•  The draft EIS for the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver site  is out.  It can be accessed on line here. 
• Theoretically it has nothing to do with the proposed expansion.
• Actually it is connected without a doubt.
• The most convincing linking of the two issues can be found in the summary of the Fort Carson Installation Sustainability Workshop which convened September 4-6, 2002.  Below is a list of those links:

1. The roster of attendees at that meeting includes 10 staff members of the Department of Environmental Compliance and Management (DECAM) at Fort Carson.
2. The list of future goals of the sustainability program as stated there includes the introduction of live fire ranges(page 3),.  As we know 2 phases of that process are complete (2003 - 2005)  The current Draft EIS calls for one more range for live hand-grenade firing.  
3. The workshop summary mentions the land expansion of PCMS on page 5 and again on page 9 where the goal is to have it completed by 2010.
4. The wish list also includes such items as moving the natural gas pipeline (p 4) and addressing the lack of a full blown impact range at PCMS (p 3) 

• It is urgent that we act now to stop  the Army's plan to take from us a piece of our state the size of Connecticut.  The first phase of that plan would create a training area the size of Rhode Island. 
• We are asking those getting this message to consider being present at 3 times and places in the next month where the issue can be addressed:

1. November 1 (5:30 - 7:30) at Mesa Ridge High School, 6070 Mesa Ridge Parkway, Colorado Springs.  This will be the public hearing on the Draft EIS described above.  On the 2nd and 3rd there will be similar hearings in Trinidad and La Junta.  A big turnout of people power makes a statement in its own right.  The more who actually sign up and speak, the better.
2. November 8 (evening) and November 9, (all day) : 5th Annual Fort Carson Sustainability Conference at the Phil Long Expo Center, 1515 Auto Mall Lp, Colorado Springs.  It is clear that Fort Carson's Sustainability goal can only be attained by a major expansion of the PCMS site which means that thousands of ranchers must be evicted to make it happen.  We need to be there to make the connection. 
3. November 15 (4 - 6:30 PM) Fort Carson Expansion Town Hall Meeting at the Antlers Hilton Hotel, 4 South Cascade Ave, Colorado Springs.  Our perspective needs to be there. 

Here are some preliminary comments on the "Transformation" Draft EIS on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.   (PCMS).  Later I'll put something in writing and plan to make  oral comments at the meeting on November 1.  We need others with particular expertise to weigh in.  There are no doubt some important details that I have missed in looking at this. 

• The stated rational for this transformation includes all the components of the argument for expansion: more soldiers, bigger weapons, new training doctrines and the crowding at Fort Irwin.  So we are absolutely correct in assuming that this action is connected to the expansion proposal that is on the table.  It is all part of the process of selling the need for big changes affecting our state and its people and environment.  I believe we should engage this process with big numbers of people showing up on November 1st to say no to be being a patsy for a plan that will evict hundreds of ranchers from their land and homes as a huge chunk of our state disappears into a military training area.  If we can connect a few dots we can figure this out.
• We also know from reading the Fort Carson Sustainability planning documents that this action and others before and after it are interconnected.  Connecting the dots is important for an overall understanding of what is going on.  A legal challenge under the NEPA concept of "piecemealing" seems in order.
• The EIS process is very rarely a deal breaker for a proposed action.  All the agency has to do is state what environmental impacts will  result form the action and if the impact is significant then they bring out the "mitigation" concept to try to soften the blow.
• The listing of impacts in this case is extensive, telling how increased training will mess up the soils and plant life and scare birds and other wildlife.  In cases where it sounds really bad, mitigation measures are suggested.  If we suggest things they missed they'll thank us and include our suggestions and bring out the mitigation tool to address them.
• They make a point of stating that paleontology fossils and dinosaur tracks are not protected under the NEPA statute.  So dinosaur lovers can take a hike.  I don't think we should let this notion stand.
• They confirm that for at least 5 years the current PCMS site has not had many Brigade size maneuvers.  What's the urgency now?
• All of these points make the final point that if we wait until the EIS process for expansion to argue against it we will lose.  We have to work now to get the proposal off the table. 

• My main work for twenty years has been monitoring the Air Force as it expands its war doctrines in space, air combat and nuclear weapons.  They do war games lasting days and sometimes weeks.  They do computer simulations.  They have not needed model battlefields involving millions of acres to  practice war.  Why does the army need a  full scale model battlefield?
• If the Army needs one why doesn't  the Marine Corps need a couple of million acres to keep up?
• How can they use the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq to sell their argument?  The kind of warfare there doesn't seem to fit the model they are talking about practicing at Pinon Canyon.
• If the model of training they are pushing here is valid how can Fort Bliss, Fort Hood, Fort Lewis, Fort Stewart, Fort Polk, Fort Campbell and Fort Riley ever adequately train a soldier for modern combat?
• How did they ever sell the BRAC commission on the idea that Fort Carson could handle all these new regular Army troops and all the new Reserve and National Guard responsibilities?  It seems there was a huge deception involved in that process.