A new documentary depicts the local music scene

Blake Miller and Jessi Reichert are among the musicians featured in the documentary “Montezuma Rocks,” about the local music scene. Photo by Sonja Horoshko

It takes more than just a few venues, some groovy bands and visions of rock ’n’ roll festivals to establish a music scene that transforms a community into a destination music location. Live performance is only one of many magnetic characteristics needed to ratchet up the reputation of individual bands to a collective energy that attracts audiences and other musicians seeking a nest from which they can work, develop and launch their dreams of success.

Montezuma County is developing the musicians, the venues, the energy and the audience. What has been missing until now is the record of its existence – the proof, the marketing tool, the archival video documentary of today’s explosion in local talent.

When R. D. Katz returned to Cortez from a seven-year hiatus in Arizona, he brought his video equipment, writing, editing and production skills, thinking he would write a screenplay from the 800-page book he had just finished and then produce a movie. Instead, almost by coincidence, he walked right into a documentary filmmaker’s dream.

“Montezuma Rocks” was an understatement, in his opinion. It called out to be a documentary subject in film, available for a wider audience and perhaps a tool for transformation for the young musicians. Montezuma County’s live-music scene was rocking with venues, musicians, bands and audiences.

Katz clicked the “record” button at every performance on every stage for 12 months and within a year he premiered the resulting documentary, “Montezuma Rocks,” to the community of musicians he featured in the film.

He captured the moment – seized the day.

“In the beginning, I was just thinking it would be reference material,” said Pat Downey, a singer / songwriter featured in the film who has been playing the local scene for more than 30 years. “But then it just snowballed. Next thing you know, everybody was in it.”

Katz made his way to every performance, meeting music activists such as Moe Coole, a musician and music promoter, and P.A Jackson, a local hip-hop artist. Both are popular local disc jockeys. They expanded Katz’s purview, inviting him to talk about the project on KJSD Dryland Community Radio and the Dolores station, KKDC.

Local venues, too, supported the film, inviting Katz to record at all events and gigs. Blondie’s Trophy Room, White Cup Coffeehouse and Mr. Happy’s, whose owner, Dave Chisholm, had installed a top-of-the-line sound system, were booking and promoting live music every week and the audience was growing, moving from place to place on weekend nights.

Although it is good for business to offer live music, most venue owners do it because they love music. A common ground for musicians and venues was developing and it was aiding the filmmaker’s project.

On the drawing board this past year was the first all-day, all-local rock ’n’ roll fest at the Dolores Riverfest, organized and presented by Cool and his band, The Moetones, and staged at the Dolores River Brew Pub. Katz was there.

During the year of filming, Wayne and Elizabeth Reichert moved back to Cortez from Florida, bringing with them their successful East Coast rock ’n’ roll expertise. They opened White Cup Coffee on Main Street in Cortez, where they invite musicians to perform and offer them advice and guidance. It was an instant draw for the youth musicians.

The bands were doing their thing and Katz recorded it before and after the shows, behind the scenes, the tedious but necessary work of being a musician.

The talent of original singer/songwriters was everywhere in Montezuma County, and so was Katz.

During Katz’s seven-year self-education in film production, he learned animation, audio editing, sound production and interview techniques. All of these are used in the production of “Montezuma Rocks.” Along the way he had developed close friendships and the trust of three musicians who were consistently there to help him. He delegated some of the duties to Blake Miller, Coole and Downey, asking them to become executive producers and for the documentary.

He accepted the help of camera technicians Rhed and John Leonard, the visual effects of Ghost-Render Productions and original music from Little Brother, The Moetones and Arsenic Kitchen.

Katz is a perfectionist. He was willing to do his first documentary without compensation. Downey describes the budget for the Montezuma Rocks as non-existent, but Katz puts the level of funding at about $80 for the year it took to produce the film.

However, many bands and individual members contributed money and help whenever they could.

The young musicians now have an opportunity to view who they were and how they have changed during the length of the film production.

Katz notices the changes from the very first gig. “I see so much in the musicians while I work on the technical production side of the work we are doing.

“Time passes in a documentary. I see Blake’s hair growth.” In the beginning Blake’s hair and his style was less expressive, but at the end of the film his hair is longer, his stage performance style more polished.

“I look at the videos from the first part of the year when we were filming,” Blake said, “and for myself I see too much moving around. So much that I couldn’t play because of that.” The self-criticism has improved his performances now, and his style, he said. The musicians’ comfort with the interview process increased as the filming continue.

“The interviews got better and better as we moved along through the process and the months of filming, and we are learning from how we interview as well,” said Downey “After I watched it, all I wanted to do was practice. At 45 years old, it is a real honor to be in that film with them.”

Jessi Reichert, vocalist for Arsenic Kitchen, and Katz went to school together in Cortez for 13 years. ”We also went through a natural disaster together when a tornado ripped through the playground,” she said.

They knew each other well then, but by the time Katz was filming Reichert had developed the discipline that was necessary to become a hard-working singer/songwriter able to work in multiple bands and under the stress of a performance schedule.

