A letter to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, regarding the critical need for further paleontological resource assessment at BLM’s “Community Pit #1” near Las Cruces, New Mexico.
March 7, 2024
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
New Mexico State Office
301 Dinosaur Trail
Santa Fe, NM 87508
Subject: The critical need for further paleontological resource assessment at BLM’s “Community Pit #1” near Las Cruces, New Mexico
To: U.S. Bureau of Land Management ‒ New Mexico State Office
On behalf of the approximately 1,500 members of the Paleontological Society (https://www.paleosoc.org/), we are writing today regarding the reclamation efforts at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)’s “Community Pit #1” near Las Cruces, New Mexico. These reclamation efforts, while stated to be necessary for ensuring public safety, are currently threatening highly significant fossiliferous beds with inestimable scientific value. This is a time-sensitive matter because our understanding is that the reclamation efforts using explosives are approaching the fossiliferous beds of the Robledo Mountains Formation. An article published in Ars Technica on February 8, 2024, summarizes the situation:
We have read the Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-NM-L000-2023-0028-EA), the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the Decision Record (found at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2024219/570 ). The Paleontological Society understands that public safety is the goal of the project, however safety objectives should be balanced with the potential scientific and educational aspects of the site in accordance the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) of 2009 that mandates the BLM manage paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) with scientific principles and expertise.
We are deeply concerned that significant impacts to the paleontological resources in the project area are not properly mitigated, and that crucial scientific information will be lost. Specifically, the Decision Record states: “Proposed action will impact paleontological resources within the Robledo Mountains Formation (red beds). However, monitoring of the red beds during impacting activities will reduce the effects by allowing for salvage and data collection of fossils, which would result in and increase scientific knowledge of geological history and past life of this formation.” However, the Environmental Assessment states that “effectiveness of this monitoring could be limited by the very small size of the fossils and potential human safety concerns on the hilltop during ripping operations.” while the FONSI states that monitoring “would potentially reduce impacts by salvaging some of the observed fossils.” It is extremely difficult to understand the findings of the FONSI and Decision Record given the contents of the Environmental Assessment.
Given this, the Paleontological Society wishes to inquire as to the status of the project currently. How are the paleontological resource design features in the Environmental Assessment and Decision Record being implemented such that they are the most effective? Most particularly, how is BLM protecting the scientifically significant paleontological resources while making the area safe for the public? We have attached a detailed list of questions to which we would appreciate receiving answers.
The Paleontological Society (PS) is a non-profit international scientific organization dedicated to “advancing knowledge and understanding of paleontology and life’s evolution through research, education, and advocacy, while supporting and championing a diversity of voices.” Our mission is “to advance the study of the fossil record through scientific research, education, and advocacy.” PS is greatly concerned about the ongoing, time-sensitive excavation and blasting at BLM’s “Community Pit #1,” which contains irreplaceable fossil specimens. The Paleontological Society was notified of the letter requesting public comment on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Community Pit No. 1 Safety Project, sent by the Las Cruces District Office and dated June 28, 2023, only a few days ago, prompting our immediate response.
Among other significant fossils, this locality preserves traces of horseshoe crabs and provides rare evidence of the ecology of the group during the Early Permian. This record of their behavior and preferred environment during the Permian is important for determining how horseshoe crabs survived the mass extinction at the end of the Permian and may provide useful information for their modern conservation (Dr. J. Lamsdell, pers. comm 2024; expert on horseshoe crab fossils). Perhaps most significant of all fossils at this site is the discovery of Permian jellyfish (Dr. S. G. Lucas, pers. comm. 2024; paleontological expert). These are extremely rare and delicate fossils and Community Pit #1 is the only known location of jellyfish and horseshoe crab traces in New Mexico. All attempts should be made to preserve and protect these very rare and irreplaceable fossils.
Paleontological resources of all kinds are nonrenewable and irreplaceable once destroyed. Before, during, and after commencing blasting, it is important to collect as much material in place as possible that could preserve critical scientific documentation. The PS asserts that a detailed plan needed to be developed and implemented prior to onset of remediation and reclamation. A program focusing only on the collection of specimens uncovered during remediation and reclamation activities is clearly far less than ideal. Even with a program to collect fossil specimens uncovered during this work, the destruction of the rock exposures would severely limit or eliminate opportunities for future collecting to facilitate valuable scientific research at this site.
An important approach to acknowledge both pit wall safety and essential scientific concerns could be to blast “backward,” resulting in a terraced or stepped slope away from the present mine wall, preserving rock exposures at all levels instead of creating a scientifically and educationally useless slope of rubble. In this way, the reclamation process itself could be used to uncover previously unknown features and deposits that could otherwise disappear before they can be studied. But collecting specimens from the rubble only is clearly not the most responsible option, scientifically.
