Rep McHugh considered for Sec of the Army

Today's Colorado Independent has an article on Senator Udall pressing Sec of the Army nominee, Rep. John McHugh, a New York Republican.

There are three issues with things that subtly come through their brief exchange.

The first is the issue of eminent domain. The Army keeps taking it off the table and then reintroducing it as a possibility. Mchugh is now saying it is not their "first path."

At some point however they'd have to use eminent domain to put together any kind of usable acquisition that they want.

The second issue is the ever changing personnel within the Army. In the past three years, since we've been dealing with the expansion, we've seen three different commanding generals at Fort Carson, two different Secretaries of Defense, and now, two different Secretaries of the Army.

They all make statements, even "promises" but their words are only as trustworthy as their tenure. That's why we are pushing for federal legislation; something that will survive leadership changes.

The third issue is "happy neighbors." Last week we did a presentation in Pueblo with Action-22, an organization which advocates for 22 counties in Southeastern Colorado, including El Paso County and Las Animas County. James Rice, Fort Carson's point-man on Pinon Canyon presented the Army's perspective on Pinon Canyon. He said his "focus" in now on rebuilding community relations by trying to offer contracts in Las Animas County, and by working to upgrade the Trinidad hospital.

He says he's not actively pursuing the purchase of land, but if somebody comes up to him "with 50,000 acres for sale, that's a different story". He brushed off the suggestion that there are not any funds available for answering such an 'offer'. But of course, it's not really an Army decision to "refocus" their efforts. They are prohibited from pursuing expansion by a congressional ban on spending.

We must keep pushing our Senators and our Representatives to put a permanent ban in place to take the hovering axe of single minded defense contractors from over the neck of our entire region and state.

.

Then and Now - the same canned responses

There are certainly lots of similarities between the first efforts to expand Fort Carson (that became the effort to acquire PCMS) in 1974 and the Army's current effort at Pinon Canyon.

(see the headlines of the 1974 'lead up' to the taking the first PCMS here: http://csaction.org/TPs/paper.html and don't forget to look up other articles at our website's documents page - just scroll down to 'Sound Familiar' heading)

There are certainly lots of similarities between the attempted expansion in 1974 and the Army's current effort at Pinon Canyon.

It is obvious that there is no end point to the ever-increasing "need" for more training land as longer-range weapon-systems and improved communication-systems are developed by the defense contractors. The Army's "need" for training lands has grown ten-fold just since Desert Storm.

Earlier on most of the Pinon Canyon discussion/debate focused upon this question of military necessity; does the Army really need to take 7 million acres of private and state land in order to adequately train troops? The rhetoric about "military necessity" and "patriotic sacrifice" has subsided and given way to concerns about the economic interests of military-dependent Colorado Springs and the economic interests of agriculture-dependent Southeastern Colorado. Conservative cheerleaders of expansion like Lamborn, Coffman and McInnis have gotten down to the bottom line. Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis recently boiled it all down at a fund-raiser hosted by State Representative Larry Liston, to this terse statement; "Hell, this is about jobs."

But we are in danger of allowing the more important aspects of the Pinon Canyon issue to become obscured by current concerns about the urban economy of Colorado Springs and the rural economy of Southeastern Colorado.

There is an age-old theme at play here that we must not lose sight of; the "need" to use military and political power to take land, resources and life away from the poor and powerless in order to enrich an elite class. In the 18th Century it was Native Americans whose lands and culture stood in the way of the "need" for commerce with Mexico on the Santa Fe Trail and the "need" to exploit the gold fields of Colorado Springs and Denver. Military force was used to clear away that obstruction at places like Sand Creek. In the 20th Century is was poor immigrants trying to organize for safer working conditions in the coal mines of Southern Colorado who stood in the way of corporate "needs." Military force was again used to inflict a blow upon their fledgling union movement at the Ludlow tent colony. And now, in the 21st Century it is ranchers who are living on land that their ancestors settled a hundred years ago, who stand in the way of the needs of military contractors headquartered in places like Colorado Springs and Aurora. Once again, relatively poor, powerless people are being told they have to get out of the way of the rich and powerful.