“I started playing guitar when I was 10,” she said. “I got my first acoustic from a distant relative as a birthday present. I’ve never taken a guitar lesson in my life, and taught myself all I know. I’ve been singing since I can remember. I learned from my dad, who was in a church choir. He taught me how to match pitch, and how to harmonize. Other than that, I’ve taught myself everything as well.”

Band members in Arsenic Kitchen also include Miller, and Cameron Coleman.

Miller wanted to be a musician, he said, since he was 6 when he watched Styx and REO Speedwagon in concert with his mother. “But I didn’t get really serious till I was about 15, when my dad bought me my first electric guitar at a yard sale. I’ve been playing guitar, my main instrument, ever since. I’m self-taught.”

The group features in Montezuma Rocks, along with The Moetones musicians Coole, Tomoe Gozen and Peter Ortego.

“Moe and the Moetones bring the crowd,” Katz said. “People follow them in and they always come to our gigs if possible. He has been so helpful for us all, and generous with his time and knowledge.”

Coole said the youth in Montezuma County are benefiting by this intense project. “I love the kids. They are awesome and they’re doing the right thing. I will help them however I can.”

Little Brother band members Kevin Frazier and Isaac James Kimbro are caught in live performance, too, and the band members of Not Quite Dry, Pat Downey, Dewarren Marshall, James Campuzano. Psyality, a band that has been around for more than 10 years, shows popular local musicians Damon Burris, Benjamin Burris, Tom Burris, Colby Gray, Justin and Jarrett Whitmer recording in performances throughout the country’s venues.

Some of the songs played in the video are cover songs. That represents a legal issue for the film’s public release. To use those tunes in production and performance requires written permission of the copyright entities. Reichert is helping the production team overcome that last hurdle. When it is done, “Montezuma Rocks” will be for sale to the public. Katz expects it will be finished by March 2014.

Meanwhile, Katz held a preliminary screening for the musicians and their families at Mr. Happy’s last November.

Everyone on the youthful production team agreed it was thrilling and a little poignant. “It was quiet, actually, as the audience of band members and production workers absorbed the reality of their friends and fellow musicians in the film,” Katz recalled. “They were all listening for their songs, watching their own performances and looking for people they have played with this past year. At the end, people exploded into applause. It felt strong and we all felt good. It felt like we had all accomplished something historic.”

But watching the film can be bittersweet, he said.

“Some of the people in the film have died since the original filming began. Some of the bands are no longer in existence as they appeared in the film. Band members have changed groups. Venues have changed ownership. Life is present in the documentary. It’s recorded, so there it is and it’s how we were for the whole year. It definitely rocks.”

A second screening of “Montezuma Rocks” is being planned to take place at Songbird Studio in Cortez in January. Check out Montezuma Rocks on Facebook for more information.

Fat bikes, that is! Enthusiasts say they can extend the cycling season

Reid Wright of Cortez, Colo., tries out a fat bike for the first time near Durango. He said the experience was “crazy fun.” The large tires of fat bikes allow users to ride atop snow. Coursey of Reid Wright

Mountain-bike lovers have typically mourned the day snow covers their favorite trail, doomed to wait until the weather warms and the trail emerges from the ice.

But, a growing number of mountain bikers have jumped on a new trend – fat bikes.

These bikes make typical mountain-bike tires look anemic. Most fat-bike tires have a width between four and five inches, making them appear more like a motorcycle tire than a bicycle.

But the big tires are making the local mountain- biking scene a year-round one and causing local public land agencies to take a hard look at this new form of winter recreation.

Three years ago, Bob Wright, 68, of Durango, bought his first fat bike and has loved the big tires ever since. He recently completed a snow ride above Durango.

“It’s harder work than mountain-biking, but less work than you would think,” he said. Wright said the trail has to be somewhat packed. “You can’t ride on fresh snow,” he said. “Breaking new trail is nearly impossible.”

But when you can find a packed trail, Wright said, the fat bikes can take you gliding over the snow at about the same speed as cross-country skiing.

Wright says he sticks to hiking trails and riding the tracks of snowmobiles.

Christ Bouton, trails manager with the San Juan National Forest Service, has been watching this new winter sport closely. Bikers have never ventured out in the snow before, leaving Bouton and others public-lands officials worrying over potential conflicts.

“It is kind of a large issue that has popped up recently across the west,” Bouton said. “I wouldn’t say there is a conflict, but it is a new thing.” The biggest concern, Bouton said, is that bikes will tear up some of the groomed cross-country ski trails. These trails, such as Chicken Creek near Mancos, are maintained by hard-working volunteers, and the fat bikes could tear up freshly groomed trails.

The International Mountain Bicycling Association discourages fat-bike users from using groomed cross-country ski areas, unless they specifically say they are allowed.

And locally, that is not the case.

“Right now, we are trying to discourage people from using the Chicken Creek area mostly out of respect for the volunteers who groom,” Bouton said.

Bouton thinks a better place for fat-bike users is hiking trails and trails used by snowmobiles. “It doesn’t impact [snowmobilers’] use. They aren’t looking for the smooth, clean surface skate skiers are looking for.”

Bouton said the Forest Service has also been working with local bike clubs and exploring the possibility of grooming an area near Boggy Draw just for fat bikes.

