BLM RMP for Placitas Area – “Preferred Alternatives” are Mining & Land Transfer
(updated 8/14/2012 with announcement of August 26 Community Meeting)
(updated 7/27/2012 with new information and analysis, also a map — this also appears in the August Signpost)
BLM RMP Map, Placitas Area – Parcels A and B (Crest of Montezuma not marked) (click for map)
Update: There will be a Community Meeting on the Draft RMP, Sunday, August 26, between 2 and 4 PM, at the Placitas Elementary School in Placitas Village. All are invited to attend. The purpose will be to discuss what is in the Draft RMP, what the main issues are, when public meetings will be held, and how to most effectively submit responses and comments to the BLM.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has finally released the Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Rio Puerco Field Office. This covers a large area in central New Mexico, including Sandoval County. In particular there are 3 BLM parcels in the Placitas Area:
Parcel A – Approximately 3500 acres to the immediate north of Placitas, and bordering the San Felipe tribal lands on its north.
Parcel B – 200 acres within Placitas, bordering the Overlook, Cedar Creek and Ranchos de Placitas subdivisions.
Parcel C – Crest of Montezuma, on the east end of Placitas.
The map with this article shows parcels A and B in yellow, with the Placitas Open Space in blue. The full draft RMP, along with maps, can be viewed on the Las Placitas Association web site, at http://lasplacitas.org/rio_puerco/index.php The hard copy can also be viewed at the Placitas Community Library.
When finalized the RMP will determine how these lands will be managed for the next 20+ years. Now that the draft RMP has been released, there is a 90 day public comment period ending on Oct. 11, 2012. After that the BLM will finalize the RMP, based largely on the inputs it receives. This will be our last opportunity to affect the outcome of the plan, so everyone concerned should attend meetings and submit comments to the BLM. Comments that will be most effective are those that challenge data submitted with the draft RMP, and/or provide relevant data missing in that document. They may be submitted electronically at: NM_RPFO_Comments@blm.gov, or by mail to: Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Angel Martinez, 435 Montaño Road NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107. For questions about the planning process, please contact Angel Martinez, Rio Puerco Field Office RMP Team Lead, at 505-761-8918.
BLM will hold a number of public meetings within the 90-day comment period. The one for Sandoval County will be held on September 17, from 6 – 8 PM, at the Bernalillo High School Gym. LPA (Las Placitas Association) is working with other community groups to organize a Community Meeting in Placitas before the BLM public meeting. The purpose of this Community Meeting will be to provide information, to discuss the main issues, and to provide instruction on how to submit productive, substantive comments to the BLM. The date of this Public Meeting is yet to be determined. It will be published in the next Signpost, and also notification will be sent to members of LPA and other local community organizations.
The draft RMP contains 4 alternatives for each parcel of land. Alternative A is a “No Action” alternative, which leaves things just as they are. It is unlikely this will be adopted. Alternative B emphasizes conservation uses, with the minimum of resource/economic development. Alternative D emphasizes development, with the minimum of conservation uses. Between Alternatives B and D is the “Preferred Alternative”, Alternative C, which attempts to balance conservation with development uses. What ends up in the final RMP is often a mixture of Alternatives B, C and D. Community input is crucial to determining the final outcome. The following describes only the “Preferred Alternative” for the 3 Placitas parcels:
Parcel A (north of Placitas) – “Placitas would be managed as controlled surface use (CSU) for extraction of leasable fluid minerals, open to extraction of salable minerals and locatable mineral entry in Section 13, Township 13 North, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 13 North, Range 5 East.” (Section 2.2.10.4.4) “Leasable fluid minerals” refers to oil and natural gas, along with other fluids. If this became part of the final RMP, then all of Parcel A, also presumably B and C, would be open to extraction of oil and gas. “Salable minerals” include sand and gravel, “locatable minerals” include gold, silver and uranium, among other minerals. Sections 13 and 18 are two squares, partly yellow and partly orange on the map, located on the north edge of Parcel A, overlapping the San Felipe Pueblo. Section 13 is the square that begins ½-mile to the north of the Placitas Open Space, while section 18 is the square immediately east of section 13. Section 18 comes closer to some private lands, to the southeast, than any part of Section 13. The Preferred Alternative opens only these two sections in the Placitas Area to the mining of gravel and other solid minerals.
