I have been doing a LOT of research.

It's seems Ft. Irwin, which is the Army's National training Center went through an expansion simular to 29 Palms.

http://www.fortirwinlandexpansion.com

Ft. Irwin was 642,000 acres in size, and If I am reading the documents right, they expanded by 331,217 acres.

That is a grand total of 973,217 acres (1,520.651 square miles)

29 Palms is currently 596,480 acres (932 square miles), and wants to expand by 422,000 acres for a grand total of 1,018,480 acres. (1591.375 square miles)

So, 29 Palms would expand to be BIGGER than the Army's National Training Center.

Ok, keeping that in mind, read this:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is quoted saying, “The nation does not need a second land army, but rather forces that can deploy quickly and sustain themselves for a short period of time.”

In the fall of 2010, the Marine Corps conducted a Force Structure Review (FSR) to evaluate and refine the organization, posture and capabilities required of America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness in a post Operation Enduring Freedom security environment.

CURRENT qoutes from General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps:

"But we see that’s probably what the world is going to look like for the next two decades. A lot more information there, but we think that’s going to be our backyard because this is primarily the littorals, because these are kind of the nasty missions and things that, quite honestly, don’t require 20,000 Marines on the ground. They may only require a Marine rifle company; they may require a training team to go in and help train border police of some of the nations that we want to help gird up and secure their borders."


"We know we’re a second land army; we’ve got to get back to our amphibious roots, we’ve got to – and then all of a sudden people started using that language. And then they became critical of us: Well, we don’t need another second land army."

"And we’re making efforts. We already cancelled some programs that we not only didn’t need but were way too big and way too heavy."

"We are going to lighten the Marine Corps. We’re an air-ground task force. Now, it’s going to take – it’ll go past – it’ll go to the 36th and probably the 37th commandant, but we are going to do it. And we’re in the process of doing it right now."

"I refer to our Marine Corps today as a “middleweight force.” I liken it to boxing: If you’re a middleweight boxer, you can box up into the heavyweight division, or you can box down into a lightweight division by simply changing your weight and your training regimen. The same is true for the Marine Corps. We fill the void in our nation’s defense for an agile force that is comfortable operating at the high and the low ends of the threat spectrum, or the ambiguous areas in between.

Larger than special operations forces but lighter and more expeditionary than conventional Army units, we engage and respond quickly, often from the sea with enough force to carry the day upon arrival."

(You can read this and more here: http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Pages/default.aspx)



So the Marines now have a new direction....actually, "new direction" is not the proper term. They are going back to their roots.

They are not supposed to be a "second" army, they are an expeditonal force fighting on land, sea, air and in cyberspace.

They are supposed to be our middleweight, when we have been using them as the heavyweight for years... The ARMY is supposed to be the heavyweight.

So with that said, why do they need more room to train than the Army does? While the expantion did make sense a decade ago when we were using the Marines as the heavyweight...it shouldn't now with this re-vamping of the Corps.

I am hoping no one reads this and thinks that I am slamming on the Marine Corps. Far from it. I have a high regard for anyone in our services and I am beyond thankfull for their service to our country....I am mearly stating the new mission statement of the Marine Corps as I have read it from General James F. Amos.

Read this:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/FSR_Final_14Mar11_ExecSum.PDF

The key words to this:

We know we’re a second land army; we’ve got to get back to our amphibious roots, we’ve got to – and then all of a sudden people started using that language.

There is not too much in the way of amphibious in JV that I'm aware of.

There is not too much in the way of amphibious in JV that I'm aware of.
There's turtles, right?
There must be a pond SOMEWHERE, right?

Randii :laughing:

I sent this one too:

According to the DEIS, on page 1-5 in Chapter one, purpose and need, it clearly states that one main task is to identify MEB training requirements, and that “The findings of this effort were published in a January 2004 report entitled MEB Training Exercise Study: Identifying MEB Training Requirements (Center for Naval Analyses 2004b).”

In examining the January 2004 report, I have found this:

“We used MEB 2015 [1] to shape our analysis. Key MEB 2015 characteristics include three battalion task forces, (two of which move via surface lift and one by vertical lift), three Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) squadrons, and a brigade service support group. Total manning for this MEB is about 17,000 to 20,000 Marines.”