“You can groom with different equipment for fat bikes,” he said.

The track would be much narrower than that of a cross-country ski path.

But so far, fat-bike use in the winter hasn’t been officially addressed in any local publiclands management plans. States to the north such as Alaska, Wyoming and Montana saw the popularity of fat bikes long before this area did.

“It is just one of those new issues. Fat bikes are definitely increasing in popularity,” Bouton said.

For Wright, the fat bike holds a special place. He has found that not only are the bikes good over snow, but for riding in sandy canyons and just dealing with rocky terrain.

“You can ride at night,” he said. “You crash easier on a mountain bike because of the skinny tires. But a fat bike is much more sure-footed because of the fat tires.”

He enjoys the snow as often as he can.

“The most fun I’ve had on it is night riding on the snow during a full moon,” he said.

Commonly accepted fat-bike etiquette

The International Mountain Bicycling Association has issued the following guidelines for riding fat bikes:

Have wide tires — deep snow coverage may require tires wider than 3.5 inches. Tire pressure will often be less than 10 PSI.

You should have enough flotation that you can travel over snow without leaving a rut deeper than one inch, and sufficient traction that you are able to safely control your bike and ride in a straight line.

On groomed Nordic trails

• Only ride at ski areas that allow and encourage biking.

• Yield to all other users when riding. Skiers don’t have brakes, but you do!

• Ride on the firmest part of the track.

• Do not ride on or in the classic tracks.

• Leave room for skiers to pass (don’t ride side-by-side with all of your buddies blocking the full trail).

• Allow the track time to set up after grooming and before riding.

• Respect alternate-use days for bikers and skiers.

• Some areas require riding only a purpose- built fat bike, not any old mountain bike. There may be a minimum tire width.

• Be an ambassador for the sport: stay polite, educate other riders, discourage bad behavior and follow the rules.

• Help out by joining your local Nordic club. Consider donating money for trail grooming.

On snowmobile trails

• Use a front white blinker and rear red blinker at all times. Wear reflective material on both the front and rear of your body.

• Stay to the far right of the trail and yield to snowmobiles.

• Know and obey the rules of your local land manager. Understand that some trails may be on private property and might not be open to alternative uses.

• Be prepared. Winter travel in the backcountry requires carrying proper gear and dressing properly. Be self-sufficient!

• Use extreme caution when riding at night. Be visible and use the brightest lights you can find.

• Be friendly!

• Help out by supporting your local snowmobile club. Consider donating to trail grooming and maintenance efforts.

On natural terrain and in the backcountry

A fat bike can be the ultimate winter backcountry travel tool. Frozen conditions and minimal snow coverage (1-5 inches) mean access to areas that are impassable during warmer months. But just because you can ride somewhere doesn’t mean you should.

• Do not trespass! Obey ALL land-manager rules. Some parcels are closed to bikes whether you are riding on a trail or not.

• Do not ride through sensitive wildlife habitats. or disturb wildlife. Many species survive on minimal diets during winter. Stressors or the need to move quickly can deplete their energy stores.

• Learn safe ice travel. Riding on frozen water can be extremely dangerous. Is the ice thick enough? Take ice-fishing picks and rope when riding on lakes and rivers.

• Understand changing conditions. New snowfall or warming temperatures can make the return trip much more difficult. Tire tracks can be covered; hard snow can turn to slush, rivers can start to melt. Always know the forecast and be aware of how changing conditions might alter the safe passage of your route.

• Be prepared. Carry provisions.

• Make sure someone else knows where you are going and when you will return.

• Learn to share. Your tracks might attract others. “Your” route might not stay a secret for long.

It will be managed by the first wholly-owned Diné natural-resources company

Demonstrators gather outside Navajo Tribal Council chambers in Window Rock, Ariz., to protest the purchase of the Navajo Mine by the nation. Photo by Kris Barney

The people of the Navajo Nation got a big lump of coal for Christmas – but that’s a good thing, according to officials. However, critics say the deal was a bad one after all.

During a special session Dec. 27, the Navajo Nation Council in Window Rock, Ariz., voted for legislation that cleared a final hurdle for the acquisition of the Navajo Mine from BHP Billiton by the Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC), a newly formed enterprise, for $85 million.

In related developments, Arizona Public Service permanently shut three units at the Four Corners Power Plant, the sole buyer of coal from the nearby Navajo mine, and purchased the remaining two units from Southern California Edison, which had to divest itself of interests in the plant because California power companies can no longer have a coal-powered entity in their investment portfolios.

APS has said it will install additional emission controls on the two units to ameliorate pollution issues and bring the 43-year-old, 2,040-megawatt plant into compliance with federal clean-air standards.

By purchasing the remaining two units at a cost of $182 million. APS becomes majority owner of the power plant near Waterflow, N.M., which serves 300,000 households in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas.

In a telephone interview with the Free Press, Navajo Transitional Energy Company Chairman Steve Gunderson said, “This was the most complex transaction I have seen in the over 20 years I have been in the business,” referring to the simultaneous acquisitions of the two coal-related businesses – the Navajo Mine and Four Corners Power Plant – and the deal involving Arizona Public Service, BHP Billiton, The Navajo Nation and NTEC.

