'economic benefits' and 'public input' made in the 70s and 80s
Protecting Colorado's Ranchers: A Position on Pinon Canyon: As most ranchers and livestock operators in Colorado know, there is a great deal of concern about the Army's plans to expand the boundaries of Fort Carson's training facilities at Pinon Canyon in southern Colorado. It is not enough to oppose the use of eminent domain (condemnation) at Pinon Canyon. In an already fragile economy, it is not fair to add more pressure to landowners in the area. That is why we support the state legislative ban on the lease or transfer of state lands for expansion, why we support the Congressional moratorium on expansion activities and why we are opposed to the additional loss of productive land in agriculture and livestock production that would follow from Army expansion. It is important for the communities most impacted by the Army's planned expansion in Southern Colorado to have the ultimate say in whether they would agree to any expansion proposal. It has been clear to us that so far, communities in Southern Colorado are adamantly opposed to the loss of this land (even through leasing) and we believe Colorado's next Governor must stand with them.
We hope to see everyone at the comment meetings but there are also other ways to comment:
Comments by the public, government agencies, other appropriate
entities, and stakeholders may be submitted at the above-mentioned public
meetings or sent to the U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC) during the
applicable published comment period. Comments can be sent by e-mail to USARMY.JBSA.AEC.MBX@mail.mil or
mailed to: Public Comments USAEC, Attn: IMPA — AE (Kropp), 2450 Connell Road
(Building 2264), Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234-7664. For questions regarding
comment submittals, call (210) 466-1590.
GAO study slams Army on Pinon Canyon expansion - Rocky Mt. News Article
The Rocky Mountain News Published January 13, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. Updated January 13, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
WASHINGTON - A new Government Accountability Office study criticizes the U.S. Army's approach to the proposed expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado, saying a lack of early communication with nearby residents allowed rumors to run rampant.
The report, one of two being released today in response to congressional requests, also says the army's land acquisition approach is based on out-of-date strategic plans, and recommends periodic updates as well as new methods of keeping members of the public informed.
The Pentagon has faced vocal opposition from some residents of the area south of Fort Carson when word first spread that the army might be trying to add up to 418,577 acres of land to the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.
Last summer, the army reported that it planned to limit the proposed expansion to 100,000 acres, but not before public outrage echoed by congressional opposition.
Congress asked the nonpartisan GAO to study what happened.
"Without adequate explanations, key stakeholders at times relied on rumors and leaked documents," one report concludes. "These information sources often did not provide a clear, complete or accurate explanation of the Army's need for and approach to acquiring additional land or of the Army's plans to also use other strategies to meet critical training needs."
In a written response, army officials called their approach to land acquisitions, including the one proposed for Piñon Canyon, were "fundamentally sound," but conceded that they would benefit from updating strategic plans and communicating more effectively.
Leasing is not a ‘win-win’ either
Leasing is no answer…..
Just ask those whose land was 'leased' by the Army in the White Sands area in the 40s. It was never turned back and landowners never got reimbursed. Worse yet was how they were treated.
READ ABOUT LAND TAKEN IN THE TULAROSA BASIN IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO - SEE IF YOU AGREE 'LEASING' IS MAYBE EVEN MORE CRUEL THAN TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN
Also - Here are the Facts about what is happening at Fort Hood today :
Myth: It is a common practice for landowners to lease land to the Army for training.
Fact: Very little, if any, land is leased for training at Fort Hood or anywhere else for that matter.
Myth: Livestock grazing on Fort Hood is a great economical benefit to the local ranchers and the economy.
Fact: At Fort Hood, approximately 2,000 cows roam free range on approximately 220,000 acres. They are owned by 100 separate families, or approximately 20 cows per family. They are not branded, some have ear tags. Everyone is on his own to try and gather his or her calves which are born the year around. Most said the best way to gather is with a tranquilizer gun. If you visit you will see everything from 900# yearlings to new borns following the same cow. They also get 40" of rainfall every year. Water is everywhere, something Pinon Canyon will never have (13 inches is average).
That would mean that if you used Fort Hood grazing as your example at Pinon Canyon, you could be talking about less than 500 cows for 100 plus ranch families or 5 cows for each family. A 80,000 acre area that presently handles more than 2,000 cattle and scores of family members will be reduced to almost nothing. Taking away 95% of an entire area's economy and replacing it with 'leasing and more troops' is not a 'win win' nor is it realistic. There is no way to offset the loss to the communities' and state's economies should this be allowed to happen.
Myth: The Army likes livestock grazing and leases.
Fact: On two separate occasions the Fort Hood's equivalent to Fort Carson's Tom Warren (charged with overseeing environmental rules etc. at PCMS and Fort Carson) stated they would have the cattle removed if they could, because they don’t like them. As recently as the Fall '07 legislative tour of the PCMS area hosted by Representative Wes McKinley (with many other Colorado legislators attending), Tom Warren stated that there never would be livestock grazing at Pinon Canyon if he had anything to do with it. Of course Tom has now been 'reassigned' along with all of his staff and the environmental oversight is now non-existent at PCMS. Robert Stack is Tom's replacement and he has a tarnished legal and professional career history. READ ABOUT ROBERT STACK'S POSITION ON PCMS EXPANSION
Myth: The Army is a great caretaker of the environment on their bases.
Fact: Fort Hood is an on going environmental disaster. Again, the environment overseers of Fort Hood made this statement, "Our mission is to train soldiers to fight and win wars wherever they are sent. To accomplish that training, it is anything but friendly to the environment."
Fact: Fort Hood spends up to 119 days a year just putting out fires set during live fire practice. Now, you know why the Army burned off all their live fire ranges this fall at Pinon Canyon.
Fact: Environmental oversight is basically non-existent now at Army facilities nationwide as that oversight requirement was 'eliminated' in the Fall of 2008.
Myth: The Army would want to do the Conservation Credit and leasing at Pinon Canyon like they do at Fort Hood.
Fact: The Conservation Credit System at Fort Hood is the only thing that has kept the US Fish & Wildlife from shutting them down completely. In other words they buy those 'credits' or pay people to take care of their property outside of Fort Hood so they can destroy what is on the base. They say they are paying to protect the surrounding environment.
With Pinon Canyon’s low rainfall, very fine alkali soils exposed by burning and then getting exposed to heavy tracked vehicle use, they create an environmental nightmare. It doesn't matter if it's leased or owned - it's toast.
Fact: The only reason Pinon Canyon looks as good as it does is it never has been exposed to the extensive training and use of live fire ranges like Fort Hood. Fort Hood gets 40" of rain each year and by the Army’s admission, it is an environmental disaster that only stays afloat because of the ability to 'buy' credits from surrounding landowners.
Fact: The Army’s long range plan is to acquire enough acres, 2,000,000+, so that they never will be able to rely on a Conservation Credit System like they have at Ford Hood. Those who think they are outside the area of interest should quit thinking anyone is safe - we are all at risk.
Myth: They will give the local area some type of economic benefit package.
Fact: The only ones getting any economic benefits is Colorado Springs. The entire southeastern Colorado area ranchers, farmers, and businesses story will make a nice additional chapter to the book, "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee."
Information provided by Corwin Brown, PCEOC
"Whether you take my shoes or you lease my shoes - I still won’t have shoes.......". Stan White, PCEOC
We ask everyone to join us and to push our leaders and legislators to rein in the DOD and hold them accountable. Let's stop these wasteful and destructive efforts to seize a huge portion of land in Colorado larger than the State of Connecticut. Click I CAN HELP to get started.
