Thursday, August 27, 2009

Army continues to try to distort GAO and other reports

Recently, in a response to a question by Senator Udall and during his confirmation hearing, Army Secretary Nominee John McHugh reintroduced the possibility that eminent domain might ultimately be used to expand Pinon Canyon. His response to Mr. Udall's question about his commitment to work only with willing sellers was that he wouldn't make such a promise since he wasn't sure he could keep it, but that working with willing sellers should be the preferred "first path." (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, July 30, 2009)

On July 24th we participated in a forum hosted by Action-22 at the Colorado State University campus in Pueblo. Also participating, representing the Army was Operations Officer, Mr. James Rice, (Col. Retired.) At that forum Mr. Rice misrepresented the GAO reports, stating that the reports “validated the Army’s expansion plan.” As you know, both reports very clearly state that they do no such thing. GAO-09-171, states that the report "focused on the extent to which the Army addressed the report provisions required by the section 2831 of the National Defense Authorization Act" and "not the extent to which we do or do not concur with the Army's plan." (GAO-09-171, page 20.) GAO-09-32 reviews the Army's approach to land acquisition; not whether their proposed Pinon Canyon expansion is a good idea. The report clearly states, "We did not assess the soundness or validity of the Army's proposed or completed land acquisition.” (GAO-09-32, page 36 )

We are concerned that Army is attempting to distort the GAO’s conclusions.

The GAO reports point out that the Army failed to answer several important questions that they were required to respond to by Congress and that the process by which they pursued their expansion proposal was flawed. We find in these reports ample support for our contention that Fort Carson's application for a waiver from the Department of Defense moratorium on major land acquisitions was flawed and actions taken by the Army subsequent to the approval of that waiver have deviated from its expressed purpose in significant ways and that the waiver should therefore be terminated. The Army should have that approval withdrawn and revert to its prior status under the conditions of the DoD moratorium on major land acquisitions.

GAO-09-171 indicates that the Army failed to respond to six of the Congressional mandates and that they failed to provide any rationale for selecting the 100,000 acres for the proposed expansion. This is a significant deviation from the original application for waiver and another factor that should nullify it.

GAO-09-171 also indicates that the per acre cost of the land in the Army's revised initiative to acquire 100,000 acres, has been doubled from the per acre cost indicated in the original proposal. These new factors invalidate the Department of Defense decision to approve the Army's waiver application.

GAO-09-32 recommends that the army develop and implement a process to update its plan for training ranges to reflect current needs. It points out that the Army's application for a waiver was done on the basis of an outdated Army Ranges and Training Lands Strategy. Again, this fact should invalidate the Army's waiver.

GAO-09-32 indicates that the Department of Defense and the Army failed in communicating with citizenry in their attempts at securing this major land acquisition. It makes the point that such public engagement should have occurred prior to their submission of an application for a waiver from the Department of Defense moratorium on major land acquisitions. The Army’s application for waiver, U.S. Department of the Army Major Land Acquisition Proposal, Section 7 - Public and Political Sensitivity, included the misleading statement that, "the military enjoys a positive relationship in the Colorado Springs area and southern Colorado." This statement failed to accurately represent to the Department of Defense the actual level of opposition that was present in the region at the time the application was submitted and that has intensified since. A more realistic approach would have been to include an accurate description of the depth of opposition expressed by political jurisdictions and community groups.

GAO-09-32 indicates that, in contrast with acquisitions in Hawaii and California, there was no pre-application communication process engaging stakeholders and local elected official in the Pinon Canyon region. Numerous resolutions had been passed in opposition to the Army's expansion proposal prior to the time that the application for waiver was submitted, but the application failed to indicate this fact to the Department of Defense. A more accurate analysis of "public and political sensitivity" would have enabled the Department of Defense to make a more informed decision. The absence of this important information in the original application should invalidate it.

It is also very important to note that it would not be appropriate for the Army to be allowed to address the unanswered questions identified by the GAO in the context of the NEPA process. The Army should not be rewarded for its failures by being given a green light to move forward with a Pinon Canyon Expansion EIS.

What should be done:

A comprehensive, top-down Department of Defense inventory of all Department of Defense testing and training ranges should be completed in compliance with Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act, 2003 which required that the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all training range capacities. The Army’s methodology is based upon a base-by-base determination of training land shortfalls and fails to take into account surplus lands within the DoD real estate inventory. This methodology encourages competition between bases and communities for the federal money goes with the expansion of a base. In the case of PCMS the money goes to one community while the nationalization of private land and businesses falls on a different community. Troop positioning should be driven by available training land; not by the distribution of federal funds to local economies.