“No one single piece could be done without the other pieces,” he added.

The legislation passed by the council absolved BHP Billiton of “past, present and future” liabilities related to the mine and moved jurisdiction for any disputes off the Navajo Nation and into court systems in New Mexico and Arizona surrounding the reservation. Approval of the resolution, which waived sovereign immunity in the general-indemnity agreements with Zurich American Insurance Company and Arch Insurance Company, cleared the path for the mine’s acquisition.

The agreements were needed in order to issue the $220 million performance and reclamation bonds for the mine, as required by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining.

Another assurance guarantees that if the supply of coal from the Navajo Mine was interrupted for any reason, the power plant would be compensated for lack of performance by the mine.

“Due to the expertise of the mining company and the delivery system from the mine to the plant, there has never been an interruption in the coal production in the entire history of the mine operations,” Gunderson said.

“The reason we emphasize this reliable supply of coal is that it supports our vision for other activities. Take care of the reliability of the coal production and then the next steps will come.”

Wholly owned

The acquisition was made possible after the Navajo Nation created the Navajo Transitional Energy Corporation, LLC, in May 2013, the first natural-resource company wholly owned by the Navajo government. The company will manage and supply coal from the Navajo Mine to the Four Corners Power Plant through 2031.

The mine is projected to return about $4o million in revenues to the Navajo government each year, according to NTEC estimates.

Although the Navajo reservation is replete with coal and uranium, mining has always been done by outside companies in the past, resulting in mere royalty payments to the nation.

NTEC is also charged with creating economic opportunity, utilizing the nation’s renewable energy and coal resources and enhancing the ability of the Navajo Nation to manage its natural resources for the long-term benefit of its people and communities.

The Navajo Mine, which has been under threat of closure along with the Four Corners Power Plant, provides about 800 local jobs, 85 percent of which are held by Navajos. NTEC’s purchase of the mine and the APS purchase of the two remaining units at the power plant prevent the job loss that could have resulted from closure of the two facilities.

The continuing operation of the Navajo Mine will also maintain a critical income stream to the Navajo Nation.

New Mexico BHP Coal President Pat Risner stated in a press release, “BHP Billiton is pleased that the Four Corners Power Plant owners, the Navajo Nation and NTEC have agreed to move forward and worked with us to conclude this important transaction. This is great news for the employees, communities, and all stakeholders that derive benefits from Navajo Mine and the Four Corners Power Plant. This transaction represents an important economic development opportunity for the Navajo Nation and preserves critical jobs and revenue for the region until at least 2031.”

But opposition to the legislation led by grassroots organizations such as the environmental group Diné CARE brought the issue of sovereign immunity to the forefront during the past few months.

A sign outside Navajo Tribal Council chambers in Window Rock, Ariz., shows opposition to the purchase of the Navajo Mine. Photo by Kris Barney

Shiprock (N.M.) Chapter President Duane “Chili” Yazzie said his community expressed concern about the BHP waiver of liability. “To give BHP a blanket waiver on anything done here 60 years ago and into the future just doesn’t sit well with us,” he said in a telephone interview with the Free Press. “We have great concern about the aquifer, and the ash that is in pits that may already be percolating in the underground springs. They should not be excused. And will the Navajo Nation be paying for the reclamation issues they leave behind?”

Consequently the chapter passed a resolution in November, prior to the council discussion on the legislation, opposing the waiver of responsibility. It was sent along with a letter calling on Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn to investigate and make a determination of the past, present and future liability and reclamation issues.

Although at press time Yazzie had not received a reply to the chapter letter and resolution, he said, “I don’t fault them for not responding quickly. They are doing the necessary reviews and diligence on the subject, because we are calling on them to recognize their treaty responsibility to us.”

On Dec. 23, the Navajo Nation called a special session to vote on the waiver of immunity as included in the general indemnity agreements with the insurance bonds.

Yazzie sat in the visitors’ gallery with other leaders opposed to the waiver. At one point he stood up and yelled, “Out of order. This council is out of order,” saying it had not considered the people’s opinions. He refused to sit down and insisted on being heard. Although security responded, Yazzie remained standing, continuing to repeat the accusation. In response to the interruption, the council voted to table the legislation and called another special session to be held the Friday after Christmas.

Viral popularity

During the following three days, a video of Yazzie’s outburst in chambers went viral on the internet. Yazzie’s popularity with grassroots supporters grew during the week. He was presented as the “Man of the Hour” on web posters produced by the Facebook group “Grade Your Council Delegate,” as he called for opposition to show up in Window Rock at the next session. As a result, about 70 Diné in opposition to the waiver of sovereign immunity gathered in council chambers to hear the discussion and witness the vote.

“We showed our objection to the Council’s decision on the selling-out of our Sovereignty,” Yazzie later wrote and posted on the internet, but there were as many workers in support of the acquisition bused in, or, he claimed, “who had their gas paid for by BHP and APS. One thing I am certain of is that there were probably more police officers in the immediate area than either of our groups.”

