Working landscape initiatinve, but asked to think about what was said in public meeting, including recurreing themes over past

JUNE 8 FIELD TRIP

The Las Cruces Field Office hosted the Field Trip (Attachment 1). RAC members in

attendance were Crestina Trujillo-Armstrong, Jim Bailey, Philip Cantu, Mickey Chirigos, John Hand,

Meade Kemrer, Mark Marley, Raye Miller, Robert Moquino, Anthony Popp, and Don Tripp. BLM

attendees were Linda Rundell, Theresa Herrera, Ed Roberson, Sam Desgeorges, and Ed Singleton.

The Field Trip included Community Pit #1 Rock Quarry, College Ranch/Dona Ana Mountain Land Exchange, urban interface Area, A Mountain, and Organ Mountains/Land Exchange.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Tony opened the Public Comment Period at 6:08 p.m. Members of the RAC and field managers introduced themselves.

Sandy Schemnitz, SW Consolidated Sportsmen (SWCS)

Dr. Schemnitz said SWCS represents 15 different fish and wildlife clubs and has 1,500 members. Its main objective is to maintain and enhance wildlife habitat. He asked the RAC’s official position on O&G leasing on Otero Mesa. Tony said the RAC has no official position; and recommended that Dr. Schemnitz talk to individual RAC members.

SWCS is concerned with managing OHVs to decrease habitat destruction and poaching. Public lands need more stringent regulations and enforcement. OHVs should be restricted to designated roads. USFS is considering adopting a regulation that all roads are closed unless designated open. When he visited with BLM Director Kathleen Clarke, she said BLM is instituting that policy in South Dakota. He recommended considering the “closed unless designated open” policy for NM to help solve some problems of habitat destruction on BLM lands. SWCS also strongly endorses land trades, and was particularly pleased with the proposal to trade BLM lands in the Dona Ana Mountains for mineral rights on the College Ranch. They are not happy with the university's plan to close public access to the College Ranch. The trade would help open some excellent areas in the Dona Ana Mountains, hopefully with emphasis on wildlife habitat management.

Dr. Schemnitz was a RAC member in the 1990s. SWCS supports the RAC and hopes it will continue. A lot of good work has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. A program in the wind they’re concerned about has good potential for retirement of grazing option buyouts. That might solve some problems with mixed state/federal ownership. Many grazing leases are in good shape and should continue under current owners. Problems with public land users of all kinds arise from not being sure where the boundaries are. That also leads to trespassing on private lands. SWCS wants increased posting on BLM lands and better maps. Hopefully as funds are available, RAC will encourage that effort. He is glad for the new law enforcement ranger in Deming. BLM needs better more-intensive law efforts for those millions of acres.

Dr. Schemnitz said he would like to see RAC and BLM give more support to public recreation uses on McGregor Range, including hunting. BLM needs to become an equal partner and more assertive about public access on McGregor Range. He is pleased with the excellent wildlife staff in this district and statewide, and hopes all vacancies can be filled. He supports adequate funding for wildlife programs. Emphasis should be on management based on research and policy, and not politics. BLM has been successful and continues to gain public access to lands, e.g., Soledad Canyon and Holloman Lake. He estimates that 15% of BLM lands in SWNM are closed to public access, and knows personnel are pursuing that problem, including Linda’s efforts to open Cooke’s Peak. He hopes there will be more opportunities for public access to public land.

SWCS supports BLM efforts to curtail proliferation of exotic big game and is pleased with enhancement of the desert bighorn sheep. Members are active where RMPs are being amended for Dona Ana, Otero, and Sierra counties so there will be updated wildlife considerations. He hears rumors that Washington powers are considering turnover of agency leadership to private industry. He would like to see career employees maintained in key positions.

Concerning Otero Mesa, he believes the current O&G proposal will cause considerable habitat loss, vegetative devastation and roads that encourage illegal activities. SWCS would like to see Otero Mesa declared a national conservation area. Members support Governor Richardson’s proposals. Dr. Schemnitz suggested that BLM minimize open pits. A recent study suggested that fractured rocks that would allow spread of pollutants to contaminate water underlie much of Otero Mesa. There is now about 13 years of water stored in that area, enough for 1 million people, and he hopes that will be protected. Because of present and potential activity on state and private lands, it is even more important that this last large section of Chihuahuan desert grassland be protected on federal land.