Parcel B (200 acres) – “Land Ownership Adjustment” (Table 2.13) This means that this 200 acre parcel bordering Overlook, Cedar Creek and Ranchos de Placitas would be subject to transfer of ownership to other public or private entities.
Parcel C (Crest of Montezuma) – “May consider transferring management jurisdiction to another public land management agency.” (Table 2.13) “Fluid minerals would be leased with a CSU (controlled surface use) stipulation.” (Table 2.29) “Motorized travel would be limited to existing roads and trails for permitted use. Open to primitive non-motorized travel.” (Table 2.29) The first of these statements refers to the possibility of transferring the Crest to the Forest Service, as per HR 491 sponsored by Representative Martin Heinrich, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a unanimous vote. Presently we are awaiting the bill’s introduction in the U.S. Senate. If it passes there, and the President signs the bill, then the Crest will transfer to the Forest Service. However if this transfer does not occur then the BLM “Preferred Alternative” is to open the Crest to oil and gas extraction, but not to salable or locatable mineral extraction, also to allow motorized travel only along existing roads and trails.
Here are some of the issues of concern to residents in Placitas, Bernalillo and other surrounding communities:
Oil & Gas Extraction: Opening lands to oil and gas extraction can cause leaks into the aquifers. This can occur even with mere exploration for oil and gas reserves. The aquifers under the BLM lands service both Placitas and Bernalillo, among other areas. The “Preferred Alternative” for the Crest of Montezuma allows for oil and gas extraction. Preventing this is a strong reason to push for transfer of the Crest to the Forest Service. The draft RMP indicates that there is one oil and gas lease near Placitas (section 3.11.3.1), and there have been other explorations. So it is a real possibility that oil and gas exploration and possibly extraction would occur in the Placitas Area if it were allowed for in the RMP.
Gravel Mining: Only Sections 13 and 18 in Parcel A would be open for gravel mining under the “Preferred Alternative”. Section 13 is a half mile or more from Placitas private lands, but parts of section 18 are closer to private lands. The community may seek to eliminate such mining entirely in the BLM lands, or to limit it only to areas a sufficient distance from private lands.
Wild Horses: During the initial comment period for the RMP many residents of Placitas and elsewhere submitted comments requesting that Parcel A be turned into a Wild Horse Preserve, or otherwise protect the horse herds that roam through there. The BLM ruled that these comments were “out of scope”, meaning that they could not be taken into account when formulating the RMP. However section 2.4.2 of the draft RMP, titled “Wild Horse Preserve, Sanctuary, State Park, or Herd Management Area Alternative”, explicitly addresses this issue. It rejects the existence of wild horses within the Rio Puerco Planning Area, including the Placitas Area. It states that “the feral and unclaimed horses in the Planning Area are trespassing on BLM-administered lands, are not a part of the BLM’s inventory or management program as a result of the Wild Horse Act, and will not be considered as a part of the BLM’s resource management program in this RMP/EIS process.” By including this section in the draft RMP, the BLM seems to be placing the issue of the Placitas horse herds within scope, and thus comments could appropriately be addressed towards this issue.
Transportation Management: The draft RMP does not address vehicle use in the BLM lands, such as off-road vehicles (ORVs), other than the mention about motorized traffic on the Crest of Montezuma land. The BLM’s intention is to formulate a Transportation Management Plan only after the RMP is finalized.
One of the factors that the BLM must take into account when formulating their RMPs is Social and Economic Concerns. Clearly mining of any sort close to towns and communities such as Bernalillo and Placitas strongly raises these concerns, since such activity can affect health, quality of life, and property values. Also, if resource development in the BLM lands curtails or prevents recreational activities there, then this affects social and economic conditions in the area. This means that public comments could productively focus on the social and economic impacts of mining and other development activities in the “Preferred Alternative”.
I picked up a free CD copy of the Draft Plan at the BLM office, 435 Montaño Road here in Albuquerque.