It comes down to basic questions of whose needs will prevail; basic human needs or the "necessities" of military expansionism; the right of citizens to be secure in their homes or the perceived need to "Grow the Army." It comes down to the queston of whether we will stand by as American citizens are forced to defend their lands and livelihoods from being seized by their own military in order to satisfy the never-satisfied need for a bigger and bigger military.

Ultimately we have to come back around to the question of "military necessity;" and the question of "patriotic sacrifice." The military and the weapons manufacturers say that it is necessary to transform millions of acres of private and state land into a huge live-fire range because of the increased range of their weapons and because of increased dimensions of battlefields as satellite communications make it possible to remotely "pilot" unmanned Predators and Reapers.

The land is necessary they say, in order to learn how to use new robotic weapons, lethal new technologies mounted on unmanned air and ground vehicles. The century-old homes of ranchers are "necessary" so that they can become mock Pinon Canyon villages, fired upon from air conditioned control rooms in Colorado Springs.

.

Other numbers for Senators Bennet and Udall

We've been advised Senator Bennet's message system was full when people have tried to call to ask for pushing a permanent ban for the opposition of pinon canyon. But there are other options!!

Here are links to page on each Senator's website that has their contact/e-mail form (no one in the legislature uses a personal e-mail anymore it seems) along with their offices addresses and numbers so a call to any of them should get forwarded as well.

http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/

http://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

.

Senators Udall and Bennet need our attention to get theirs

For the third consecutive year we've won the funding ban prohibiting expansion at Piñon Canyon in the House of Representatives.

It reads:

H.R.3082
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010

Sec. 125. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this title may be used for any action that is related to or promotes the expansion of the boundaries or size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.

We're concerned our Colorado senators are not providing support of a permanent ban and we need that support to get this stopped.

A couple of weeks ago the authorization we were promised to wipe the slate clean and make the funding ban permanent was killed in committee.

Why?

Please start calling, writing and faxing our senators to remind them how important this issue is and that we expect their support. John Salazar has been a champion as has Betsy Markey and Marylin Musgrave before her, but they can't do it without our Senators support.

Senator Mark Udall: 202.224.5941
Senator Mark Udall (D-CO)

Senator Michael Bennet: 202.224.5852
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)

.

We are doing the most patriotic thing.....

La Junta Tribune Democrat

Letters to the Editor, July 6, 2009

Declaration of Independence

In recognition of July 4^th I read through the Declaration of Independence. In it our foregathers proclaimed that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and that, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

I thought about the irony of our situation here in Southeastern Colorado on July 4^th, 2009. The signers of the Declaration would be shocked to learn that 17,000 American citizens face a threat to their livelihoods, their homes, their lands, their pursuit of happiness, not from the oppressive tyranny of an English King, but from their own military. How appalled they would be to learn that even though every City and County in our part of the State, and both houses of our State Legislature have expressed their opposition to it, the Army continue to harass us with their plan to federalize 6.9 million acres of private and state land, and to depopulate the entire southeastern corner of the state, in order to created a huge, live-fire range. How ashamed they would be to learn that this power is not “derived from the consent of the governed,” but comes by way of the economic influence of huge military contractors.

Most people are familiar with the first couple of paragraphs of the Declaration, but it is instructive to read through to the list of specific grievances against the English King. Among them are that he had, “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” That he allowed, “Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” And that he had, “affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

As I reflect upon the values embodied in The Declaration of Independence it strikes me that the most patriotic thing that we can do to honor our forefathers is stand together in opposition to the federalization of our state’s lands and the militarization of our state’s economy.

Doug Holdread

Trinidad

Major disconnection between what U.S. Army officials say and what they actually do

By David Vickers
La Junta Tribune-Democrat
Wed Jul 01, 2009, 03:59 PM MDT
Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site -

Rebecca Goodwin says there is a major disconnection between what U.S. Army officials say and what they actually do to preserve historic and archeological sites at Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

As Otero County’s top historic preservation official Rebecca Goodwin was called to testify this spring when the Pinon Canyon Land Owners Protection Act was working its way through committees in the State Legislature. The act, H.B. 1317, was approved by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter, effectively stopping the U.S. Army from expanding its 238,000-acre maneuver site through leasing or buying land from the State Board of Land Commissioners.