Concerning land trades, his organization doesn’t mind BLM trading small acreage that’s hard to manage, but does not favor trading large areas that would promote urban sprawl. A lot of the problems of concern in the 1990s when he was on the RAC continue to be explored and some progress made. SWCS members consider themselves partners with BLM, and are frequently involved in projects of support for BLM policies and programs. He is pleased to have Linda Rundell back in Santa Fe and continues to expect good things from BLM.

Question/Answer/Comment

· On signing of public lands, how happy is SWCS with land status maps? Those too need updating. Linda said after numerous changes they are being updated on a prioritized list. For popular recreation areas, BLM includes addenda when maps are distributed.

· Contact USGS mapping division in Denver or Albuquerque. Dr. Schemnitz said USFS maps are considered more accurate.

· What makes SWCS think a rancher wants to buy out her own federal grazing allowance? Crestina doesn’t make any money from livestock on her ranch. Dr. Schemnitz asked that ranchers explore that opportunity, because there are both benefits and problems.

· RAC developed Recommendations on OHVs (October 13, 2000), and recommended changing open designation. But current RMPs have open designation, so until plans are amended FOs are hamstrung.

· Dr. Schemnitz said recent legislation would have helped but didn’t pass, so RAC needs to work with the legislature.

· The Las Cruces mayor said the proposed 4,200 acres traded would be used as a buffer around the airport, therefore less urbanization.

· Tony invited all to take part in the Las Cruces area (including three counties) RMP amendment process this fall.

Tony suggested that remaining questions and comments be held until all speakers finished.

Jim Steitz, Southwest Environmental Center (SWEC)

Mr. Steitz said he had lived in NM for nine months. In Utah State’s Natural Resource School he was taught to be optimistic about land use agencies. SWEC’s concerns with how BLM came to be where it is now on Otero Mesa O&G development, and how the process was handled, go back to the Clinton administration. In 2000, the environmental community thought the plan included a good opportunity for mitigation, and a good concerted thought process for protection. In January 2004 a lot of that protection seems to have been abandoned, and he is trying to understand why. BLM is a multiple use agency, but why did it do a U-turn on this land use plan? It is very troubling. One standard example is changes made in response to public comment. He showed the FEIS Volume 2, where he said there were some 150 public comments. But he can count on two hands those who wanted BLM to reduce protection. Most said please protect more.

We understand that public comment is not a voting process, but BLM needs to take into account that public comment did not bring about the recent changes. There are deep concerns about where the political direction for the process is coming from. We are told that this is a local plan but that is less and less plausible. This obviously reflects the Bush administration. The appearance that Washington drives it is acute. He referred to an article on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal a month before Linda Rundell was supposedly issuing a decision. Paper sleights of hand have been pulled in this plan, he said. BLM said it forwarded a biological assessment of whether the plan would adversely affect aplomado falcon to NM Department of Game & Fish. The later version does not state that the NM Department of Game & Fish was able to sign.

Data indicate that the economic benefit of O&G drilling on Otero Mesa would be negligible, therefore we can only think that this is the administration drawing a line in the sand, saying, “We will drill where we want.” The Rocky Mountain front has similar kinds of leasing where BLM is pursuing permitting and gas resources are even less than expected on Otero Mesa. These plans are not grounded in reality. This decision is made in a larger context.

SWEC members have written emotional letters to BLM. Petitions for protection were signed by 2,000-3,000 people in the Las Cruces area. BLM’s decision is extraordinarily unpopular. BLM is betraying the best interests of NM, even on the supplemental FEIS. The comment period on the 5% plan passes up the fact that there was no public comment when it should have been done in the past. They are not revising the decision, merely gaining further public comment. He has seen no analysis to support the 5% plan; it seems to be pulled out of the air. Can this grassland reclamation actually happen? It is not known. BLM says “trust us, we’ll make them do reclamation.” We have difficulty because of past experiences taking this on faith.