Basically the DEIS says that the reason for 29 Palms expanding is to be able to train three battalion task forces.

However, on April 15th, 2011, General James F. Amos, Commandment of the Marine Corps spoke at the Fletcher Luncheon. His remarks in full can be seen here:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/110415%20--%20Fletcher%20Conference%20Corrected.pdf

In speaking about future military actions and where the Marines are going to operate once we come out of Afghanistan, he explained the “arc of instability.” It is within this arc of instability that the Marines will most likely be engaging the enemy. These areas will be our future battlefields over the next two decades.

In speaking about this arc of instability, General Amos says:

“But we see that’s probably what the world is going to look like for the next two decades. A lot more information there, but we think that’s going to be our backyard because this is primarily the littorals, because these are kind of the nasty missions and things that, quite honestly, don’t require 20,000 Marines on the ground.”

If the future operations of the Marine Corps, according to the Commandant of the Marine Corps himself, are NOT going to require 20,000 Marines on the ground, then why are we expanding 29 Palms to train a MEB from about 17,000 to 20,000 Marines?

We have been told that 29 Palms must “Train as we fight.” If this is true, then expanding 29 Palms will not be training as you fight in that future campaigns will be much smaller and not to the scale of campaigns like Afghanistan.

Furthermore, I have a quote from General James F. Amos to the Armed Services committee promising them that the Marines will only ask for what they NEED, not for what they WANT. (which is bad ass IMO. Get it on the Marines)

With that in mind...

The General says they are not a Second Army, and in past years have not been used like they should be used, so he is getting the Marines back to their roots...

So, expanding 29 Palms is not nessasary, they don't NEED to expand to a size bigger than the Army's National Training Facilty. (29 Palms would be about 60 square miles bigger than Ft. Irwin if it expands)

I have been researching this also. We need to put all of this substantive comments. I will post up some of what I have found too.

just so we are on the same page. I read that 150,510 acres of land were added to Ft. Irwin. Am I wrong?

just so we are on the same page. I read that 150,510 acres of land were added to Ft. Irwin. Am I wrong?

I don't know the final results..

I think I was just looking at the alternative. I read thru so many freakin documents, speeches and transcripts yesterday that my head was swimming. :laughing:

If they only added 150,510 acres to Irwin, that would only make our argument stronger.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7%2Dcbb4%2D4018%2Dbaf8%2D882 5eada7aa2&ID=382


With the Pentagon facing $400 billion in budget cuts between now and 2023, the Marine Corps is wasting no time making its case that it provides unique value to the nation.

The Corps will seek to stave off budget cuts by reaffirming its role as a crisis-response force that can react to just about any contingency on short notice, officials said.

Budget decisions about who will bear the brunt of the $400 billion in cuts, President Obama said last week, will be shaped by a “fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities and our role in a changing world.”

Marines will be making a case that, unlike the other branches of the U.S. military, they can deploy anywhere and adapt to unexpected contingencies. “When you respond to today's crisis a week from now, you're irrelevant,” Amos said April 15 at a national security conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by Tufts University’s Fletcher School of international security studies.

In preparation for the Pentagon review, all Marine Corps three-star generals will be meeting this week over three days, “and we're going to talk about nothing but macroeconomics,” said Amos.

Although the Pentagon has yet to decide how it will go about conducting the sweeping review sought by Obama, the services already are bracing for bureaucratic trench warfare of the sort that usually takes place every four years during the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review.

“My sense is there’s going to be a mini QDR,” Amos said.

The last QDR, in 2010, was widely derided for failing to match priorities with resources, and for essentially endorsing each services’ force size and equipment wish lists.
This upcoming review is seen as far more consequential than the QDR because it may conclude that the nation cannot afford to have the military keep doing everything that it does today.

Among the questions that will be asked in the next couple of months is “what is it that our nation need to have capabilities to do around the world … and who’s going to do it,” said Amos.