Another important point is implicitly made within the GAO reports; that the 100,000 acres identified as “Area A” is only the first phase of a larger acquisition plan.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations and Environment, Mr. Keith Eastin belittled our concern about a larger, 17-year, multi-phased acquisition plan, characterizing it as a baseless rumor that we have “created in our minds.” But the GAO, having reviewed the same Army documents which gave rise to our concerns, recognizes that Area A is just the beginning. GAO-09-171 says, “the Army stated that from the outset it has placed a priority on the acquisition of area A, the 100,000 acres proposed in the initial expansion. While we are aware that the Army preferred the 100,000 acres initially our recommendation was focused on the usability and sustainability of the 100,000-acre parcel and not why the Army chose to start with the 100,000 acres.”(GAO-09-171, page 22.)

The Analysis of Alternatives, May 6, 2004, and The Pinon Vision (part one), OPLAN05-18, 2006 are two of the documents which prompted the GAO and PCEOC to conclude that “Area A” is only the “initial” “first” phase of the Army’s acquisition plan. These and other documents are also accessible on our website .

.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

McInnis in hot seat

An excerpt from a Rocky Mountain Independent article - read the rest of the article HERE.

In the hot seat

Recent bad press for McInnis in Denver media hasn’t helped improve that brand. The congressman has been criticized over how he’s spent the $1.3 million that was in his campaign account when he left Congress in 2004, and for hiring his wife, Lori, to manage it. At the time, a McInnis staffer said the congressman would distribute some of the money to charities. But according to news reports, he put most of the money into a new political action committee called Western Way Leadership, and has already used some of it to promote the GOP.

A brouhaha occurred over the matter last week when McInnis appeared on KHOW-AM (630) talk radio’s Caplis and Silverman show. There, Dan Caplis, a Republican, asked McInnis about the issue, prompting a heated exchange that had Caplis calling McInnis “silly” and saying his handling of the matter was “beneath the office” he’s hoping to win.

In an interview with the RMI a week earlier, McInnis interrupted a similar query into the matter, saying:

“Let’s stop right there. I’m sensing a little male chauvinism here. If my wife was here, she’d say, ‘Because I’m a woman I shouldn’t be paid for my job?’ My wife was fully employed. It was perfectly legitimate. It was her job. This, again, is our political opponents trying to make hay out of this,” McInnis said.

“Take any of my opponents and ask them what they’ve ever done to help the cause of cancer. Take any of my opponents and ask them what they’ve ever done with Girls on the Run. Take any of my opponents and ask them what they’ve ever done with Catholic Charities. You might as well take that little gotcha thing off the table.”

Penry’s response?

“Those are things he’s going to have to explain,” he said. “We could spend a lot of time doing the tit-for-tat on those things, but that demeans the importance of this election. I assume the Fourth Estate will ask him those questions.”

Monday, August 17, 2009

Penry takes the lead - for being intelligent

Will be interesting to see how Penry and McInnis are being measured by the many 'pollsters' - after hearing a couple of interviews by McInnis it appears he may have difficulty beating Penry in the Republican primary; or maybe the better way to phrase that is to say Penry will easily defeat McInnis if he keeps doing interviews.

Hear McInnis' faux pas KHOW interview here.

Of course Penry makes it obvious that McInnis and a few others are wrong in trying to say the Pinon Canyon issue is a partisan issue. Quite the contrary his discertation on why the State Land Protection Act was the right thing to do speaks well for Penry's intelligence and understanding of the problem.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Some observations re: Candidates for Governor relative to Pinon Canyon

The Governor:
On record against expansion with signing of two separate bills over past two years - most recent being HB 1317 to prohibit the sale or lease of state land for the purpose of expanding Pinon Canyon.

Scott McInnis:
Publicly states the 'expansion is needed' and seemingly turns a blind eye toward his former constituents in southeast Colorado. An interview on conservative talk radio on August 12th also raises other questions. Hear it here: http://bit.ly/Z1mIA

Josh Penry:
Publicly made statements against expansion as a property rights issue and eminent domain abuse potential.

.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

True Sustainability doesn't include expanding PCMS

The economy of Southeastern Colorado has always been land and water based. To remain viable and maintain a strong economic base requires uses that compliment and are compatible with those primary economic drivers for the entire region – land and water.

Peaks in the energy cycle drove times of great prosperity in Walsenburg, Trinidad, and Pueblo with coal at the turn of the century and gas more recently. And the Arkansas river and lands adjacent to it have driven the economies from Canyon City to Pueblo to La Junta, Lamar and East to Kansas.

Agriculture is and has always provided the sustainable economic baseline between energy cycles and has been the primary impetus for all businesses in the region that rely upon it. Agriculture is the glue that holds the entire region together and trying to ‘replace’ that economy with a transient one that is not compatible or supportive of the other segments of that economy can only spell disaster for the entire region and ultimately the state.

Southeast Colorado has both land and water and they are the basic factors paramount to the existing agricultural production and regional economy. However, there are also other potentially significant and yet compatible economic factors that we must understand are at risk from an expansion of Pinon Canyon maneuver site.

Expanding Pinon Canyon threatens the great potential that exists for energy production that co exist with agriculture and add to the current economic base. High energy costs will drive future gas production and may reopen opportunities for a coal economy. Wind and solar will provide addition jobs and create significant economic stimulus.

