With the variety of information, and misinformation, being put forth,
it is important that everyone understand the FACTS about HR 6300, the Doña Ana County Planned Growth, Open Space and Rangeland Preservation Act of 2008.  

HR 6300 was introduced by Congressman Steve Pearce on June 18, 2008. 

BEGINNINGS:

HR 6300 is the result of a two year process that began with the City of Las Cruces work sessions in 2006/2007.  One clear "consensus" in these meetings and in the community was that the Organ Mountains should be protected from land disposal, development and mining/mineral leasing. 

Based on the discussions in the work sessions, and after much input from discussions with businesses, elected officials, and organizations in Dona Ana County, we developed a list of nine items we call "Community Expectations".

1.  Permanent retention of open space
2.  Provision for planned economic and population growth
3.  Unrestricted application of Homeland Security and law enforcement activities
4.  Prevention of the unlawful use of motorized vehicles off designated roads
5.  Continued access to the areas for ALL segments of the public
6.  Perpetuation of historic ranching operations
7.  Access for flood control and water capture projects
8.  Enhancement of wildlife and rangeland health
9.  Integrity with respect to historic Wilderness concepts and law

These Community Expectations are very important to the citizens of Dona Ana County, and HR 6300 was drafted to meet all nine Community Expectations.

LEVEL OF PROTECTION:

HR 6300 specifies the permanent removal of the land in the designated areas from disposal (sale into private ownership) and from mining and mineral leasing.  Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is restricted to the designated roads, and operating an OHV off the roads would be prohibited.

These protections are LEGISLATIVELY IDENTICAL to federal Wilderness designation.

RPA/SPA ARE NEW "UNPROVEN" DESIGNATIONS:

Federal Wilderness designation does not hold a monopoly on land management legislation. 

The characteristics of the Valle Vidal in northern New Mexico precluded it from being designated as federal Wilderness.  However, congress took legislative action in 2006 to permanently protect the Valle Vidal by passing the Valle Vidal Protection Act.  This legislation was heralded as a highly successful bi-partisan effort to protect the Valle Vidal in a manner appropriate to the characteristics of the area, and was applauded by the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.

The RPA/SPA legislation is loosely modeled on the Valle Vidal along with other existing legislation, including National Conservation Areas. 

It is clear the federal Wilderness designation is not the best approach for the lands in Dona Ana County, but these areas ARE worthy of legislative protection.  The RPA/SPA legislation could well serve as a model for legislation throughout the western states where federal Wilderness designation is not a good fit because of the restrictions and impacts. 

The RPA/SPA legislation model could be tailored to meet the specific needs for each area, recognizing the natural resource utilization, access requirements, and other issues unique to each area.

While HR 6300, as it is currently written, does not include the RPA/SPA areas in the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), language could be added if the community believes that it is important to do so.

LAND DISPOSAL:

The land disposal provisions of HR 6300 have been misunderstood, and perhaps intentionally distorted, in much of the media coverage. 

Wilderness advocates and some media sources have intimated there would be a "massive land sell-off" as a result of HR 6300.  This obvious scare tactic is intended to mislead people and generate support for the agenda of some who believe that "slow or no growth" are viable options for Las Cruces and Dona Ana County.

The disposal provision in H.R. 6300 was taken from Senator Domenici’s 2005 proposal, to allow for responsible community growth and to ensure that Las Cruces does not become land locked.  To avoid that possibility, identified federal lands can be sold into private ownership at a reasonable rate. 

NONE of the lands on the existing BLM disposal list lie within the areas proposed for RPA and SPA protection in HR 6300.  The BLM provides a map of the lands identified for disposal.

The BLM is responsible for identifying all land eligible for disposal in their district, through its resource management process.  The disposal lands for Dona Ana County are identified in the BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment of 1993. 

The BLM has the responsibility to manage the disposal process, and no new authority for disposal of public lands is included in HR 6300.  The BLM is currently in the process of revising the RMP, including the listing of disposal lands in Dona Ana County.  In a recent conversation (07/2008) with a BLM representative, there were indications that the acreage of land identified as available for disposal may be reduced in the updated RMP.

The BLM requirements for providing public notice and opportunity for public comment and public hearings in the disposal process would not change.

LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD:

H.R. 6300 has a provision for a local advisory board, made up of the Las Cruces BLM Director, and a representative from the County, City of Las Cruces, Business Community, Ranching Community, Conservation Community, and Elephant Butte Irrigation District, to have input into the land disposal process.  Board members would be nominated by the respective organizations, subject to appointment by the Interior Secretary.