The Marine Corps, he said, has a “leg up” in the upcoming competition for resources because it already has conducted its own internal “force structure review” and recommended cutbacks in personnel, vehicles and administrative overhead. Marines also believe they have an advantage in that the service already has a track record as the nation’s 911 force.

Responding to unpredicted crises has “always been our lane,” Amos said. By investing in the Marine Corps, the United States acquires an “insurance policy” that is always able and ready, he said. “The nation can't afford to have all four services be a crisis response force.”

The Corps will argue that, unlike the Army, it does not require massive shipments of supplies and long lead times to be ready to deploy. “What makes us unique is our logistics,” said Amos. “We come with our stuff.”

Each service offers unique assets and skills, he said. Amos cautioned that the Pentagon should avoid turning a missions review into a “dollars and cents” accounting exercise. “The last thing you want when a crisis happens is just-in-time delivery. It’s not logistics at Wal-Mart.”

The Corps, however, may have a tough time defending some of its prized weapon systems. Of concern is the F-35B vertical-takeoff variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. Critics have questioned the need for the Corps to have its own strike air force when the Air Force and the Navy already have comparable assets.

Amos said he is not worried. “There’s always going to be some duplication,” he told reporters after his conference speech. Again, he stressed that marine aviation is “expeditionary” and can reach hot spots faster because its vertical-takeoff tactical jets don’t require land bases or Navy aircraft carriers. They can deploy from amphibious ships in areas that “may not be convenient for the other services.” Without the Marine Corps’ vertical-takeoff hovering jets, Amos said, “You wouldn’t be able to do what just happened off the coast of Libya.”

Marines acknowledge, however, that they expect a tough fight for funding, particularly for weapon procurement dollars.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all are pursuing major weapon acquisition programs that are regarded as essential to the future of each service. And their schedules are all proceeding along parallel tracks, which could create fierce competition for a shrinking pool of money several years from now. “The real challenge at the broader OSD [office of the secretary of defense] level is that each of the services’ key procurement priorities come due at the same time,” said Lt. Gen. John E. Wissler, Marine Corps deputy commandant for programs and resource. Projects that are expected to be in either advanced development or production in the next five to seven years include the Navy’s SSBN-X ballistic missile submarine, the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle, the Air Force’s new long-range bomber and the Marine Corps’ new amphibious vehicle. “They are all expensive investments that all come due at the same time in a period of reduced resources,” Wissler said.

Ronald O’Rourke, naval analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said it would benefit the Marine Corps to begin to articulate how its force structure review will translate into actual savings. “It’s important for the Marine Corps to advertise that it has done something that will in fact achieve savings,” he told service officials at the conference. “You want to be able to take credit for it.”

At the Pentagon, the bureaucracy already is bracing for a fight. “It will be an exciting summer,” said a civilian official. Although inter-service rivalries over resources are par for the course in the building, this time the stakes are much higher because roles-and-missions reviews cut to the core of the military services’ identity, the official said. “It’s about the pride and uniqueness of the military services,” the official said. “It’s about the division of labor.”

Unlike previous QDRs, the official said, in this review there are “real resources involved.”

The current QDR:

http://www.usip.org/files/qdr/qdrreport.pdf

Check out these clips from it:

In evaluating the QDR force structure, we were hampered by the lack of a clearly articulated force-planning construct that the military services and Congress can use to measure the adequacy of U.S. forces. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has measured the adequacy of its force posture against the standard of defeating adversaries in two geographically separate theaters nearly simultaneously. Between 1993 and 2006, that requirement evolved from the desire to maintain the capability to defeat two conventionally armed aggressors to the need to conduct a campaign against a conventional adversary while also waging a long-duration irregular warfare campaign and protecting the homeland against attack. The 2010 QDR, however, did not endorse any metric for determining the size and shape of U.S. forces. Rather, it put diverse, overlapping scenarios, including long-duration stability operations and the defense of the homeland, on par with major regional conflicts when assessing the adequacy of U.S. forces.

A force-planning construct is a powerful lever the Secretary of Defense can use to shape the Department of Defense. It also would help explain the defense program to Congress. The absence of a clear force-planning construct in the 2010 QDR represents a missed opportunity.

