By Dick Ulmer – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) met on September 17, 2015 at the new BLM office in Albuquerque. This is a group of NM citizen volunteers from a variety of experience/knowledge background who act in an consultative basis to the BLM’s Albuquerque District Office. The purpose of our attendance was that the published agenda for the meeting indicated that there would be a briefing on the status of the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan (RMP), and due to our concerns that the BLM was going to lease 800 acres of the Buffalo Tract for gravel mining, we felt we needed a presence at the meeting.
Angel Martinez, of Rio Puerco Field Office and lead writer of the RMP, gave the briefing which was very short and mostly that the plan had not yet been approved by the Washington DC office (BLM HQ) but seemed to be close to that point—including a request for him to submit the charts to be used for briefings which seems to be a final step and they were provided to HQ. Following the meeting, we asked Angel if we could have a copy of the brief and were told not until after final approval—and that the final plan would be posted on the BLM website and noticed in the Federal Register, and to those who had provided comments (Angel showed us the boxes of comments in his office and indicated he was the one who had prepared responses to each of them). He did indicate that the final distribution process (which he indicated would be through the EPA) would take up to 45 days once final approval was received. He also indicated he had been contacted by staff members of the Governor (he mentioned specifically environmental) and our US representatives concerning the RMP but gave no specifics.
At the end of the morning session, the RAC offered an opportunity for attendee comments—they had 30 minutes set aside and I was the only one requesting to make comment, so they graciously allowed me to use the full period, including Q&A involving several of the RAC members as well as exchanges with Angel. I shared with the RAC (at the start of the meeting the BLM coordinator [Danita Burns, Designated Federal Officer] indicated that 2 of the members were at the ends of their terms and that new candidates had been submitted to HQ and were being “vetted”) that I had submitted my application for membership and was well aware of their role. And while I knew that commenting to them at this time would not affect the outcome of the RMP since it was already at BLM HQ, I felt it was worthwhile for them to know why so many concerns were being raised by our community (that we were not a bunch of “crazies” looking for a fight).
I briefly summarized our research efforts to create a formal paper documenting the issues involved, and:
1) the economic impact existing gravel mining was having on our area, property values and the direct relationship to “pensionomics” contributions—and how that relates to significant level of job loss to NM and the County if mining is allowed to be expanded by allowing the BLM land to be mined (I used 1000 jobs based on the number of current retirees in Placitas plus another 500 retirees to come if we stop messing up the opportunity here up and the County’s Placitas Area Plan is able to be realized);
2) the health and safety concerns based on the number of mines currently significantly expanding the amount of disturbed soil, and the lack of controls or monitoring of the cumulative effect of these and the I25 corridor—and then the increased risk of adding another 800+ acres to that particulate issue; and,
3) the impact to the existing and planned development in the Placitas area due to the 3X greater water needs of gravel mining over that used with the community wells serving new residential development.
4) I also indicated our belief that such an expansion was inconsistent with state, county and tribal plans and policy for the surrounding properties as well as stated requests for how the BLM land should be used.
Angel pointed out (which seemed a level of confirmation of our expectation concerning the RMP) that this was not 800 more acres, but actually was a 95% (I think this was the number he used) reduction in the amount of area permitted to be mined (since the prior RMP had no or little restriction on the whole Puerco Rico area). I indicated we were aware of the lack of restriction before, but also knew that they had not been agreeing to additional leases in recent history due to this revision being in process, and that we also were aware of mining operators waiting for this to make application to lease the 800 acres as soon as the RMP was published. He didn’t reject my assertion—and I also further clarified that from the Placitas perspective (and impact on us) once leased, it was 800 acres more than we currently have—it was closer to us, squeezing the gravel sandwich around our residents, and that was the reason for our objections.
One of the RAC members suggested that he thought we should focus on the health and water objections, rather than the economic—but when I pointed out that we were using data from the current administration and felt it was necessary to help them to see the impact on the state and to show that we were not an environmental group trying to kill jobs (as some seemed to want to characterize us), the member indicated he understood why it was worthwhile to address the economics. Another member asked how far away we felt the mines had to be moved—I indicated that even 5 miles would be a big help and that the BLM’s own resource maps in the RMP showed that there were plentiful gravel resources available in that area and beyond. I did point out that I was concerned about the BLM emphasis on $$ generation (at the opening of the RAC meeting the coordinator had commented about the BLM success in generating revenues to the US government—“the best agency at doing that” or something along those lines)—and that such emphasis at the expense of the needs of state, local and tribal plans and policy was not appropriate. At the end of the discussion, the RAC members seemed appreciative
In our subsequent private discussion (arranged by Ms. Burns) with Angel, we found that he previously had been responsible for the dispersion modeling activities for the Air Quality activity in Albuquerque, and understood (and agreed) with our concerns about the cumulative effect of current mining activity (and indicated that he was aware of limitations in the NMED approach to permitting such mines). However, he indicated that we would have the opportunity to have those concerns dealt with in the “implementation” phase—and I understood him to say it was not appropriate for him to try to assess that as part of the RMP (“plan” phase). Angel seemed very approachable and open to being approached when we have questions.
I also believe (based on overhearing some of a conversation she was having with Ms. Burns) that a representative was at the meeting from
In a phone discussion I just had with John Rutherford, he and Patricia agreed to try to make contact with the EPA to find out exactly what their role is in the release of this RMP (e.g. do they have the power to stop it based on environmental concerns such as the unevaluated cumulative effect of another 800 acres of mine in this residential area, or on the high water use of mining draining it away from residential properties in a low water state. I much appreciate this assistance.
Also attending the RAC meeting with me, and representing ES-CA, were John and Patricia Rutherford, and Rick and Marsha Marsden. Staffer Ms. Alexandria Bazan was there forr Representative Michele Lujan Grisham ’s. I believe it was good for Ms. Bazen to hear the briefing I gave the RAC.