Jim said, “We plead with BLM to let this one go.” We understand that there is demand out there and expectation for multiple use. Let this one go. At least go back to some of the very good ideas in the draft. SWEC would prefer that the entire area be released from O&G leasing. Don’t continue with this final EIS to prove that BLM is following national policy. He urged the RAC to attempt to restore integrity to the Otero Mesa process.

Sandy Geiger

Ms. Geiger said she would share a personal note about the process that BLM undertakes in Dona Ana County, i.e., disposal of public lands. She moved here from IL and had never seen an RMP so she studied it and was very impressed with the effort behind it and the consideration that went into protection in Dona Ana County. The fact that we can see the Organ Mountains without homes all over them is due to BLM. She is involved with neighborhood and environmental groups that hope to take part in the RMP amendment.

She has had personal experience with two properties disposed of by BLM. Interface is crucial and at the time those two more-than-300-acre properties were released it was understood that the city and county would take over planning for them. It has been a painful process for all involved. City and county planners and the developer wanted it to go smoothly, but Las Cruces is having growing pains and not equipped to handle land disposal without a preliminary master plan. Unfortunately the existing plans are recent and have not yet been translated into zoning ordinances.

NM is creeping toward a comprehensive plan as law rather than advisory. Heads up for BLM to look carefully at land disposed of to assure that it fits into comprehensive plans. She showed a copy of a map with a 5-mile radius extraterritorial zone around Las Cruces. She said the areas traded are mapped as vacant through 2020 but 175 + homes have been proposed there.

In 1989 on the west mesa a steeply-sloped escarpment south of I-10 was traded, removing access to land to the west. Las Cruces took out a parcel west of that land. She has returned to BLM several times asking that that trade by reconsidered and instead they trade for more developable land elsewhere. She hopes that revision of the RMP can be extended to help county planning and can include trades with private landowners, and some farmland. She is encouraged by recent disposals of large pieces of land that include protecting arroyos from development. She knows that in other BLM jurisdictions, disposal areas are master-planned. It is an advantage to have a single developer, encouraging smart growth. So she wonders if large land disposals get the highest price to help Dona Ana County provide open space and trails, or for BLM to do its work.

Anna Underwood

Ms. Underwood said she has wanted to talk to BLM for quite a while about one area due west of her home in the Robledo Mountains. Permission was given to a sand and cement company to take off the side of a mountain. The Robledos are blue green mountains with vegetation and the area changed dramatically. It looks like the top of a mountain was chopped off. Large noisy trucks travel local roads daily, and there is a huge quarry for extracting stone, within sight of hiking areas. This is the area where dinosaur fossils were found. She mentioned a naturalist’s books telling children that that area is one of the best in the world to see dinosaur bones. This was a treasure and is now gone, she said. Where she lives on Trails End Road, there are 60 households and she hopes that something can be done.

She went to the congressional meeting about Otero Mesa in Carlsbad the day before. She has live in a solar off-the-grid house for 10 years and knows how inexpensively that can be done. Joanna Prukop brought up the topic of renewable resources at the Carlsbad meeting. People will realize that energy isn’t an either/or thing. The answer is out there, in alternatives like wind and solar, so we don’t need to develop or exploit our last precious places of wilderness. The public will eventually ask what the alternatives are.

LaDonna Gammell

Ms. Gammell said she is new to Las Cruces. She saw a picture of Otero Mesa and went there, and found it a beautiful mystical place. She saw two drill sites with a strange black area different from mud around them where nothing grew, and saw cattle tracks and antelope running. If they drill there, what happens to the land? Does it all become black and nothing but weeds grow? Those black areas were like a piece of hell and she felt sorry for mankind that we are so rapacious. What about the future? Will you take grandchildren to see this black stuff? She has never seen oil wells truly reclaimed, and felt strongly that we should leave Otero Mesa alone.

Richard Magee, Dona Ana Archaeological Society, Southwest Environmental Center

Mr. Magee has lived in southern NM for nine years, and served several terms as president of Dona Ana Archaeological Society. He receives a monthly royalty from Chesapeake Gas Co-op for his family ranch in TX. But his father opposed the drilling and his last months of life were made miserable by the compressors’ constant noise. That area was pastoral, devoted to dairy, but roads accessing the well pads now dominate the landscape. County roads have been messed up. Environmental disruption has been dramatic. A lot of us come to NM because it is a historical cultural land. It is special, and one of the places the Dona Ana Archaeological Society takes people is Otero Mesa. Early peoples trod lightly, leaving petroglyphs but little disturbance. People go out to Otero Mesa looking for a peaceful serene experience that he is afraid will be disrupted.

