BLM RMP Update: No 45 Day Extension??!!

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held a public meeting Monday, Sept. 17, regarding their draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) for the Rio Puerco region.  Well over a hundred people from Placitas and elsewhere were in attendance.  The meeting was initially structured such that there would be a presentation by BLM personnel, primarily Tom Gow, Rio Puerco Field Office Manager, and Angel Martinez, Planning and Environmental Specialist, followed by a brief Question & Answer period, following which the attendees would talk individually to BLM “experts” in a “workshop” session.  But at the beginning of the Q&A period it became evident that the attendees wished the BLM to address specific concerns to everyone, so a lengthy interaction between the audience and BLM took place.  During the BLM presentation Martinez emphasized that to be effective submitted comments must be “substantive”.  They should either point out errors in the data that BLM used to arrive at their recommendations, or expose the omission of relevant data.

Over a month ago Las Placitas Association (LPA) had formerly requested a 45 day extension to the public comment period, scheduled to end on October 11.  This date was set due to the original EPA notice for the DRMP being published in the Federal Register on July 13, with October 11 being 90 days from then.  However the DRMP was dated August 1, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the 90 days be counted from then.  To further complicate this matter, the BLM Federal Register notice was published two weeks after the EPA notice.  But LPA only asked for a 45 day extension from October 11.  It is standard governmental procedure for reasonable requests like this to be granted.

However at the Sept. 17 meeting Tom Gow announced that there would only be a 15 day extension granted, to October 26.  Interestingly, the previous week at a similar BLM public meeting in Albuquerque Gow told the attendees that the 45 day extension would very probably be granted.  When he was challenged on the too brief 15 day extension at the Sept. 17 meeting, Gow said he would resubmit the request for the 45 day extension.

At the public meeting held by LPA and ES-CA (Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association) at the Placitas Elementary School on August 26, a promise was made that recommendations and guidelines for comments would be posted to the LPA website soon.  That this has not yet been done is due to LPA uncovering a number of major discrepancies in the DRMP, which make it difficult to know exactly what to comment on.  These mainly involve the “preferred alternative” in the DRMP regarding gravel mining on the “Buffalo Parcel”, which is our name for the approximately 3200 acre BLM parcel to the north of Placitas.

The main discrepancy is that the text for this “preferred alternative”, which appears on page 2-50 of the electronic version of the DRMP and page 2-51 of the print version – see below for more on this mysterious difference between the two versions – states that mineral extraction, including gravel, would be restricted to “Section 13, Township 13 North, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 13 North, Range 5 East”, which indicates two sections on the north edge of the Buffalo Parcel bordering the San Felipe Pueblo lands.  Yet the maps in the DRMP indicate that such mineral extraction would be allowed throughout the Buffalo Parcel, also on the 200 acre BLM parcel bordering Overlook, Cedar Creek and Ranchos de Placitas subdivisions, and on the Placitas Open Space managed by the Albuquerque Open Space.  This discrepancy was pointed out in a meeting between LPA directors and Mr. Martinez from BLM about 4 weeks prior to the Sept. 17 meeting, but at that meeting BLM still did not have an answer regarding which was right: the text or the map.

On Wednesday, Sept. 19, Martinez informed two LPA directors that the text is right and the maps are wrong, and that this correction would appear the next day on the BLM web site.  But as of this evening no such correction has appeared.  Also Martinez verbally informed LPA that only an extension to October 26 would be given.  However even that has not appeared on the BLM web site, where it still lists the last date for submission as October 11.  At present all we have is verbal promises from BLM officials regarding any of this.

But as we have discovered, things are even worse regarding the Buffalo Parcel.  Though the text indicates the two sections that would be open for gravel mining, BLM has provided no GIS data that would allow citizens to precisely locate the boundaries of those sections, walk them and inspect them.  This lack of location data is perhaps why this was not specified on the DRMP maps.  For this reason alone it is unreasonable to expect citizens to submit “substantive” comments at this time regarding BLM’s mining intentions.  If the agency itself is so confused about their “preferred alternative”, how are we citizens to respond at all effectively?

Then there is the recently discovered difference between the electronic and print versions of the DRMP.  What appears on 2-50 of one version appears on 2-51 of the other.  This leads to the question: Just how different are the two versions, and are the differences trivial or substantial?  Citizens should not be expected to play “Where’s Waldo”, that is, to be BLM’s proofreaders.  This raises concerns about whether the DRMP, though 4 years in the works, was rushed out the door prematurely.

LPA has also found upon discussion with BLM personnel that they did not take into adequate consideration the effect on property values and other social/economic factors of mining activities so close to residential properties.  Nor have they given due consideration to the environmental effect this would have on wildlife populations that use that area for habitat and migration.

What has made discussion of the Buffalo Parcel all the more interesting in recent weeks is that both the Santa Ana and San Felipe Pueblos have expressed strong interest in acquisition of that BLM parcel, largely to protect these wildlife habitats and migration paths.  This would predictably put the Buffalo Parcel to far different uses than if BLM were to continue to manage it.  So an important question that arises regarding public responses to the DRMP is what to comment as regards these possible acquisitions, which are not mentioned in the DRMP “preferred alternative”.