Here's a slideshow on the Marines Corps Force Stucture Review. It's from April 30th....VERY current:

http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/marine-corps-force-structure-review-briefing-slides-april-30-2011

This document is the one that started all of this.

It lists the training requirements for a MEB

http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/las/documents/cna/CNA%20MEB%20Training%20Exercise%20Study%20Identify ing%20MEB%20Training%20Requirements%20D0009618%20A 1%20Jan04.pdf


EDIT: This is the FINAL copy:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/las/documents/cna/CNA%20MEB%20Training%20Exercise%20Fina%20Report%20 D0010872%20A2%20Dec04.pdf

History of the MEB:

The brigade-sized air- ground force first operated in Korea in the early 1950s. MEBs were formally indoctrinated into the Marine Corps along with the MEU and the MEF in 1962 [3]. Throughout most of the latter half of the 20th century, MEBs activated, deployed, and deactivated as needed. Standing MEBs were the exception rather than the rule.

The Marine Corps experimented with permanent MEB headquarters (HQs)
from 1985 to 1992. When downsizing and budget reductions required force
restructuring, the Marine Corps eliminated the standing MEB HQs and discontinued use of the MEB as a distinct Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF). Instead, fighting was discussed in MEF slices, and the lead echelon of the MEF became the MEF Forward (FWD). Shifting to the MEF(FWD) concept appeared to create confusion within the Joint community. Marine Corps trainers and senior leaders observed that Joint planners and combatant commanders could not determine how the undefined MEF FWD
should be used in plans and operations.

During an interview in 2001, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) used that confusion as one justification for re-introducing the MEB as a fighting force [4]. Today, MEBs are embedded within each of the three MEF headquarters. The MEBs have pre-identified commanders and
staffs, who are dual- hatted with responsibilities in the MEF and the MEB.

Read this:
http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/FSR_Final_14Mar11_ExecSum.PDF


Kurt, Thanks for all the food for thought. "Modern Warfare" is changing. It does seem that General James F. Amos, Commandant of the USMC, has pointed to new & different USMC directions and initiatives in recent years. That March 2011 document link above doesn't say a thing about the need for MEB training OR land acquisition OR airspace. There are many overall reductions being planned, according to the "major initiatives" on page 9 of that report.

Thats quite different then what he said back in 2009 in this document:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg52113/html/CHRG-111hhrg52113.htm

A few of his quotes from back then:

"The capability for the Marine Corps to bring together a brigade-sized force for a live-fire exercise does not currently exist."

"...geographical and fiscal constraints preclude the Marine Corps from addressing existing training space shortfalls. Currently, major deficits in the Marine Corps' ability to train to the many missions that it faces; the largest gaps in training capability include: The inability to exercise a large-scale (brigade level) MAGTF in a 'live' training scenario. The reach of modern weapon systems and tactical doctrine require a much larger land and airspace area than the Marine Corps currently has available. Only the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC)/Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command (MAGTFTC) at Twentynine Palms, California comes close but given its many other missions and its limited size relative to the area required for Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) training, it cannot fully accommodate a MEB-size unit."

"The development of this premiere training installation has been driven primarily by the need to support the evolving training requirements of the MAGTF resulting from new doctrine, tactics, weapons systems, and missions. These have steadily expanded the operational pace and required maneuver space of modern warfare."

Another quote from General Amos at that May 2009 budget hearing:

"The other point I would make that we are taking risk in, sir, is, because we are singularly focused, as an institution, on counterinsurgency operations, we, as a Marine Corps for you, are taking risks in these other core competencies that we--that
you expect, and in some cases by law task the Marine Corps to be able to do--forcible entry operations, other operations that we would call full-spectrum. So all that is kind of tied with this thing called the current fight that we are in. We are not grousing about it, and as I said in my opening statement, we are performing well in it."

Get it on me!

Found this AWESOME told told by General Amos!



In arguing against the expansion of 29 Palms, I would like to share a story told by General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps at the Defense Writers group breakfast on February 18th, 2011.

“We found that we were buying a new water bull. Now, for everybody here, a water bull is not an animal. It’s a big – it’s a water tank that holds, I’m guessing, I don’t know, four (hundred) or 500 gallons of water.