The intent is to facilitate communication and provide local input to assure that the lands the BLM identifies for disposal are aligned with the plans and needs of the local community.  While advisory board members would have the ability to provide input, they would not be the final decision makers in the land disposal process.  The process would continue to be managed by the BLM as noted above.

FUNDING AND USE OF PROCEEDS:

Wilderness proponents claim HR 6300 would "reduce federal funding" that they indicate would be available if the areas were designated federal Wilderness.  Ironically, the Wilderness Act of 1964, Section 2. (b) states: "No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System." 

In other words, Wilderness designation specifically prohibits additional federal funding for administration simply because an area is designated wilderness.  In contrast, HR 6300 has no such limitation on funding. 

Additionally, HR 6300 calls for a portion of the proceeds from land sales in Dona Ana County to remain in the county for local environmental projects.  HR 6300 provides that 80% of all revenues from land disposal would be spent on acquisition of environmentally sensitive land, preservation of important habitat, rangeland improvements, the development of parks, trails, and natural areas and certain administrative expenses.  The remaining 20% of all revenues from land disposals will go to the City and County and may be spent on planning, fire protection, law enforcement and the development of parks, trails, natural areas and other open space.

REMOVAL OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREA DESIGNATION:

The existing Wilderness Study Area (WSA) status would be removed from the 8 WSA areas, which are all included in Rangeland Preservation Areas in HR 6300.  WSA status was never intended to remain a permanent land use designation, and further “study” of the areas is no longer necessary once a permanent designation is applied. 

The RPA and SPA designations in HR 6300 would provide permanent federal protection measures for the areas. 

POTENTIAL FOR "COMPROMISE":

The original intent of federal Wilderness designation was to protect vast areas of undisturbed lands.  Too often, federal Wilderness designations have been used as a tool for stopping growth, development and resource utilization on federal land.

Wilderness groups like the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance advocate federally designated Wilderness.  That is their focus and primary purpose, and they send in paid staff to areas targeted for their Wilderness "campaigns".

Federal Wilderness designations are authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964.  The Act sets forth criteria for qualification as well as prescribed management of the areas.  Provisions in the Wilderness Act are too often viewed as "negotiable".  Compromises with respect to meeting Wilderness criteria result in compromising the integrity of the Wilderness Act.  Areas which do not meet wilderness criteria should not be proposed for designation, as is the case with proposed areas in Dona Ana County.

Wilderness advocacy groups have no room for "compromise", beyond adjustments to proposed boundaries or to leave selected roads open by proposing "cherry stems".  Cherry stems are roads that are excluded from the designated wilderness areas.  The roads physically exist in the wilderness areas, but are considered to be outside the wilderness areas.  The Wilderness Act stipulates that there will be no roads within wilderness areas.  That fact poses a problem, as there are literally hundreds of miles of roads which have existed and been in constant use for decades in the areas proposed for wilderness in Dona Ana County.

And finally, it is important to understand that once an area is designated as federal Wilderness, that is in reality the first step of a "process".  Some environmental organizations specialize in litigation against administrative agency decisions affecting designated wilderness areas.  If federal Wilderness legislation contained "compromises and concessions", it is extremely likely that these organizations would begin a barrage of court proceedings to eliminate the "compromises and concessions".  Such groups use the Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. as tools to further their agenda and eliminate beneficial uses of the lands.

COMMUNITY IMPACT:

Federal Wilderness designation prohibits the use of motorized vehicles and mechanized equipment in Wilderness areas.  "Congressional Grazing Guidelines" for wilderness areas allow occasional use for administrative purposes, including for ranching purposes.

Most people understand the impact on recreational activities in the areas, and the impact of reduced access to the areas.  Sportsmen must be willing to walk further to pursue their hunting activities, and carry game out by hand since deer carts and similar items are prohibited.  Mountain bikers are not allowed in federal Wilderness areas, so they must find other areas to ride.  Horseback riders are only able to trailer their horses using the "cherry stemmed" roads.  Motorized wheelchairs and scooters are not allowed.

The impacts of federal Wilderness designation on lands so close to a community the size of Las Cruces must be given serious consideration.  As documented on our website, the restriction on the use of motorized vehicles is cause for concern for our local law enforcement, as well as the Border Patrol.  Their inability to use vehicles to perform pro-active patrol duties as well as pursue criminals poses a serious risk to our community.  Search and rescue operations are impacted, as are firefighting activities.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District has expressed concerns about impacts on the maintenance and construction of flood control and water capture projects and access for the installation of monitoring equipment.