Jeremy Garncarz, the Wilderness Society’s BLM Action Team

Mr. Garncarz is based in Denver, working with people in the conservation community to help the public take part in the land-use planning process in the intermountain west. He offered information on what’s being done with these processes in other places.

He asked, “What is the role of the RAC in the upcoming RMP process?”

Adaptive management is a term seen more and more, but will we get to a point of defining what that is—with specifics? Socioeconomic analysis was used in the plan. How will that be shaped, and will it involve public participation? What model will be used, e.g., Sonoran Institute? Is there tribal planning? His idea is to engage the public in these processes ASAP and establish communication between public and agencies.

Question/Answer/Comment

· How is the BLM action team funded? It’s a branch of the Wilderness Society. He is a paid staffer.

· Raye said the RAC looked at the Otero Mesa Sierra Club plan amendment, and probably caused delay in the process while they considered ways to mediate between interest groups for a compromised plan. In 2001, the mediator hired by the BLM interviewed representatives of all sides and reported that there was such diverse polarization that she did not feel mediation would be effective. So the RAC has made attempts to come to a better plan.

· Two disposals are currently being looked at, one sale and one trade, so we suggest talking to Las Cruces FO, becoming involved in the upcoming plan and getting on the mailing list.

· The community pit and rock quarry was visited on the RAC field trip. It provides necessary materials for the area but does pose issues for reclamation and management. Work with Las Cruces FO.

· The Carlsbad meeting was devoted to the Endangered Species Act, not Otero Mesa or O&G development.

· The black scar around well pads on Otero Mesa is probably where they reseeded, but there has been no rainy season. Check with Las Cruces FO. Those pads are very large, included living quarters, which is no longer necessary so pads now would be smaller.

· Does the company drilling have to prove why they want to drill there? No.

· The person objecting therefore becomes the defendant.

· The time to object is during the planning process.

· There are quite a few leases in effect now on Otero Mesa and those companies have rights to drill. One company drilled two wells in Crow Flats within the last year. They were unsuccessful, have been plugged and will undergo reclamation.

· In the TX example used by Mr. Magee, what was the density of wells, and how far away was the noise bothersome or detectable? It was pretty dense¾he guessed 5-6 wells/sq. mile. The most bothersome compressor was about 1/4 mile away from his home, across a county road on someone else’s property.

· Tony thanked all that attended and invited them to speak individually with RAC members. He closed the comment period at 7:22 p.m.

JUNE 9 RAC MEETING

CALL TO ORDER, WELCOME, OPENING STATEMENTS (Attachment 2)

Tony called the meeting to order at 8:05 and welcomed two new RAC members—Philip Don Cantu and Mark Marley. RAC members and BLM staff introduced themselves.

Linda thought the field trip, particularly examples of urban interface, was very helpful. Issues are always difficult, and she asked for insight from members on what was seen and heard on the trip and from the public. In government, she said election years are considered a “silly” time and very contentious. BLM will take shots across the bows, and has to buck up, listen and go on. She mentioned a full-page paid photo advertisement in the Albuquerque Journal of a well site in the Loco Hills near Artesia, with inference that this is what will come of Otero Mesa. Leslie investigated and found the site. The picture was taken after 9” of rain breached the berms. She called the operator and asked that it be cleaned up, which it was. The Albuquerque Journal was called in an effort to turn the ad into a positive, but did not respond. She has been working since the fall RAC meeting to draft and close some legacy issues, including removing old power lines and closing some roads. Ron Dunton applied $1,000 seed money and will actively work on sites dating back to the 1920s when reclamation was not a big issue. BLM still has 15,000 old sites, some of which need work. It will take time and BLM is starting with the biggest issues.