A good number of the officers were dressed in full riot gear, Yazzie said, and “on the ready for anything. This is the typical response of the tribal government whenever a threat is perceived. If we asked, we would be told they were there to maintain law and order. Maybe so, but we were the targeted threat. The police officers would have been told we were the troublemakers, the bad guys.

“Overall they were respectful and professional; they were just doing their jobs as they are ordered to. I shook their hands, even the ones that just glared at me.”

The chamber visitors’ gallery filled that day with supporters of the waiver as well as the opposition. Late in the day, the vote was called on the bill, sponsored by Lorenzo Bates. It passed 17-5.

‘Transformational’

Gunderson called the acquisition “transformational.”

“A change on this scale in how we do business is historic,” he said. “Now the Navajo can hope to be an energy partner, not an energy colony. But like our name, the acquisition represents a transition from the old era of outside investors and old technology to the real benefit of sustainability – of being an investor, being the owner.”

Gunderson said there is possibly enough coal at the mine site to supply a power plant for 100 years.

In the coal industry, the Navajo Mine product is graded as “moderate heat content,” of lower quality than Black Mesa coal, also on the Navajo reservation. The power plant is specifically designed to optimize the energy it can produce from Navajo Mine coal.

“We cannot change that,” Gunderson said. “We do not own the power plant. We own the coal mine. We have no say in that, but what we see happening is that cleancoal technologies are becoming more viable, more economically feasible on a utility scale.”

Gundersen added, “By acquiring the mine, the nation will be able to exert greater control over the management of its natural resources as both owner and landlord. It is the nation’s vision to become part of the solution to create a cleaner, more sustainable world. In support of this vision, NTEC is prepared to assist the Navajo Nation to transition its economy from one based on current coal-fired power-generation technologies to one based on clean-coal technologies as well as renewable energy.”

Energy in the future

The acquisition project was structured and negotiated over 18 months, resulting in the new Navajo business model, one that can be used for other energy-related, Navajo-owned projects. The new enterprise is business-based, not a political entity – a model for how tribes can conduct business.

“The difference in this project structure is that the Navajo Nation was willing to fund pre-development activities, including negotiations and feasibility studies, which they haven’t been able to do in the past. This step actually puts the Navajo in the driver’s seat,” said Gunderson.

Management of NTEC was established in May 2013. Board members, whose terms last one year and will expire this May, are charged with the authority for management of the business affairs, operations and functions of NTEC, and the additional responsibility of directing the 10 percent of annual net profits that will be put into a set-aside fund used to develop newer energy technology, said Gunderson.

He was asked about the five energy-transmission lines crossing the reservation and the possibility that a new line might be developed by NTEC. Space on the existing lines was available five years ago when the Gray Mountain Wind Farm was in its predevelopment stage. That project, and, Big Bo, another potential Navajo wind-farm project, have not materialized. Today, that window of transmission opportunity has vanished. The transmission lines are filled up with new energy projects, all located outside the Navajo Nation and none owned by the Navajo government.

Gunderson said that, as an example, the Navajo Transmission Project was put in place to transport the high-voltage connection from Desert Rock. In its planning stage it was intended to begin in the Four Corners region, near Burnham, N.M., on the reservation, and cross northwest into the area around Page, Ariz., then travel down the western side of the reservation toward Cameron, where five transmission lines already cross the tiny Navajo hamlet. Even though Desert Rock Power Plant was stopped, the transmission line is still on the boards. It could be resurrected again as a viable project, according to Gunderson. The licenses have expired but can be reapplied for and put back in place; they can be renewed.

BHP’s Risner explained that NTEC is borrowing the purchase money from BHP Billiton for the acquisition from the future profit generated by the mine. “NTEC will repay the loan from the profit generated from the mining operation.”

After the acquisition loans are retired, Gunderson said, “then we can begin the 10 percent investment in other technologies such as clean coal that will develop the Navajo Nation’s energy resources while maintaining respect for the Navajo Nation’s land, air, water, natural and economic resources.

“Our immediate objective is to remain a reliable supplier of coal to the Four Corners Power Plant. After assuring that primary objective is achieved, we will look to fulfilling our broader vision by exploring and investing in cleaner coal technologies for the betterment of our environment and to ensure long-term development of the coal and other energy resources of the Navajo Nation.”

The previous owner of the Navajo Mine, a subsidiary of BHP Billiton, will continue to manage, operate and maintain the coal mine until its contract ends in 2016.

Numerous protests filed over water, oil and gas, and other issues

A route considered a road by the Bureau of Land Management crosses a wash in the Silvey’s Pocket/Little Gypsum Valley area in this photo taken in 2013. The San Juan Citizens Alliance has taken issue with the use of such unmaintained roads to define wilderness in the final land-management plan released in fall 2013 by the San Juan National Forest and BLM Tres Rios Field Office. The alliance has filed objections to the plan. Courtesy of San Juan Citizens Alliance

Officials with the San Juan National Forest and BLM Tres Rios Field Office are hoping to have their sweeping new management plan in place by spring of this year, depending on the outcome of protests filed over different issues ranging from water matters to oil and gas leasing to how lands were analyzed for wilderness characteristics.