The possible impacts of the proposed wilderness designations on White Sands Missile Range, NASA and Fort Bliss should be addressed.  Any impact would have the potential to significantly affect our regional economy as well as the security of our nation.

LEVEL OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT:

NMWA claims a coalition of "over 200" businesses and organizations which support their proposal for federal Wilderness designation. 

Some wilderness advocates refer to the HR 6300 as "the rancher's proposal".  It is true that the ranchers did initiate the efforts to counter the Wilderness proposals for Dona Ana County.  However, we have identified numerous issues related to federal wilderness designation that would adversely affect our community.  The concerns have grown far beyond the original focus on the impacts to the ranching community in Dona Ana County.

Our Coalition supporting HR 6300 and the RPA/SPA land protection measure has over 700 member businesses and organizations. 

The majority of the businesses, governments and organizations NMWA lists as "supporters" were contacted long before there was another land protection measure to consider.  They made their decision based on one perspective and one option alone.

We feel that many who indicated their support responded simply to a call to "save the Organ Mountains".  They have been told it would keep developers from building homes on the slopes of the Organ Mountains, and that "wilderness is the only way" to provide that protection for the Organs and the other areas in our county.

What many people are really "supporting" is simply protection of our open spaces.  They have not been presented with all the facts about the restrictions and ramifications of federal Wilderness designation, and they do not understand that there are other legislative tools that can provide permanent protection without the oppressive restrictions and regulations of federal Wilderness.   As people learn more about the realities and ramifications of federal Wilderness designation, they begin to recognize the impacts it would have on our county. 

In our discussions with some businesses listed on the NMWA list, we spoke with many who were completely unaware that their businesses were listed on the www.donaanawild.org website as supporters of the Wilderness proposal.  Several who have joined our coalition have written letters demanding that NMWA remove their business from NMWA's list, as did La Union Soil & Water Conservation District.  As of 7/8/2008, none of these businesses have been removed from the NMWA list of supporters on their website.

PROTECTION FOR RANCHING OPERATIONS:

It is clear that it was the intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 to protect grazing operations in designated Wilderness areas.  Although grazing is not recognized as a primary use of Wilderness, but there is language in a "Special Provision" of the Act providing for the continuation of grazing where it existed prior to wilderness designation.

History has shown this intended "protection" to be ineffective.  The NMSU Range Improvement Task Force studied grazing trends in the Gila from 1906 through 1998.  The study showed an 86.7% decrease in cattle grazing in the Gila National Forest, including the designated Wilderness areas.  The study concluded that precipitation and cattle prices seemed to have no relationship to the drastic lowering of livestock stocking rates.  Their conclusion was that the U.S. Forest Service administrative policy, notwithstanding the additional Congressional actions supporting grazing in 1980, was the single greatest factor in the decrease of livestock numbers in the area.

The restrictions and regulations of federal Wilderness impose a level of administrative overhead that few small businesses could manage and still maintain any level of reasonable profitability.

The BLM also recognizes the reality of the methodical administrative elimination of grazing.  At a City of Las Cruces meeting, Mr. Ed Roberson, Las Cruces BLM District Manager at the time, publicly stated "The ranchers are afraid of being 'eaten' one bite at a time". 

The reality is that grazing is technically "allowed" in designated Wilderness areas, but ONLY if the rancher is able to operate using outdated methods and with limitations on the use of modern equipment and practices.   Consider any business owner today being forced to operate without the use of telephones, fax machines and computers or ranchers forced to operate with unrealistic limitations on the use of vehicles, livestock trailers and other mechanized equipment.  While in some cases it may be "possible", it is neither practical or realistic.

See the Grazing Issues section of our website for additional information.

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?:

There are currently over 107.5 million acres of federally designated Wilderness in the United States, with proposed legislation to designate even more federal Wilderness.  Should we continue to lock up more and more open space as federal Wilderness?

LEARN MORE:

It is important that everyone understand the realities of federal Wilderness designation, and the numerous restrictions it imposes on the use and enjoyment of the land. 

See our "At a Glance Comparison Chart" - Federal Wilderness designations & Rangeland Preservation Areas

Please read the information on the home page, and the “What is Wilderness” page.  We also have an audio/visual presentation outlining the realities of federal wilderness designation.