There have been quite a few management changes. The Amarillo field manager was promoted and left for Washington. Leslie Theiss will replace him. There are field manager vacancies in Roswell, Carlsbad and Taos that Linda is actively working to fill. BLM budget reflects the nation’s large deficit so she expects there will be a 2-10% cut in operational dollars, and that will affect what’s accomplished.

· Crestina thought the field trip was an eye opener and very affirmative.

· Bob Moquino said he would talk with people on his reservation about some of the vegetative information received on the field trip.

· The field trip showed how many problems BLM has that have nothing to do with grazing.

· Have concerned groups offered matching funds to solve some of the problems?

· Raye said the reclamation work group sees opportunity to enlist help while industry is focused on the problem. He likes getting people to volunteer better than matching funds.

· The Albuquerque Journal ad cost $5,900 that could have been used for reclamation.

· BLM employees are knowledgeable about the history and geology of the area.

· Jim suggested developing a reclamation showplace and using the same tactic to show people what is often done right. Linda said some media representatives have recently been shown such sites.

· Meade plans to work on the RMP amendment, and issues heard during public comment were useful.

· RAC members were impressed with the mayor’s remarks and progressive attitude on the field trip.

· It is important that BLM listen to local people, industries and those affected.

· Tony asked that RAC members comment on the handbook distributed at the national RAC leaders meeting.

APPROVAL OF RAC MINUTES FROM ARTESIA FEBRUARY 2004 (Attachment 3)

Motion

Crestina moved to approve the minutes as distributed. Don seconded. Motion approved.

INTRODUCTION TO RAC PROCESS (Attachment 4)

Raye Miller, RAC Vice-Chair

The RAC handbook is intended as an orientation for new members. We need to list what should be included, including state and local sections. Raye first highlighted the memo stating that there will be no new WSAs, and a toolbox for maintaining current WSAs.

This RAC discussed whether to lobby congressional delegates to release or designate WSAs. When Raye and former RAC member Cliff Larsen could not even agree which of the existing WSAs should be designated, they recommended that the RAC not take on WSAs. NV has asked individual counties to review existing WSAs and decide what should be designated or released. Counties have then gone to their congressional delegations, and because it came from the local level, congressional delegates have supported their recommendations. Even if WSAs are not delegated wilderness, BLM can still manage them in a protective way.

New grazing regulations allow for shared title of improvements on leased public land, with a phase-in over a five-year period if changes are greater than 10%. This requires monitoring and assessment of land health and reduces public involvement in day-to-day grazing management, e.g., deciding on rotational pasture without sending out 46 notices. He emphasized the 3Cs. The proposal goes to the offices of management and budget in July, leading to a December 2004 effective date. So ranchers who want to object better act now.

The RAC in past talked about Sustaining Working Landscape, but that concept was not easily understandable and has been shelved.

The appraisal system for land exchanges is complex and Washington wants hands-on. Raye read some items to give the flavor of what BLM is up against. He explained that Linda has to demonstrate that any exchange made is beyond reproach. That doesn’t mean RAC shouldn’t make strong recommendations that certain exchanges be made. It can be argued that there is a mosaic of federal/state ownership in NM, with many areas where an exchange is benign. He suggested that BLMNM review the process to see if polices are tight enough to use for exchanges with state lands, with the RAC as a public advisory group to provide a stamp of approval. RAC can consider sending a letter to Director Clarke if state policies seem adequate. Ms. Clarke attended the Phoenix RAC leaders’ meeting, and discussion with her included the length of time Federal Register notices and RAC appointments take. Federal Register notices go through too many checks in Washington before publication. BLMNM would like to be able to establish a year-long meeting schedule and publish one notice.

Tony asked for comment on whether working-group meetings need Federal Register notice. Every RAC at the national meeting except NM thought working subgroups were exempt from Federal Register notice. In NM a suit was filed when working groups addressing controversial issues convened without Federal Register notice.

Linda said Washington is pulling together a task force on this issue, because requiring Federal Register notice every time the public is involved in planning could have a killing effect on public participation. GSA FACA regulations are newer than BLM’s and sometimes inconsistent. The silly season affects the Washington agenda, so BLMNM has been left to its own devices. Tony pointed out that the RAC made recommendations on the planning process a year ago. Raye said latitude is needed. Notices currently need 60 days to get into the Federal Register, and an amended notice takes another 60 days.