Montezuma, Dolores, San Miguel and La Plata counties all have filed appeals (to the Forest Service) or protests (to the BLM) over aspects of the plan, as have the Dolores Water Conservancy District and Southwestern Water Conservation District, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and the Colorado Water Congress.

And a slew of environmental nonprofits filed challenges as well.

The appeals and protests are to be analyzed by the agencies’ Washington, D.C., offices. Local offices help by providing information if needed.

“It will be mid-February when the protest response letters will be signed by the director of the BLM,” said Tres Rios Field Office Manager Connie Clementson. “Once those response letters are signed off on, we would modify the record of decision as needed.”

While many members of the general public – even those who visit area forest and BLM lands – may not ever read any part of the voluminous plan, its accompanying environmental impact statement, or its long appendices, it will have an effect on many aspects of where and how they interact with the 2.4 million acres managed by the San Juan National Forest and the Tres Rios Field Office.

“It gives us this over-arching direction for the next 20 years for land managers to provide that work on the ground. That’s why it’s an important document,” Clementson said.

When the planning process began in the early 2000s, the local BLM and Forest Service offices were combining many of their functions under an arrangement known as Service First. They have since ceased most of those joint operations, but the plan remains a joint effort.

“We did a joint plan, which is beneficial because we analyze the entire landscape together,” Clementson said.

“It’s quite different from the typical planning process,” said Mark Lambert, staff officer for planning and public service with the San Juan National Forest. He was project manager for the team that put the plan together.

“The main difference is this is a joint plan, so one of the principal things we tried to do is have more of a landscape view of planning,” Lambert said. “Every management decision or strategy that we propose, we took the larger landscape into account. This helped us be more comprehensive, which is a better strategy than looking at things with a microscopic view.”

But because two different agencies are involved, there were separate processes and timelines for appealing the plan. The BLM’s protest period ended in November, while the Forest Service appeal process ended on Dec. 19.

Clementson said she is “very proud of the plan and what we have in there and I think it provides us very good direction for the next planning period.”

Clementson said she is hoping the record of decision for the plan can be issued in early 2014, but it may be delayed because the BLM is confirming a new national director. In addition, clarifications or changes may need to be made as a result of the protests, or there may even be a need to amend the plan.

“It depends on if the change is substantive or not,” she said. “It may be as easy as saying something in the final record of decision, or it may be that the Washington office says the field office has to do additional analysis.”

Similarly, the Forest Service’s appeals are handled by its national office, which will decide if minor or more-substantive work needs to be done to the final product.

Creating the land and resource management plan has been a monumental task. The draft version was released in 2007, but its finalization was delayed because officials decided to add a new section on oil and gas development, believing that their information was outdated. The current version of the plan was released in September 2013. It will replace plans created separately in 1983 and 1985 for national-forest and BLM lands. Lambert said one change the public may actually notice as a result of the new plan is increased oil and gas leasing and development. “We basically had kind of a moratorium on leasing on the forest since around 2001 or so, and now that we’re done with our analysis, we’re basically back in business,” Lambert said. “So the public could see more leasing and subsequent development, but that is totally dependent on how fast industry wants to move, which is so hard to predict.”

Two dozen protests were filed on the BLM side, according to Clementson. Lambert said 11 appeals were filed with the Forest Service. Oil and gas development is one of the main issues that triggered complaints.

“Most of the issues that are brought forward take some thought and digging to figure out how to resolve them,” Lambert said. “The typical issues are not brand new – we have heard them before.”

Only people or groups who previously gave comments on the draft have standing to file appeals or protests.

The agencies make the protests/appeals public only after the responses to them have been written; however, many of the parties involved provided their documents to the Free Press.

The diversity and depth of the comments illustrate the complexity of the planning issues the agencies must handle. Here are just a few of the issues that were appealed or protested:

Native fish

The DWCD, along with Montezuma and Dolores counties, protested the number of native fish species that were designated as “outstandingly remarkable values” on the Dolores River in the final plan. While the issue may seem arcane, it is highly significant, according to an Oct. 10 protest letter signed by Mike Preston, general manager of the DWCD.

The draft management plan issued in 2007 listed just one native fish, the roundtail chub, as an ORV on the Dolores River from McPhee Dam to Bedrock, Colo. The final plan, however, added two more native species as ORVs: the flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker.

“The naming of these two additional native fish has the potential to put at risk Dolores Project water supplies and contracts. . .,” states the DWCD’s protest letter to the BLM director in Washington, D.C. Outstandingly remarkable values are named on stretches of river that have been proposed for protected status under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Dolores from McPhee to Bedrock was found by the public-lands agencies as “suitable” to become a wild and scenic river; however, such a designation can only be made by Congress or the Interior secretary.

But rivers that are found “suitable” for wild and scenic designation must be managed to protect their values, and the DWCD is concerned that protecting the two sucker species could require more water and more effort than protecting the roundtail chub.

The DWCD’s objection to naming the additional fish as ORVs is based on the fact that the roundtail chub is faring better than the two sucker species on the Dolores between McPhee and its confluence with the San Miguel River, whereas the suckers are relatively more plentiful downstream from the San Miguel.