“We call them “water bull,” but that’s like a water buffalo. And you tow it behind a Humvee or a seven-ton truck or that kind of thing. Now, that’s where Marines get fresh water. You pump fresh water in it. You go up there, and Marines are up there shaving, and all that stuff. And we’ve got a good one. We’ve had that one since I was a lieutenant, and it works just fine. Nothing wrong with it; (served us as Marines ?). Well, we found out that – and I’m not sure who, but we said, well, we need a bigger water bull. We need one that’s about three or four times as big.

And we said, well – then we see this picture of this thing, and it’s huge. It not only takes up more cube, it’s heavier. Well, why do we need it? Well, because we’ve got a seven-ton truck now that can tow it. Because we can. We said, let’s buy it.

We canceled that program. So there’s an example. There’s others that are out there. But being frugal just means going back and paying very close attention, close scrutiny on everything we’re buying, making sure that we can – that it’s something we need.”

In a post OEF world, The Marines are getting back to their frugal roots and only asking for what they NEED, not for what they want. Currently, with the state of the world and planning for smaller actions in littoral areas, the Marines do not need to train 3 Battalions for a large scale campaign. According to General Amos, the Marines were used in OEF as a “two for”, as a second land army. Now their role is changing back to their original purpose.

The entire DEIS needs to be thrown out since the purpose and need of the base expansion is no longer valid in a post OEF world.

Several years ago, the Army’s Ft Irwin also expanded in size.

Since then, because of lack of funding to complete additional studies and to expand infrastructure, only one section of the area to Ft. Irwin that was added is currently in use by the Army. Areas that they considered “critical” for their training, especially to the South are NOT in use.

It is also important to note, that this lack of funding for the Army at Ft. Irwin is during OEF when the military is receiving a lot of funding.

In a post OEF world, the Marine Corps, with even less funding than it has had in the past will run into the same issues with 29 Palms. The DEIS does not address this issue. If the land is annexed by the Marines, much of it will be able to be put into use because of lack of funding.

The DEIS needs to either be completely thrown out, or this issue needs to be added into the DEIS and addressed.

BOO-YA!!

I would like to reference this document:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/las/documents/cna/CNA%20MEB%20Training%20Exercise%20Study%20Identify ing%20MEB%20Training%20Requirements%20D0009618%20A 1%20Jan04.pdf

The document is entitled: MEB Training Exercise Study: Identifying MEB Training Requirements

On page three of that document it states:

“The brigade-sized air- ground force first operated in Korea in the early 1950s. MEBs were formally indoctrinated into the Marine Corps along with the MEU and the MEF in 1962 [3]. Throughout most of the latter half of the 20th century, MEBs activated, deployed, and deactivated as needed. Standing MEBs were the exception rather than the rule. The Marine Corps experimented with permanent MEB headquarters (HQs) from 1985 to 1992. When downsizing and budget reductions required force restructuring, the Marine Corps eliminated the standing MEB HQs and discontinued use of the MEB as a distinct Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF). Instead, fighting was discussed in MEF slices, and the lead echelon of the MEF became the MEF Forward (FWD)..”

The key sentence I would like to point out is:

“When downsizing and budget reductions required force restructuring, the Marine Corps eliminated the standing MEB HQs and discontinued use of the MEB as a distinct Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF)”

Currently, according to General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Marines are currently DOWNSIZING, about to go under BUDGET RESTRICTIONS, and are currently undergoing FORCE RESTRUCTURING.

If the MEB was discontinued last time this happened, it may be discontinued again. Therefore: expansion of 29 Palms is not necessary.

If this DEIS is not thrown out or rewritten to take the current actions of the Marine Corps into consideration, at the very least it must be put off until the entire force structure is completed.

Currently, the Marine do not know if the MEB will be continued as a distinct MAGTF.