But stopping the Army from acquiring state school lands is a far cry from what Goodwin would like to see in terms of preservation of places like Brown’s Sheep Camp, a set of historic buildings that are important because they were once a gathering place for ranching families throughout the Picketwire Canyon (or Pinon Canyon) communities.

The Army has not ignored the historic value of sites.
Dan Corson from the State Historical Preservation Office said he once toured PCMS and was “quite impressed with measures the Army had taken to protect historic properties.”

But Kevin Karney, chairman of the Board of Otero County Commissioners, toured PCMS last week with Goodwin, and his fellow commissioners. Las Animas counties and other state historic preservation officials, said it’s difficult to “put your finger on them” when addressing Army officials charged with protecting archeological and cultural resources at PCMS.

“When we point out past transgressions that have occurred, they always tell us things will be better now because someone new is in charge,” Karney said. “But they change people there as often as we change socks.” The commissioners here worked for a year to arrange a tour to see what damage had occurred last summer when the Bridger Fire, started by a lightning strike, ended up burning 45,000 acres at PCMS.
A study conducted over a number of years by environmental protection officials from Fort Carson who work at PCMS, noted there are 481 sites in the training area that are either eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, or need to be studied further for potential listing. The study, presented at the 2006 Joint Services Environmental Management Conference, said only 9.5 percent of 5,060 sites found at PCMS have been studied enough to determine if they are eligible for protection under the National Register, or need to be studied further.

So far, not one site in the historic region has been nominated for listing on the National Register, Goodwin noted. Most sites are surrounded only by a fence. Brown’s Sheep Camp has a fence around it, but weeds were head-high when she visited the site several years ago. Last week, she saw that weeds had been trimmed somewhat, but at other sites protected by fences, such as the 1876 Bent Stage Stop, there was evidence that Army tanks had breached some fences.
Facts like that gave the National Trust for Historic Preservation reason in 2007 to name the Pinon Canyon Area as one of America’s 11 most endangered historic places. That same year, the Otero County Historical Preservation Advisory Board, which had been created in 2004, decided it had to take a greater role in trying to protect sites on PCMS that were valued by both American Indians, whose history there dates back 11,500 years or more, and by the ranching and farming community, whose presence in the Purgatoire River Valley and surrounding areas dates back to the mid-1800s.

To take a greater role, the Otero County needed to ask the Army to grant it “local jurisdiction consultation status” under Section 106, a provision of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Basically, the intent of Section 106 is to protect historic and archeological sites in the U.S. where federal government agencies, including the military, either work or have invested taxpayer dollars. The protection comes through consultation with state historic preservation officials first, then through talks with local officials who have consultation status. Under Section 106, the Las Animas County commissioners must be granted consultation status because PCMS lies entirely within the boundaries of that county. Agencies from other jurisdictions, like those in Otero or Huerfano counties, must request consultation status. But Corson said Otero County’s location, next door to PCMS, would make it difficult for the Army to prove it shouldn’t include officials here in the consultation process.

“What triggers Section 106 consultation is if any type of activity has the potential to effect historical or archeological (or paleontological) resources, then the consultation process has to be undertaken by the federal agency - in this case the Army,” Goodwin said.

The State Historical Preservation Office typically takes the lead in consulting with the Army and other federal agencies on the hundreds of projects conducted on millions of acres of land in the state controlled by those agencies. It’s a daunting task for people like Corson, who said the Army several years ago handed over several boxes filled with studies and other materials related to PCMS sites. He admitted those boxes have never been thoroughly examined. It is commonly known the SHPO’s funding and manpower fall far short of what it needs to effectively monitor actions by federal agencies on resources.

But SHPO officials have recently sent a letter to Fort Carson about Section 106 compliance. That letter was prompted by complaints voiced by Goodwin and the county commissioners, including Karney, Goodwin’s husband, Keith, and the late Bob Bauserman.