All three species are declining in much of their historic range.

In an appendix to the management plan regarding wild and scenic rivers, agency officials wrote that the flannelmouth and bluehead suckers were added as ORVs based on comments received regarding the draft plan that said they should all be considered together, since the three species are the subject of a 2006 range-wide conservation agreement signed by six state wildlife agencies. Biologists say the three species tend to occur together.

But in its protest letter, the DWCD criticized the sudden addition of the two species, particularly in light of the fact that the Dolores River Dialogue, a local grassroots group, had created several sub-groups to work collaboratively on finding alternatives to wild and scenic river designation and improve the status of the native fish.

The DWCD letter called the BLM’s addition of the two species “potentially divisive” and said it showed “disrespect and disregard for the depth of the multi-party collaborative effort. . .”

The Montezuma County commissioners echoed the DWCD’s concern in their Oct. 10 protest letter to the BLM, writing, “The decision by the BLM Line officers to include the Flannelmouth and Bluehead suckers as ORVs is purely a ‘backdoor run’ to force more water out of McPhee Reservoir.” The commissioners also protested the finding that the Dolores River was “suitable” for wild and scenic designation.

“The WSR is intended to be used when no other conservation strategy is being considered to ensure protections of ORVs,” states the letter, signed by all three county commissioners. “In this case a valid conservation strategy is being developed with broad collaborative participation by stakeholders.”

Oil and gas

A coalition of conservation groups including the Western Environmental Law Center, Durango-based San Juan Citizens Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Earthworks, The Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain Wild, and Sheep Mountain Alliance – along with the San Miguel County Commission – filed a highly technical, 73- page protest related to concerns about the plan’s consideration of oil and gas development and its impacts on air and water quality as well as climate change.

The groups said the plan “failed to take a hard look at the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of oil and gas development” and voiced concern about the effects on air quality if an additional 2,900 wells are drilled on San Juan Public Lands in the next 15 years, as the plan’s section on oil and gas foresees.

The protest notes that there are six Class I areas in or near the San Juan Public Lands – areas designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as deserving special air-quality protection to maintain visibility. Those areas include Mesa Verde and Canyonlands national parks and the Weminuche Wilderness.

However, the plan fails to “fully and accurately evaluate the air quality impacts from the proposed development and does not include adequate enforceable mitigation measures to assure no adverse impacts on air quality will occur in the affected area,” the conservation groups wrote. They said that while the agencies “have taken a pioneering step forward” by including air-quality mitigation measures in the plan, “such measures do not go far enough.”

In addition, there were concerns about protecting water quality, according to Jimbo Buickerood, public-lands coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

He said the groups want to make sure the agencies require the industry to utilize best management practices regarding the handling of well bores, casings, liquids, naturally occurring radioactive materials, and other items related to energy development.

Buickerood said the plan and the new section on oil and gas contain much that is good, “but there are some other places they fell a bit short of what they could do.”

The conservation groups stated that the agencies – despite writing a separate appendix on a management strategy for climate change – did not offer adequate steps to deal with it. The appendix states that the average temperature in Southwest Colorado shows a warming trend of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, and more warming is predicted. It identifies a number of effects from the warming, including sudden aspen decline, piñon-pine die-offs, earlier snowmelt, and increased incidence of wildfire.

Despite that, the groups said, “the agencies back away from taking serious action to address impacts.” They argued that the plan underestimates the amount of greenhouse gases that would be released by the expected oil and gas development.

“BLM not only has the authority, but an obligation to address GHG emissions and methane waste,” the protest states. “Furthermore, the agencies must consider not only the cumulative impact of the GHG emissions authorized by the revised LRMP, it must also consider those emissions combined with other activity in the area.”

The groups called for “meaningful stipulations” to be attached to oil and gas leases, such as measures for better capturing methane emissions.

They also said the plan fails to adequately consider the impacts of oil and gas development – particularly hydraulic fracturing – on water resources and watersheds.

Wilderness and other land issues

Buickerood said a second protest filed by the environmental groups (but not including San Miguel County this time) involved primarily issues such as lands with wilderness characteristics, inventorying of roads and trails, and areas of critical environmental concern.

“For example, the agencies had never to our understanding and our looking at the situation completed their road inventory,” he said. “When you don’t have one, it’s difficult to assess lands with wilderness characteristics. For lands that are roadless, not surprisingly the boundaries are roads. We thought they’d done some of the work but they hadn’t. When you looked on the ground, it didn’t really match up, so we were really disappointed on this.”

The groups say the field office’s inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics didn’t comply with federal regulations. Inventories are supposed to identify areas that have no roads and that are larger than 5,000 acres (they can be smaller if they are adjacent to existing wilderness study areas). The inventory found a total of 20 units amounting to 109,484 acres.

However, the analysis was flawed because it relied on outdated road data and included roads that wouldn’t qualify as such under current rules, according to the protest.