I suggest we pound Mr. Phillip Rios, Sandoval County Manager, as the prospect of open pit mining and “fluid extraction” makes Placitas land worthless and destroys the property tax base of Sandoval County:
From: Kevin Quail
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:27 PM
To: prios@sandovalcountynm.gov
Subject: Sandoval Signpost aeticle re: BLM RMP draft
Mr. Rios, although I’m sure you are aware of the article printed in the August edition of the Sandoval Signpost below, I sent along a copy just in case. Do you know what this proposed plan will do to property values in Placitas, where the bulk of Sandoval County’s property tax comes from? Not to mention the possible and likely impact on the underground aquifer that serves most of Placitas? The land and wells will become worthless. You can forget about the 400 apartment development along I-25 by the town of Bernalillo and the same goes for the proposed development of Petroglyph Trails right next to that. Our water here comes from a limestone aquifer underground(see Peggy Johnson’s study that is part of The Placitas Plan) and the idea of “fluid extraction” from BLM land adjacent to the Placitas area will destroy this area and destroy the tax base of Sandoval County. I will be writing to Ms. Johnson again and sending her this article, as well as Jess Ward, the local representative of the State Engineer’s office. Included below the article, you will see Ms. Johnson’s response to my inquiry regarding the Cashwell Tract proposal, which I submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as to Jess L Ward, which I believe was instrumental in getting Cashwell to withdraw his application to change the zoning on his property, as there is no water there. I can only imagine the state engineer’s response to this plan by the BLM to destroy the groundwater for Placitas. Doesn’t the state of New Mexico have enough water problems what with the Kirtland spill now estimated to be 24 million gallons, already seeping into the Rio Grande aquifer and 2/3 of a mile from wells that supply the city? Of course, that’s just an estimate- if you live anywhere on or near THAT aquifer, you might be drinking jet fuel right now. If Sandoval County doesn’t sue the BLM, expect a class action suit from Placitas residents and expect this to be tied up in the courts for years. There are plenty of wealthy people out here- what do you think will happen to the proposed property taxes from Diamond Tail? Who will be buying those lots?
BLM draft RMP impacts Placitas open space
—Las Placitas Association
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has finally released the Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Rio Puerco Field Office. This covers a large area in central New Mexico, including Sandoval County. There are three BLM parcels in the Placitas Area.
The draft RMP does not address vehicle use in the BLM lands, such as off-road vehicles (ORVs), other than the mention motorized traffic on the Crest of Montezuma. The BLM’s intention is to formulate a Transportation Management Plan only after the RMP is finalized.
Factors that the BLM must take into account when formulating their RMPs include social and economic concerns. Clearly mining of any sort close to towns and communities such as Bernalillo and Placitas strongly raises these concerns, since such activity can affect health, quality of life, and property values. Also, if resource development in the BLM lands curtails or prevents recreational activities there, then this affects social and economic conditions in the area, so public comments could productively focus on the social and economic impacts of mining and other development activities.
The following describes only the draft RMP “Preferred Alternatives” for three Placitas parcels:
Parcel A, 3,500 acres north of Placitas, would be “managed as controlled surface use for extraction of leasable fluid minerals, open to extraction of salable minerals and locatable mineral entry.” The term leasable fluid minerals refers to oil and natural gas, along with other fluids. Salable minerals include sand and gravel. Locatable minerals include gold, silver, and uranium, among other minerals. The preferred alternative opens only two sections in the Placitas Area to the mining of gravel and other solid minerals.
The preferred alterative for Parcel B, a two-hundred acre parcel bordering Overlook, Cedar Creek, and Ranchos de Placitas, calls for “Land Ownership Adjustment,” and would be subject to transfer of ownership to other public or private entities. Parcel B is a favorite place for hikers.
The preferred alternative for Parcel C, the Crest of Montezuma, opens the door to the possibility of transferring the Crest to the Forest Service, as per HR 491 sponsored by Representative Martin Heinrich, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a unanimous vote. Presently, we are awaiting the bill’s introduction in the U.S. Senate. If it passes there, and the President signs the bill, then the Crest will transfer to the Forest Service. However, if this transfer does not occur then the BLM preferred alternative opens the Crest to oil and gas extraction, but not to salable or locatable mineral extraction, and also allows motorized travel along existing roads and trails.
Here are some of the issues of concern to residents in Placitas, Bernalillo, and other surrounding communities:
Oil and Gas Extraction: opening lands to oil and gas extraction can cause leaks into aquifers. This can occur even with mere exploration for oil and gas reserves. The aquifers under the BLM lands service both Placitas and Bernalillo, among other areas. The Preferred Alternative for the Crest of Montezuma allows for oil and gas extraction. Preventing this is a strong reason to push for transfer of the Crest to the Forest Service. The draft RMP indicates that there is one oil and gas lease near Placitas and there have been other explorations. So it is a real possibility that oil and gas exploration, and possibly extraction, would occur in the Placitas Area if it were allowed for in the RMP.