Failure to get timely RAC appointments is another problem. Too many people in the Washington office are scrutinizing applicants. Linda said the BLM Director is not in charge of that process¾directors over her head want to be involved. The RAC could draft a letter expressing these concerns. A national work group is looking at compliance and protection for archaeological issues while streamlining the process.

There was discussion about a multi-year permit process for annual events, with the caveat that noncompliance would lead to revocation.

In response to Kathleen Clarke’s request, Raye suggested that RAC members point out ways that BLM can do anything easier, better, more simply.

Budget 101 was provided for RAC leaders at the national meeting, and Raye explained that budgeting is a continuous cycle of planning this year for the next two years.

The NVRAC came up with OHV guidelines, admitting that it looked at everyone else’s and did its own. They spent half a day discussing road definition, as NMRAC did, and their final product looks like a mirror image of NM’s. Each RAC seems to have to go through its own process.

Should RAC members exclude themselves from discussion of issues directly related to the group they represent? Consensus was that they should take part in discussion but consider abstaining from vote. “Interested party” is a general term that may not indicate conflict. Tony thought the RAC would never be involved in an issue so specific that it would affect an individual member. The RAC makes policy recommendations, so he’s not sure this is important. Raye said he was asked whether his company was intending to lease land on Otero Mesa when he became involved in the working group considering Otero Mesa. Discussion continued.

Members were asked to consider effectiveness of a statewide RAC versus more than one regional RAC. Regional RACs travel less and meet for a shorter time, with less need for field trips. Issues would be more burning. There would be greater opportunity for public participation with 36-45 RAC members. The regional RACs could meet jointly annually. The charter would have to be amended.

Most of the RAC chairs Raye met were serving repeat terms. NMRAC traditionally does not reappoint members, which is appropriate if there continues to be just one RAC. However, continuity provides history and precludes revisiting past efforts.

He asked for feedback on whether RAC should consider instituting regional RACs:

· Staff time was considered.

· A statewide RAC looks at overall polices and there is exchange of ideas over a broader area.

· Many times, statewide issues have local application.

· There is adequate diversity regionally.

· Prime benefit is inclusion of more people.

· Regional RACs can work more closely with FOs, but broader scope may be lost. It de-politicizes the RAC process.

Jim asked for staff feedback regarding grazing guidelines. How would they affect resource protection and flexibility? If monitoring and analysis are based on trends before changes could be made, what does that mean? He thought self-monitoring was involved. Bob said regulations might cover the same subject in a number of locations. There are provisions and authority to take care of emergency situations like insects, drought, fire, and endangered species. But in most cases BLM doesn’t know in absolutes what will happen when a change is made. So change is made and then monitored, and decisions are spaced out to respond to what happens. This was done in the 1970s and 1980s, so is not something new. Self-monitoring has never been part of the proposal. Making significant changes without data doesn’t hold up well. You may know what the situation is but not why, so monitoring for data over time makes sense.

Does BLM have funding and staff to monitor? Professional management may know what to do without monitoring, and waiting for monitoring doesn’t always work. Monitoring dollars are allocated to areas of need. Indicators of rangeland health identify where monitoring is needed; and it doesn’t take a number of years to qualify as monitoring.

The public comment period is closed, with final EIS in September, final ruling in October, going into effect in December. Jim said none of the reasons for instituting these changes had to do with problems on the land. They were problems with getting things implemented, and effects on ranchers. That made him skeptical. We have problems on the land, he said, and endangered species in our grasslands, yet that’s not recognized.

Further conversation was postponed until the following morning. Raye said he would send a draft based on what he heard to RAC members for comment. Tony asked that a running list be kept.

RANCHER MONITORING (Attachment 5)

Ed Roberson, Las Cruces FO Manager

Bob Alexander, NMSO

Bebo Lee, President, NM Cattlegrowers Association, BLM Permittee

Mike Casabonne, NM Public Lands Council, BLM Permittee

Ed Roberson

June 8-10, 2004

Question/Answer/Comment

CALL TO ORDER, WELCOME, OPENING STATEMENTS (Attachment 2)