The county commissioners knew through first-person accounts that last summer’s Bridger Fire had scorched 45,000 acres and burned some historic sites. They questioned whether stagecoach stops, historic ranches (like Brown’s Sheep Camp) and other buildings, or if the fire had blackened sites where Indian rock art abounds.

Bells and whistles started going off when the county commissioners began to try and exercise their consultation rights under Section 106, though. First, a letter they sent to the Army at Fort Carson asking about the impacts of the Bridger Fire and the installation of several new communications antennas came back as refused by Fort Carson officials. That prompted the commissioners to fire off a letter to the SHPO office asking for the state director to intervene with the Army.

Goodwin was at the county commissioners’ meeting in early May when Col. Eugene Smith, garrison commander, appeared with three members of his staff.
“The garrison commander said he had made public notice in the newspaper about the antenna project,” Goodwin said. “It’s possible I missed it in (researching) the La Junta paper. But the only thing I found was notification of a draft environmental impact statement published on Oct. 17, 2006 in the Tribune-Democrat.”

Goodwin researched the La Junta newspaper’s collection but found no notification that a Section 106 consultation process was under way. She discovered, however, through reading the notice of the draft EIS that PCMS officials had asked Army brass at the Pentagon to shorten the public comment period from its typical 30 days to a 15-day period “so trenching could proceed,” Goodwin said.

“The first time we knew anything about the antenna towers was last year in late summer and early fall when they started building them,” Goodwin said. “The project started in 2006 and we didn’t know anything about it until the towers went up.”

They intrude into the vistas tourists see while driving U.S. Highway 350 between La Junta and Trinidad, which from the 1820s until the arrival of the railroad in the late 1860s and early 1870s, was known as the Mountain Branch of the Santa Fe Trail. Goodwin and others believe the antennas are an intrusion into the experience visitors can have on the nationally proclaimed Scenic Highway and Byway.

Mr. Coffman needs to know

Tell Rep. Mike Coffman to stop smearing Governor Ritter and support a fair and balanced Colorado

Bill Ritter has saved southeast Colorado from the Army's initial proposal to expand its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in Southeastern Colorado. We say southeast Colorado because we’re not just ‘a few ranchers’ as many people like Rep. Coffman would like you to believe. We are people of southeastern Colorado, entire communities and businesses, with a bright future for new business prospects in our own region.

Mr. Ritter has shown he doesn’t hide behind partisan politics. Governor Ritter says “I looked at the facts and listened to all sides and am certain I did the right thing signing HB1317.” He goes on to say “Fort Carson will continue to be a great addition to the State and the El Paso County area yet southeastern Colorado’s ranchers, farmers, businesses and communities should also be allowed to work in and promote their own communities without threat of takeover.”

Unfortunately, Mike Coffman wants to inject partisan politics into an issue that has always had broad bi-partisan support, putting him at odds not only with Coloradans, but also his own party. For years, both Democrats and Republicans have supported our efforts to block overly-aggressive expansion plans by the Army. Most of our elected leaders, like Governor Ritter, know that we can strike the right balance between safeguarding our national security and protecting Southern Colorado's economic vitality.

Congressman Mike Coffman has even gone so far as to issue a congressional statement smearing the Governor as "sympathetic" to terrorist organizations for siding with Coloradoans against the expansion of Pinon Canyon. But Rep. Coffman's fringe attacks show that some folks will say or do anything for political gain -- even questioning the patriotism of our Governor. We cannot let these attacks go unchecked.

Join us in telling Rep. Mike Coffman to stop using taxpayer dollars to smear Governor Ritter and trounce good citizens efforts in our own communities.

Many, many families have been tied to the land around Piñon Canyon for upwards of six generations. The Army's plan to seize thousands upon thousands of additional acres to expand its facility here threatened to wipe out $20 million a year in agricultural production with an impact of at least $100 to $140 million each year to the regional economy (each dollar turns over 5 to 7 times) thus eliminating the hundreds of businesses and multitudes of people that rely upon that solid and stable agriculture base. Simply put, it would have devastated our economy and decimated our uniquely Colorado way of life.