Once again, I would like to reference this document:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/las/documents/cna/CNA%20MEB%20Training%20Exercise%20Study%20Identify ing%20MEB%20Training%20Requirements%20D0009618%20A 1%20Jan04.pdf

The document is entitled: MEB Training Exercise Study: Identifying MEB Training Requirements

On page 10, the document states:

“We used historical MEB deployments and current operating plans or scenarios, in conjunction with future doctrinal concepts and statements, to help define the MEB”

At the time this document was written (January 2004), there were no plans for removing Marines from Afghanistan and the Marines had not yet fought in Fallujah. (Which is considered the heaviest urban combat the Marines have been involved in since the Battle of Hue City in 1968.)

Therefore, the definition of the MEB according to this document, (which is the pre-cursor to the final document that the reasoning for expanding 29 Palms is based on) is based on what the Marines were doing in the Middle East at that time, and for future possibilities for massive actions like the Battle of Fallujah.

With the current state of world affairs, the definition of an MEB should, and most likely will change. The definition of an MEB from this document in January of 2004 is no longer valid. General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps also recently stated that he does not see much possibility of the Marines putting 20,000 troops on the ground at any time in the near future.

Since this document, on which the purpose and need of the DEIS is based on, is no longer valid, especially with the definition of the MEB, The DEIS needs to be discarded until another current MEB training Exercise Study is completed.

HUUUGEEE find from Amy at Cal4!!!

THANKS AMY!!! :smokin::smokin::smokin:

Please distribute this to all your networks: The Marines goofed!

When preparing the website and public documents for the 29Palms Marine Base proposed expansion, the Marines neglected to give the correct mailing address for public comments on the home page of the website, and it is missing from all the public documents including:

1. The Project Briefing Paper
2. The Project Overview
3. The Public Info Brief
4. The Trifold Brochure
5. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
6. The Contact
7. The Public Comment Link on the home page

Instead, the contact info is given only for the project office on the 29Palms Marine Base. The Project Manager, Mr. Chris Proudfoot, has been made aware of this problem, and has not responded to requests for an extension, and an investigation to find out how many public comments have been sent to the wrong address, what has been done with those comments, and what can be done to rectify a mistake that has existed since the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

NEPA requires and encourages public comment, and the Marines have not given the public the information needed to send in their comments. EVERYONE - send a message to the Marines politely requesting a 60 day extension of the comment period during which time they are to conduct an investigation and good faith effort to find out how many comments were submitted to the wrong address. This is a major NEPA violation, and they must rectify this mistake.

Please contact immediately: Chris Proudfoot, Project Manager, at (760) 830-3764 and leave a message asking for a 60 day extension, or email:SMBPLMSWEBPAO@usmc.mil or do both!

Please act now!

Thanks,
Amy

The EIS is fatally flawed because it doesnt comply with the Plain Writing Act signed into law by the President on October 13, 2010.

http://centerforplainlanguage.org/plain-writing-laws/plain-writing-act-of-2010/

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-signs-law-understand/story?id=11902841

Another draft must be prepared that adheres to this law.

Who can attend the Ca. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Commission on May 25 wednesday at 8:30 am?

DoubleTree Hotel, Big Bear Room
Ontario Airport
222 North Vineyard Avenue
Ontario, CA 91764

Public comment period begins at 11 am at the earliest.

Marine Corps presentations at 1 pm.

Please attend this meeting if you can. Wear your off-road shirt and hat.

Please make a public comment. Respectfuly ask this commission to pass a resolution against the expansion.

Its important. It will carry some weight if they pass a motion opposing closure of more wheeling area.

If you cant attend, send them a comment:

OHMVR Commission
PO Box 942896 - Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Tel: (916) 324-5801
Fax: (916) 324-0271
E-Mail: OHVCommission@parks.ca.gov or OHVInfo@parks.ca.gov
URL: http://www.ohv.parks.ca.gov/

Theres some good food for thought and ideas on this blog site:

http://www.vote29.com/newmyblog/archives/21217

In this December 2009 document on Page 76, General Amos talks about expansion projects at Twentynine Palms, Guam and Georgia:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg53693/pdf/CHRG-111shrg53693.pdf

He also says "at the direction of the Commandant, an initiative is underway to establish an overarching land acquisition strategy addressing current, emerging, and future training requirements and associated land and
airspace needs (through 2060) to ensure the Marine Corps remains fully missioncapable."