Gravel Mining: only Sections 13 and 18 in Parcel A would be open for gravel mining under the “Preferred Alternative.” Section 13 is a half mile or more from Placitas private lands, but parts of Section 18 are closer to private lands. The community may seek to eliminate such mining entirely in the BLM lands, or to limit it only to areas a sufficient distance from private lands.
Wild Horses: during the initial comment period for the RMP, many residents of Placitas and elsewhere submitted comments requesting that Parcel A be turned into a Wild Horse Preserve, or otherwise protect the horse herds that roam through there. The BLM ruled that these comments were “out of scope,” meaning that they could not be taken into account when formulating the RMP. However, Section 2.4.2 of the draft RMP, titled “Wild Horse Preserve, Sanctuary, State Park, or Herd Management Area Alternative,” explicitly addresses this issue. It rejects the existence of wild horses within the Rio Puerco Planning Area, including the Placitas Area. It states that “the feral and unclaimed horses in the Planning Area are trespassing on BLM-administered lands, are not a part of the BLM’s inventory or management program as a result of the Wild Horse Act, and will not be considered as a part of the BLM’s resource management program in this RMP/EIS process.” By including this section in the draft RMP, the BLM seems to be placing the issue of the Placitas horse herds within scope, and thus comments could appropriately be addressed towards this issue.
The full draft RMP, along with maps, can be viewed on the Las Placitas Association web site, at http://lasplacitas.org/rio_puerco/index.php. The hard copy can also be viewed at the Placitas Community Library.
When finalized the RMP will determine how these lands will be managed for the next twenty years. Now that the draft RMP has been released, there is a ninety-day public comment period ending on October 11, 2012. After that the BLM will finalize the RMP, based largely on the inputs it receives. This will be our last opportunity to affect the outcome of the plan, so everyone concerned should attend meetings and submit comments to the BLM. Comments that will be most effective are those that challenge data submitted with the draft RMP, and/or provide relevant data missing in that document. They may be submitted electronically at: NM_RPFO_Comments@blm.gov, or by mail to: Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Angel Martinez, 435 Montaño Road NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107. For questions about the planning process, please contact Angel Martinez, Rio Puerco Field Office RMP Team Lead, at 505-761-8918.
BLM will hold a number of public meetings within the ninety-day comment period. The one for Sandoval County will be held on September 17, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., at the Bernalillo High School Gym. LPA (Las Placitas Association) is working with other community groups to organize a Community Meeting in Placitas before the BLM public meeting. The purpose of this Community Meeting will be to provide information, to discuss the main issues, and to provide instruction on how to submit productive, substantive comments to the BLM. The date of this Public Meeting is yet to be determined. It will be published in the next Signpost, and also notification will be sent to members of LPA and other local community organizations.
To participate in this discussion, and for updates and announcements, please visit the ES-CA (Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association) Forum at: http://www.es-ca.org/blog/2012/07/05/blm -resource-management-plan-rmp-published/. By pressing “Leave a Reply,” you can post comments.
From: “peggy”
To: byas1@comcast.net
Cc: “Mike Johnson”
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:43:44 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Cashwell development in Placitas near the Placitas Volunteer Firehouse
Hello Kevin,
Thanks for your questions regarding Placitas groundwater information. I was able to approximately locate the area you are interested in, the Cashwell Tract, on the maps and figures from OFR-469 (Johnson and Campbell, 2002). The PAP figures were low resolution, but the tract appears to form a rectangle with its SW corner just east of the firestation at Hwy 165, and its SE corner near Hwy 165 just west of Overlook Drive. Then the tract boundaries extend north onto the high hill known as the Overlook. Is that correct?
I have reviewed the maps, figures and water quality data for the area. To help place the Cashwell Tract in the context of my 2002 report figures, I have added a rectangle showing its approximate location to two important plates — plate 4 and plate 6. PDF files of those modified plates are attached (hopefully they are not too large to make it through your mail server). Plate 4 shows a series of geologic cross sections (vertical views of the subsurface showing the location and geometry of geologic units which form the aquifers and aquitards near Placitas). Cross section D-D’ in the lower left hand corner of Plate 4 is drawn from south to north adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Cashwell Tract, and is a good depiction of what lies beneath the area. I’ve added a note showing the approximate north-south limit of the tract on that cross section. Plate 6 is a map of hydrogeologic zones in the Placitas area. Intera’s water availability map in the PAP is a simplified version of plate 6. Again, I’ve drawn the approximate extent of the Cashwell Tract on Plate 6. I am also attaching Fig. 6 from the 2002 report, which illustrates the geologic units of the area, describes their lithologic characteristics, and depicts their water availability or aquifer potential. Fig. 6 also references wells completed in each geologic or “hydrostratigraphic” unit (in geek terms) that were measured for water level or sampled for water quality during the 2002 study. When you understand where in the section CT is, this becomes a powerful tool as it leads you to actual water quality data in the appendices of the report (all tabulated by well id, “PW-###, e.g. PW-63, which is the fire station well).