The plan states that “most of the roads, primitive roads and trails located on BLM lands within the [field office] have not yet been fully inventoried or mapped,” the groups wrote. “The Tres Rios Field Office contains thousands of miles of roads and trails, many of which are relics of historic mining activity or other antiquated uses. Many of these historic routes are no longer being maintained and are largely reclaimed either naturally or through active reclamation. These reclaimed routes do not meet the definition of wilderness inventory roads. . . and as such should not be considered as boundaries to potential LWC [lands with wilderness characteristics] units nor as impacts on the wilderness characteristic of ‘apparent naturalness’” without on-the-ground investigation, they wrote.

“Because the TRFO road layer (GIS cataloged roads) includes countless roads that do not meet the definition of wilderness inventory roads, the initial GIS analysis excluded many areas from further detailed investigation that may appear ‘roaded’ by GIS, but in reality are either unroaded or include antiquated or relic roads that do not meet the criteria for wilderness inventory roads” as defined by the BLM, they wrote.

Another issue protested by the environmental groups involves areas of critical environmental concern, known as “ACECs” in the alphabet soup of acronyms used by the federal-land agencies. ACECs are areas where special management is required to protect “important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes,” according to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

The draft plan back in 2007 evaluated 22 areas as potential ACECs and found 11 areas met the criteria, but of those 11 areas, only four were evaluated for designation in the range of alternatives for the draft plan, the protest states.

“This clearly does not comply” with federal regulations, the protest states, because the agency is supposed “to fully consider for designation all areas that meet the relevance and importance criteria.” In addition, many of the areas found not to meet the criteria for ACECs were disqualified arbitrarily, the groups said.

“ACEC issues have been going on a long time because the agency never did enough work a long time ago to bring forward into the final plan many of the ACECs that had been nominated, some by ourselves and Rocky Mountain Wild,” Buickerood said. “We had this huge piece that was supposed to be in the plan and they never got the work done.

“They could say they’ll do it in a plan amendment, but looking at BLM’s track record in Farmington and here, unless there’s a hard timeline, we’re concerned it will never get done. We’re really interested in when they’re going to finish assessing ACECs as required by law.”

The protest also states that the agency failed to take a hard look at “direct, indirect and cumulative impacts” on the Gunnison sage grouse, a bird that has been proposed for endangered-species listing, that may occur as a result of management decisions made under the document.

Water issues

In addition to the native-fish concern, a number of entities including the Southwestern Water Conservation District, DWCD, state Department of Natural Resources, and Colorado Water Congress protested or appealed a provision in the plan calling for “minimum flow rates” to support habitat in streams “where native or desired non-native fish species occur, or should occur.”

They said this represented a major change from the draft plan, which had called for setting minimum flow rates only if solutions could not be found through collaborative efforts.

Even Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper weighed in on the matter. In a comment letter to the acting state director of the BLM, John Mehlhoff, Hickenlooper stated that sections of the final plan identifying standards for minimum stream flow and minimum reservoir levels “appear to be inconsistent with and contradictory to fundamental tenets of state water law” as well as a 2011 memorandum of understanding between the BLM and the Department of Natural Resources.

“The final [plan] includes non-discretionary ‘standards’ for ‘minimum flow rates’ to support habitat in streams where native or desired non-native fish species occur, ‘or should occur.’ The [plan’s] establishment of non-discretionary standards may conflict with Colorado’s system of prior appropriation, as well as the State’s laws governing the establishment of minimum instream flows,” Hickenlooper wrote.

In an appeal to the Forest Service, Mike King, executive director of the Department of Natural Resources, echoed Hickenlooper’s concerns and said the state “recommends that the USFS remove the [plan] provisions that establish standards for minimum stream flow and minimum reservoir levels” and work with the Colorado Water Conservation Board “to address any of USFS’s minimum stream flow needs.”

King said the state also recommends that the agency change the flow requirements from mandatory “standards” to “guidelines,” the term used in the draft plan.

In an appeal filed with the Forest Service, the DWCD called for an additional comment period on some of the water-related provisions of the plan, stating, “. . .the Plan includes significant revisions to the most controversial provisions governing water resources with almost no explanation of those changes and limited, non-substantive responses to comments. . . a ‘minimum flow’ guideline was changed to a standard with no explanation, concerns about requiring a ‘minimum flow’ under any guise were not seriously addressed, and ORVs were added to Wild and Scenic River suitability determinations with no genuine analysis or justification. The revisions to water resource revisions contravened the recommendations of local and state governmental entities and the Agencies’ own Roundtable.”

The revisions will have a significant impact on non-federal lands “by unlawfully restricting the exercise of water rights pursuant to state law and effectively prohibiting the development of new water projects on adjacent federal land,” the DWCD wrote. “Yet, there was no opportunity to comment on these final provisions.”

The Colorado Water Congress, which represents water interests in the state, wrote in its appeal that, “The bypass flow standard and minimum pool guideline would unilaterally undermine Colorado’s primacy over the allocation of water and are inconsistent” with various federal laws.

Once the various appeals and protests have been considered by the agencies’ Washington offices, they will decide how to respond to them and whether they necessitate any changes to the plan. Major changes might require more analysis and even amendments to the plan.

If protesters do not like the agencies’ response, they have no recourse other than to try to fight it in court.