When all of these concerned people with deep roots in Southern Colorado banded together to oppose this particular plan by the Army to take our land, Governor Ritter listened. That's not all. After hearing the facts, our concerns and our stories, Governor Ritter signed legislation to protect our private property rights -- twice. He has remained true to his word since the very beginning, and we are tremendously grateful.

Join us in telling Rep. Mike Coffman to stop using taxpayer dollars to smear Governor Ritter and the people of Colorado.

Thank you for joining us to send a message to Rep. Mike Coffman, and for standing up for the thousands of Coloradans, just like you who would be devastated by the Army's excessive expansion proposal.

Sincerely,

Kelly and Randy Bader, Ranchers, Kim, PCEOC

Arin and Brady Burnham, Ranchers, Burwell, NE, Ranchers, PCEOC

Rebecca Goodwin, Chairman - 0tero County Historic Preservation Board, PCEOC

Grady Grissom, Farrier, PCEOC Board

Linda Grissom, Chemist, PCEOC

Connie Hass, Teacher/Rancher, PCEOC

Rusty and Niki Henard, Ranchers, Tatum, NM, PCEOC

Doug Holdread, Artist/Professor, Trinidad, PCEOC

Randy and Barbara Pond, 1st Sgt, Colorado Springs, PCEOC

(3 tours in Iraq, 1 tour in Desert Storm, Stationed at Fort Carson)

RC and JoannaPatterson, ranchers, Kim, PCEOC Board

Gerald Quartiero, Truck Driver, Walsenburg, PCEOC

Shelley Quartiero, Project Manager, Walsenburg, PCEOC Board

Anita Robertson, general store owner-operator, Kim, PCEOC Board

Lon Robertson, Rancher/Paramedic, Kim, PCEOC Board

Wayne Snider, Town Administrator, Fowler, PCEOC

Jerry and Karen Winford, Ranchers, Branson, PCEOC Board

Joy Wooten, Rancher/Photographer, Kim, PCEOC

Steve Wooten, Rancher, Kim, PCEOC Board

E-mail Rep. Mike Coffman

Celebrate the history of the 4th!

SOMETHING TO REMEMBER on 4th of July....

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died of wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free.

Expansion not proven and NOT needed

It is not just a few ranchers who oppose this ill-conceived and unjustified scheme by the Defense Department and military industrial contractors; expansion is also opposed by the Colorado House of Representatives and Senate, the U.S. Congress, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Colorado Preservation Inc, County Boards of Commissioners, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Independent Cattle Growers and the Sierra Club to list just a few. What we object to is an ill conceived, misrepresented and wholly unjustified proposal by the Defense Department and Military Industrial Contractors to seize over 6.9 million acres of South East Colorado over a 20+ year period. Army map and documentation obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA which outlined this grand scheme can be viewed at www.pinoncanyon.com.

For the past 29 years we have been dealing with the cultural loss of 234,000 acres that once belonged to friends, relatives and our communities. We heard the Amy’s lies; of increased funding to offset the economic loss to the agriculture industry in South East Colorado, the plan to assimilate and become part of the culture in this region, permanent jobs, no live fire and no future expansion. The existing PCMS is a cultural black hole that we had adjusted to living with, but which had never become part of our community and culture.

Honestly, the isolation that the military maintained was just a precursor to what was the real intent of the Army since the first expansion was undertaken. I am sure many forget that the original expansion was proposed contiguously with Fort Carson and extending south west in El Paso and Pueblo Counties. Both counties and communities expressed outrage and opposition to the expansion until sites in Las Animas and Huerfano Counties where proposed. Colorado Springs and El Paso county are the only entities which have expressed and endorsed a “not in my back yard mentality”.

Residents and coalitions opposing the expansion have maintained that a wrong imposed upon Coloradans is not converted to a right if located and enacted upon other private property owners elsewhere. Under no circumstances do we propose that the military need only spend some cash here, place a few jobs in the area or attend our community functions in order to succeed in the plan of expansion. Quite the contrary. We refuse to sell out our wonderful communities such as the one found in many rural communities. We enjoy the rural agrarian lifestyle and if we had found the rigors of agriculture business and rural living too arduous for us we would not be here today. No, there is simply nothing that the Military has to offer that is worth trading our property rights, our communities, our future generations and our lifestyle/culture for.