Based on these resources (OFR-469) and my knowledge of the area, here are my thoughts regarding water availability and quality in the Cashwell Tract (“CT”):
1. The CT lies mostly within what I call hydrogeologic zone R4 (Plate 6 and Table 7 in OFR-469), which has the worst water quality, and ties for the worst water availability potential, in the Placitas area. The primary hydrogeologic unit accessible to the CT is the Cretaceous age Menefee Formation (Kmf), which is a thick, olive to gray-colored shale with minor interbeds of fine sandstone and coal. The aquifer potential of Kmf is “moderate to none: primarily a shale aquitard” (OFR-469). There is no source of recharge into this geologic unit. Age dating of groundwater from the Kmf further east near the Village of Placitas indicated residence times ranging from 27,400 to 31,710 years. The geologic strata in the area of the Cashwell Tract have been rotated in the subsurface by tectonic forces associated with Rio Grande rift faulting, so that what was once flat-lying (horizontal) strata, including the Kmf, now dips steeply to the north at an angles of approximately 45-50 degrees (see Plate 4, cross section D-D’). This means that groundwater, which tries to flow from the mountains (south to north) is trapped behind this steeply dipping shale unit called the Menefee. The Menefee acts as an aquitard or an “underground dam” so to speak, retarding or preventing movement of water through it, into it, or out of it. This is generally why the area around the CT has such poor water availability.
2. The total thickness of the Kmf unit is known to be about 1200 ft. In the CT area, the top of the unit has been eroded so that its local thickness is estimated at 700 ft thick. However, because of the 45 degree dip, the actual thickness in the vertical becomes more like 1000 ft. An interval of sand called the “Harmon Sandstone” lies within the lower third of the Kmf unit and would appear to have sufficient permeability and porosity to yield water. However, a well drilled to a depth of 700 ft somewhere in the NE quarter of the CT in Sept. 1988 (PW-182 on Plates 4 and 6) penetrated 320 ft of the Santa Fe Group, and 240 feet of this sandstone. At a depth of 700 ft the well was a dry hole (see RG49940). In addition, several wells on properties just south of Hwy 165, which were completed in thin, discontinuous sand units in the lower Kmf, were extremely poor producers during the era of my hydrogeology field work (1996-2000) — for example PW-19 and PW21 (drilled under RG25304) — and some of these households had to haul water because of poor well production. These dry and problem wells supported the aquifer potential designation of “moderate to none” for the Menefee Formation.
3. Two geologic units stratigraphically adjacent to the Kmf do have potential for yielding sufficient water for domestic use. One is the Point Lookout Sandstone (Kpl), which lies stratigraphically below the Kmf and south of the CT. The second is the lower Santa Fe Group (Tsf), which lies above the Kmf and north of the CT. The dry hole (RG49940) mentioned above, demonstrated that 320 feet of Santa Fe Group (a sand and gravel) overlying the Kmf was unsaturated. At the southern edge of the exposure of Tsf, in the center of the Cashwell Tract, the sand-gravel unit is relatively thin, has eroded the surface of Kmf, and rests high on the Overlook hill. It has no local source of recharge other than rain/snow that falls there, and is thus expected to be unsaturated at depths up to about 400 ft (again, this is demonstrated by the 700 ft dry hole RG49940). The Kpl is a gray to tan fine-grained sandstone with a bed thickness estimated at 240 ft (340 ft in the vertical) and moderate to high porosity and permeability. This aquifer produces water to the Fire Station well (RG55346), the Puesta del Sol Community system (RG52191S) and parts of Quail Meadows. Reported well production from Kpl varies significantly, from 5 to 50 gpm. This unit is likely accessible to wells sited in the southwest corner of the Cashwell Tract. However, this unit and all others like it have real hydrogeologic boundaries that make it’s aquifer very susceptible to over-development. Long-term, heavy withdrawals from this aquifer would definitely not be sustainable.
