Activity Report Explorer

Rio Grande Valley Broadband • Entered by Susan Ostlie on March 31, 2022

3 forest mtg – Cibola, Santa Fe, and Carson – Objection clarification meetings

March 15, 2022 – March 17, 2022

Key Issue: Landscape Planning (Forest Plans, RMPs, TMPs, etc.)
Activity Type: Advocacy (rallies, lobbying, meeting decision makers, letters/calls/emails)
Key Partners: Region 3 Forester,
Landscape/area: Cibola National Forest (1616435 acres)

Short Description of Activity

The Forest Service scheduled three days of meetings on March 15-17 to discuss certain aspects of objections to the Santa Fe, Cibola, and Carson NF plans. Topics to be discussed include:
Range management and its impacts on water and riparian resources – Western Watersheds.
Bighorn sheep management (Carson Species of Conservation Concern and Plan specific issues) – Western Watershed and Center for Biological Diversity (I believe…)
Threatened and endangered species protection for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and Mexican spotted owl – Western Watershed and Center for Biological Diversity.
Plan components and management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail – (I can’t recall the objector, but it ws a trail advocacy group)
Recommended Wilderness Area recommendation and process – NM Wild; Wild and Scenic River eligibility on the Carson National Forest – Amigos Bravos.
Land use history and access for traditional communities and local governments
Other issues (e.g., the FS’s climate analysis) are off the table.
The above issues were selected “as having a need for [the FS] to clarify views and focus on any potential remedies you might have on these issues.”

Reflection/Evaluation

It was obvious that the land grant, acequia, and indigenous communities objected to any expansion of wilderness, and that some groups felt that all of these public lands should be returned to the original occupants. This included pueblos, and the land grant communities prior to 1848. They felt that the NM Constitution granted them communal areas that were subsequently taken away by illegal means, and this is accurate. They wanted to be distinguished from other historical communities, that were not granted the same rights. I was only allowed to speak when all the original objectors had finished making their points, which usually allowed me to have at the most 2-3 minutes to make any points. I did speak up for preservation of existing wilderness and for additions to recommended wilderness. I made points about wildlife corridors, protections of riparian areas from excessive grazing and unnecessary logging. However, since I was not the original objector, I am not sure that my points carried any significance. This set of meetings was only called to clarify certain objections. Other comments will supposedly be addressed in the next couple of months.