A few suggest that the Army has done a good job of resource management upon the PCMS. I disagree. Upon acquiring the Site via the largest single act of condemnation upon private citizens in our Nations history the Army immediately altered the balance within the landscape. The Central Short Grass Prairie Ecosystem evolved into what we see today from not only the climatic and geologic natural processes but from the presence of grazing herbivores and the presence of humans in the balance. Most recently in the last 4 centuries the enormous bison herds migrated through and harvested the forages of our region. Native Americans influenced the path of the Bison herds with planned burns that re-vegetated with tender new plants which the bison would seek. With the Bison attracted to the burn scar the Native Americans had opportunity to harvest the Bison. This presence of man and grazer contributed to the overall balance of the soil, water and mineral cycle of the ecosystem resulting in a dynamic state rather than the static state as is currently found on the PCMS.

Any first grader has the management skill level to simply defer grazing and over a couple of years boast of proper management by pointing to the grass growth. Closer inspection on the PCMS today exhibits the oxidation of plant material above ground rather than the cellulotic material being incorporated into the soil where it is converted to organic material benefiting the soil cycle. Tremendous amounts of renewable resources are not harvested annually on the PCMS. The lack of cloven hoof impact upon the soil and vegetation results in poor soil surface condition and the lack of dung excrement from herbivores results in an unhealthy mineral cycle. Fewer insects exist that break down the dung and incorporate it into the soil. Those same insects are also a food source for reptiles and birds. The cycle goes on and only man can totally break the balance or enhance the balance but only by choosing to manage ALL the factors that contribute to a healthy ecosystem can humans exist in balance within the ecosystem. The Army chose to remove essential management elements to the progression of the landscape, yet continue to simply point to the tonnage of forage grown annually by deferment from harvest by cattle. The adjoining resource managers (ranchers) carefully balance the management of the renewable resource with the production of food and sustainability. They have been accomplishing this since the first cattle were grazed across the region on the way to markets for distribution to a hungry nation.

The Department of Defense also has repeatedly failed to adequately justify this expansion to the Government Accountability Office as ordered by Congress. The appearance of compromise by the Army in reducing the first stage of expansion from 418,000 acres down to 100,000 is based on polling by Booze, Allen, Hamilton, a military contractor that receives 100’s of millions of dollars annually in defense department contracts. The polling took place in 2007 and 2008 despite the congressional ban on expenditure of ANY money related to any expansion activity. The results of the polling made assumptions that since local residents opposed 400,000 acres that they may not be as opposed to a smaller expansion. WRONG! Large or small the justification still does not exist.

The military already owns in excess of 25,000,000 acres domestically. Once again in 2008 the Army failed to conduct a Congressional mandated inventory and assessment of existing Army assets. Why? If the assessment were to be completed the expansion would be proven to be unnecessary. There is ample proof of that more land is NOT needed as Dugway Proving Grounds is underutilized and has the acreage the Army is seeking according to Representative Bishop of Utah. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison also has testified that bases in Texas have the ability to meet the training requirements for the Army and that White Sands Missile Range is underutilized.

The rights of the citizens of Southeast Colorado to own property and be free of oppression from their own government is paramount to what this nation stands for. It is time for a bureaucratic behemoth to be fully accountable and live within its means as the rest of us must do. NO SIR the expansion does not make sense for any reason.

Steve Wooten

Beatty Canyon Ranch

[Steve is a 4^th generation rancher managing the natural resources on his family's property in the Purgatoire River Canyon. Their boundary is a quarter mile from the west boundary of the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) and was targeted in the original expansion in 1980. The Army was prevented from acquiring lands in the canyon structure because it was deemed too environmentally sensitive to sustain the kind of mechanized training intended for PCMS. Steve is also a board member of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, PCEOC, a non-profit representing the rights of all Colorado citizens, not just residents of Southeast Colorado.]