Jobs in Colorado’s clean energy economy grew more than twice as fast as overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to the Pew Charitable Trust. Witness the wind turbine factory under construction in Pueblo. Why would we risk losing that?

Specific costs associated with even a 100,000 acre expansion of PCMS would cost the communities of Southeastern Colorado $27 million to $76 million annually according to economic data compiled by Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar. This includes tourism revenue, hunting revenue, cattle sales, agricultural salaries, and hay sales. Wind development on 100,000 acres would generate an additional $25 to $35 million annually. Gas fields east of I-25 also become a reality as energy prices rise.

The Army estimates PCMS expansion will bring $5 million in salary and $4 million in maintenance costs annually to the local economy. Considering their track record of promises that change as often as their leadership changes we don’t believe that is a good trade.

People will always eat; agriculture will remain a stable economic platform as food security becomes a priority in an unstable world. Agriculture also maintains a beautiful and healthy landscape that will draw people and industry as the northern front-range grows. PCEOC is intent on putting every effort into stopping the unnecessary expansion of a little used maneuver site thus assuring that our agriculture base is sustained and compatible uses are promoted and perpetuated.


Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Continuing harassment of US citizens...

Even after getting bi-partisan support in the US congress, the Colorado legislature, the Governor, our local and regional representatives, our commissions, our schools, our conservancy districts, our FFA youth, along with a multitude of these and other groups, agencies, towns and cities that have passed resolutions against the expansion, and almost 12,000 individuals (signing petitions against the expansion of PCMS).... the Army continues to harass the citizens to promote their 'convenience only' agenda.

The Army continues to push AND harass our citizens to 'sell' to the Army - the issue is not if there is ANY willing seller as they don't have approval to go forward with any acquisition and should NOT be continually pursuing residents to sell - against their will and against the congressional ban.

Everyone ALSO needs to understand that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO ACQUIRE ANY LAND WITHOUT USING EMINENT DOMAIN.

Even if they were 'approved by Congress' and even if they were allowed to coerce one or two people to sell, there are 'non-willing' sellers that have land in and around each others' parcels that would prohibit any possibility of a contiguous area - thus mandating that they then use eminent domain.

Just like they did in the 1980's when they said they 'have 100% willing sellers' but then had to condemn the majority of the 240,000 acres that is now Pinon Canyon.

Remember:
  • Numerous Army documents show an 18-year, multi-phased, plan to turn most of SE Colorado into a huge live-fire range (in their own words in the application to the DoD).
Eminent domain is inevitable. It has been on and off the table with each change in Dept. of the Army leadership. A commitment by one Army secretary does not necessarily carry over and apply to succeeding leaders eighteen years into the future.
  • The Army has been publicly promoting the concept of sustainability, even hosting annual regional sustainability conferences. But the expansion of Pinon Canyon would violate a core principle of sustainable growth in that the expansion of the military-dependent Colorado Springs economy would be achieved at the cost of destroying the ecological integrity and economic viability of SE Colorado.
According to the Army's Analysis of Alternatives document, the Army's expansion plan would ultimately create 17,000 refugees in SE Colorado.
  • The expansion has been decisively opposed by elected officials from both parties at every level of government; County commissioners, State legislature, U.S. Congress. The State of Colorado has passed two bipartisan bills opposing Pinon Canyon expansion; HB1069 which withdraws consent by the State of Colorado for the Army to acquire land to expand Pinon Canyon, and HB1317 which prohibits the sale of state lands to the Army for expansion.
The GAO found that the Army failed to adequately answer all of the points that they were required to respond to by Congress, therefore failing to justify their expansion proposal. The Army argues that all of these questions would be answered within the NEPA process. An EIS is not supposed to be an exploratory process, or a justification process, but an Assessment of the environmental impact of a project with has already been properly explored and justified. The Army is attempting to do an end run around congressional oversight.
  • GAO-09-171 says that the Army's report, "addresses these objectives and identified the 23 of the 29 reporting provisions that the Army generally addressed but "not the extent to which we do or do not concur with the Army's plan." (page 20)
GAO-09-32 reviews the Army's approach to land acquisition; not whether their proposed Pinon Canyon expansion is a good idea. The report clearly states, "We did not assess the soundness or validity of the Army's proposed or completed land acquisition."
  • GAO-09-32 points out that the Army's application for a waiver made to the DoD was done on the basis of an outdated Army Ranges and Training Lands Strategy.
These GAO reports indicate that the Army failed to justify expansion and failed to comply with mandated Congressional reporting criteria. Congress should direct the DoD's to revoke it's waiver on acquisition which authorized Pinon Canyon expansion. The waiver should be voided and the Army should once again be under the DoD ban on major land acquisitions.
  • The Army has been operating in contempt of congress; pursuing expansion in defiance of a congressional ban on spending and harassing the people and communities of southeastern Colorado in the process.
Share |
Powered By Blogger

Our youth is our future

Our youth is our future
Regionwide support