It sounds like they have other plans for more expansion in the future. Is that addressed in the EIS? Shouldnt that be part of the future and cumlative impacts?

Shouldnt that be part of the future and cumlative impacts?

Yes, this should be disclosed.

I found this USMC budget for next year:
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/12pres/MCON_Book.pdf

Look at page 147-149. Why are we even submitting comments now? They already got their mind made up and say the acquisition will be "along the western boundary and from the south into the center of MCAGCC."

THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. Why bother to even submit comments to support alternate 3 (go east) or the "no action" alternate?

In the "PROJECT" section its say "This land expansion initiative proposes to acquire land bordering MCAGCC along the western boundary and enhanced access to fixed ranges and maneuver areas in the southern region of the installation."

THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. Alternate 3 (go east) and the "no action" is no longer under consideration. This is blatant.

There asking for $8,665,000 next year. That "Acquires land including withdrawal of land from all public uses, including mineral and water rights, private and state land owned in fee title as well as private mineral interests on public lands......cultural and biological mitigation and monitoring, asbestos shingle and chip removal and the removal and recycling of vehicle tires."

Save your time writing letters. THE DECISION'S BEEN MADE.

In section 12 it say they have already complete 50% of the design data and will award the contract in December.

Now I know where our 20,000 letters will go. THE DECISION is to expand WEST AND SOUTH and the COST just for next year is almost $9million.

We need to generate more letters asking them why these decisions are being made before the EIS is done and the public comment is considered.

I found this USMC budget for next year:
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/12pres/MCON_Book.pdf
Look at page 147-149. Why are we even submitting comments now? They already got their mind made up and say the acquisition will be "along the western boundary and from the south into the center of MCAGCC."
THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. Why bother to even submit comments to support alternate 3 (go east) or the "no action" alternate?
Hey, they started working on this in the early 2000s, and had a pretty good idea what they wanted even then... and they have been making the case for that desired direction since. When the issued the Notice of Intent in 2008, they were even more sure of their desired direction, and they wrote the resulting Draft Environmental Impact Statement to make the best case for that desired direction... that's how it is done.

Regardless of how bad they want to go south and west, our comments are NOT wasted... we're exerting all the muscle we can to limit this advance, and there's a vast army of folks sending comments to prove public opinion, and a smaller group of folks like you, typsy, writing highly-directed comments that are going to be TOUGH to respond to, and that set up the Marines for appeal if they don't dot every 'i' and cross every 't' in detail.

Every government agency goes into a DEIS with a pretty good idea of what they want to carry to the FEIS -- and most of 'em plan their budgets on a longer cycle than the DEIS/FEIS. We still have the ability to change this, and the only thing we can do to ensure that we cannot change this is to surrender.

:grinpimp: Keep up the good fight -- we're in the home stretch! :grinpimp:

Randii

This would appear to me to give rise to a lawsuit at the end of the process.

The Courts frown (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9836135.html) upon this kind of stuff.

NEPA requires an evaluation of the environmental effects of agency actions at the point of commitment. Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

As the Court has found and made clear, the “point of commitment” occurs when an agency, by objective evidence, has bound itself to a particular course of action; and unfortunately, that “point of commitment” occasionally occurs prior to NEPA review. That an agency later conducts a NEPA process does not cure the defective nature of the process. Metcalf v. Daley, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, et al., 214 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2000).

Every government agency goes into a DEIS with a pretty good idea of what they want to carry to the FEIS -- and most of 'em plan their budgets on a longer cycle than the DEIS/FEIS.
Randii

I support what you are saying here, but of particular concern is that the USMC is, according to the budget document, taking actions that are construction related this year. Take a look at the document of the budget and see if you can find what seems very concerning to me.

Also, in the MEB Training Requirements document from 2004, it SPECIFICALLY (sp) states that 29 Palms should expand West. Not just "expand in size" but "expand West"

So in 2004, who made this descision? How did they do it without following the proper process?

If this was done correctly in the DEIS, it should have been: 29 Palms needs to expand, lets look at our options using the NEPA process.... not 29 Palms needs to expand West, lets use the NEPA process to prove that...