4. Because the Cashwell Tract was (is) undeveloped, no wells existed for measurement or sampling. Water samples from the Kmf at other locations further east indicated overall poor water quality. Secondary drinking water standards for several parameters (in parentheses following), including total dissolved solids (TDS, 500 milligram/L standard), sulfate (250 mg/L), iron (300 microgram/L), and manganese (50 microg/L), were exceeded in some or all of the 5 samples collected. Sulfate ranged from 396 to 2125 mg/L, with a mean of 1400 mg/L. TDS ranged from 850 to 3820 mg/L, with a mean of 2042 mg/L. Iron ranged from none detected to 420 microg/L, with a mean of 165 microg/L. Manganese ranged from none detected to 370 microg/L, with a mean of 98 microg/L.
5. Water quality in the Point Lookout Sandstone was also poor, with secondary drinking water standards exceeded in the 2 samples collected, including PW-63 from the Placitas fire station on Hwy 165. In the Kpl samples, TDS ranged from 1490-3140 mg/L. Sulfate ranged from 800-2180 mg/L. Iron ranged from 920-6070 microgram/L. Manganese ranged from 140-580 microg/L.
These findings are drawn from studies I conducted between 1996 and 2000 in the Placitas area and can be found in P. Johnson and A. Cambell, 2002, Hydrogeology and Water Resources of the Placitas area, Sandoval County, NM: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 469.
********************************************
Peggy Johnson
Senior Hydrogeologist
Associate Director for Hydrogeologic Programs
New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources
New Mexico Tech
801 Leroy Place
Socorro, NM 87801
(575) 835-5819 Office
(575) 835-6333 FAX
(575) 859-1468 Cell
peggy@gis.nmt.edu
********************************************
Here’s the link to the 46-page study done by Peggy Johnson of Placitas area water done years ago, which includes the acre feet used by LaFarge at that time:
http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/NMWaterPlanning/regions/MiddleRioGrande/SupportDocs/SS-1-PlacitasDelAguaWaterDemandStudy.pdf
Also, here are two links to many different maps of US oil reserves and fracking areas, none of which show any fluid for extraction in the BLM land adjacent to Placitas. Everyone knows they have been drilling for oil and gas for years in the northeast corner and southeast corner of New Mexico- suddenly, they found oil or gas here? I don’t think so.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=oil+reserve+map+of+the+us&id=2E77C25730C913C79AE1F2A96B66B60D6FAF09D1&FORM=IQFRBA
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=map+of+fracking+in+the+us&id=794A68826CCEC74CDAD2CB14E56FAC727EDB9AD6&FORM=IQFRBA
Sorry, meant northwest corner.
That study above- my mistake- done in 2002 by Del Agua, but references Peggy Johnson’s study throughout. I posted the Las Placitas Letter From The Signpost on Change.org as a petition to stop the BLM:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-corrupt-blm?utm_campaign=petition_created_email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=guides
I spoke with one of my neighbors down the street yesterday- she was COMPLETELY unaware of the pending commercial development of the BLM land and the threat to our water, lifestyle, wildlife and property values. How many people in this community are asleep?
Does anyone know what the County of Sandoval’s government position is regarding this situation?
Does anyone know if any of our US Congressmen have been contacted, and if so, what was their response to this situation?
Does anyone know if any NM State Representatives have been contacted and if so, what was their response to this situation?
Dwight, Good questions.
I announced the BLM RMP at the County Commission meeting last month. I also invited our Commissioner Orlando Lucero to our Community Meeting on Aug. 26. I haven’t heard if the County plans to take any active role regarding the RMP.
LPA has been in touch with Rep. Heinrich’s office regarding the RMP, and will continue to work with them on this.
Our NM State Representative Jim Smith was contacted about this by ES-CA, and was invited to the Aug. 26 Community Meeting.
As you suggest, working with our elected representatives on this, federal, state, and local, will be important in achieving OUR “preferred alternatives” for the BLM lands.
Where can I find out what happened at the meeting on Sept 17? Is there a better site that is more current? I understand there were about 250-300 people in attendance.
Thanks.
Dawn, Thanks much for asking. We’ve been trying to sort out a lot of issues that have arisen both before and after the Sept 17 meeting, and want to get them right. I’ll be posting an update today, or by latest tomorrow morning, here on the ES-CA Forum. Thanks for your patience.
Orin