The Courts frown (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9836135.html) upon this kind of stuff.

That link is AWESOME!!!! :smokin:

p]roper timing is one of NEPA's central
themes. An assessment must be `prepared early enough so
that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the
decisionmaking process and will not be used to rationalize or
justify decisions already made.' " Id. at 718 (quoting 40
C.F.R. S 1502.5 (1987)).


Appellants argue that, although
NOAA/NMFS ultimately prepared an EA, they violated
NEPA because they prepared the EA too late in the process.
According to appellants, "by making a commitment to autho-
rize and fund the Makah whaling plan, and then drafting a
NEPA document which simply rubber-stamped the decision
. . . , defendants eliminated the opportunity to choose among
alternatives, . . . and seriously imped[ed] the degree to which
their planning and decisions could reflect environmental val-
ues."

oh...

We would need to show that they are doing something that is irreversable. meaning, they have allocated funds to something beforehand that they can't move somewhere else.

It maybe ok to have an outcome in mind, and a preferred alternative, you just can start taking action on it BEFORE the NEPA process:

We want to make clear, however, that this case does not
stand for the general proposition that an agency cannot begin
preliminary consideration of an action without first preparing
an EA, or that an agency must always prepare an EA before
it can lend support to any proposal. We have discussed this
distinction in Association of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v.
Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997),
where we pointed out that "an agency can formulate a pro-
posal or even identify a preferred course of action before
completing an EIS." Id. at 1184. We noted also that "Council
on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") regulations actually
encourage identification of a preferred course of action during
the NEPA process . . . ." Id. at 1185 (citing 40 C.F.R.
S 1502.14(e)). Rather, our holding here is limited to the
unusual facts and circumstances of this case where the defen-
dants already had made an "irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitment of resources" -- i.e., by entering into a contract with
the Makah before they considered its environmental conse-
quences and prepared the EA.3

Also, in the MEB Training Requirements document from 2004, it SPECIFICALLY (sp) states that 29 Palms should expand West. Not just "expand in size" but "expand West"

So in 2004, who made this descision? How did they do it without following the proper process?

If this was done correctly in the DEIS, it should have been: 29 Palms needs to expand, lets look at our options using the NEPA process.... not 29 Palms needs to expand West, lets use the NEPA process to prove that...

You are very correct here.

I hope that you are saving all this hard work you are doing.

It may come in handy when we have to legally challenge the NEPA process.

oh...

We would need to show that they are doing something that is irreversable. meaning, they have allocated funds to something beforehand that they can't move somewhere else.

It maybe ok to have an outcome in mind, and a preferred alternative, you just can start taking action on it BEFORE the NEPA process:

We want to make clear, however, that this case does not
stand for the general proposition that an agency cannot begin
preliminary consideration of an action without first preparing
an EA, or that an agency must always prepare an EA before
it can lend support to any proposal. We have discussed this
distinction in Association of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v.
Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997),
where we pointed out that "an agency can formulate a pro-
posal or even identify a preferred course of action before
completing an EIS." Id. at 1184. We noted also that "Council
on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") regulations actually
encourage identification of a preferred course of action during
the NEPA process . . . ." Id. at 1185 (citing 40 C.F.R.
S 1502.14(e)). Rather, our holding here is limited to the
unusual facts and circumstances of this case where the defen-
dants already had made an "irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitment of resources" -- i.e., by entering into a contract with
the Makah before they considered its environmental conse-
quences and prepared the EA.3

However, from what I'm reading on page 149 (Item 12) it sure seems to me that the USMC has moved into some sort of contract BEFORE the NEPA process has run its course.

It would seem to me that they have reached the "point of commitment" by moving forward on contractual obligations.

Here's a comment idea:

Make sure that you point them to this link: (It's the virtual rally we held a couple of years back)

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=664629

Tell them you want the entire thread submitted as a comment becuase it shows how important this area is to everyone.

Demand they read the whole thing.

Please read this thread:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=981913

You are a champion. Thanks for all you're dedication. I'm praying for your strength to keep it up... and JV.

Bumping this thread to make it easier for someone to find...