We strongly encourage the BLM, once the process of making the site safe for the public and properly ensuring that scientifically significant paleontological resources are protected, to consider converting “Community Pit #1” to a showcase for the public of traces of fossil marine organisms — something similar to, and to complement well, BLM’s Prehistoric Trackways National Monument (https://www.blm.gov/visit/ptnm) that primarily preserves traces of fossil terrestrial organisms. In addition to the potential for future paleontological research, consideration should be given to establishing onsite outdoor educational facilities such as these. We recognize that dedicated funding is required to construct such exhibits, and we strongly encourage BLM to prioritize plans to develop facilities of this sort at this particular site in accordance with PRPA “to increase public awareness about the significance of paleontological resources.” We hope that it is still possible to use this opportunity of well-considered blasting of the rock face to develop outdoor exhibits of all fossils — invertebrate, vertebrate, and plant; body fossils and trace fossils — all of which have great scientific value.
Questions concerning our letter and comments should be addressed to any one of us. Thank you in advance for this time-sensitive consideration.
Yours sincerely,
PS President Anne Raymond
PS President-Elect Rowan Lockwood
PS Past-President William DiMichele
PS Collections Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee: Don Mikulic, Jessica Cundiff, Josh Lively, Stephanie Plaza-Torres, Lee Cone, Carmi Thompson, Sandra Carlson ([email protected])
cc:
Melanie Barnes (State Director: [email protected])
Sheila Hutcherson (Associate State Director: [email protected])
Minerva Anderson (Deputy State Director, External Affairs: [email protected])
Michael Gibson (Acting Deputy State Director, Minerals: [email protected])
Laura Hronec (Deputy State Director, Resources: [email protected])
Jeff Brown (Deputy State Director, Support Services: [email protected])
Scott Cooke (District Manager, Las Cruces District Office: [email protected])
Colin Dunn mailto:[email protected]
Philip Gensler mailto:[email protected]
Scott Foss mailto:[email protected]
Sen. Jeff Steinborn [email protected]
Rep. Joanne Ferrary [email protected]
Rep. Doreen Gallegos [email protected]
Rep. Angelica Rubio [email protected]
Rep. Nathan Small [email protected]
Franklin Martinez, Director, Acoma Dept. of Natural Resources
Donna Martinez, Environment Coordinator, Acoma Dept. of Natural Resources
Margaret Lewis (SVP: [email protected])
Kenshu Shimada (SVP: [email protected])
Stuart Sumida (SVP: [email protected])
Questions from the Paleontological Society regarding the
Environmental Assessment of Community Pit No. 1 Safety Project (dated July 2023)
Section 1.4. Relationship to Statutes and Regulations.
We note that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended does not explicitly list “paleontological” as one value of the public land whose quality is to be managed and protected. However, it does state that “the quality of scientific” values be protected.
- Given the high scientific value of the fossils present in the project area, how is the BLM implementing FLPMA to protect this resource before, during, and after the project?
Section 2.1. Proposed Action.
The proposed action describes the project details to include that the shallow pits and highwalls will be removed by “blasting the limestone cap rock and ripping the softer sandstone, siltstone, and shale (red beds) below the cap for backfilling. Up to 100 feet of the limestone cap and red beds would be removed from below the elevation highpoint of the limestone cap.” Throughout the Environmental Assessment, FONSI, and Decision Record, the “limestone cap” is defined as the Apache Dam Formation and the “red beds” defined as the Robledo Mountains Formation. The Robledo Mountains Formation contains the fossils of greatest interest to the PS – the horseshoe crabs and jellyfish trace fossils. It is our understanding that while the rocks above the “100 feet …below the elevation highpoint of the limestone cap” will be removed by blasting and ripping—this is extremely disturbing to the PS— the rocks below this line would only be subject to impacts from recontouring.
- What is the BLM doing to ensure that fossiliferous beds of the Robledo Mountains Formation are not blasted or ripped below the “100 feet …below the elevation highpoint of the limestone cap”?
- How is the BLM going to assure that fossiliferous beds that exist below the “100 feet …below the elevation highpoint of the limestone cap” will be protected during recontouring? The PS would like to know the process that the BLM plans to follow to ensure their preservation. The PS notes that on page 31 of the Environmental Assessment, the BLM states that blasting “could damage or destroy most of any fossils present” and that the Robledo Mountains Formation “would not be blasted directly.”
Paleontological Resources Design Features:
A. Concerning reconnaissance “prior to blasting and ground disturbance”
- What will (or what did) reconnaissance of the site consist of?
- Were any fossils discovered?
- Was a report prepared following the reconnaissance process? If so, can it be accessed by the public (e.g. for future scientific research)?
- How were “paleontological resources documented” at the site (page 23).
B. Concerning “monitoring for paleontological resources would be conducted during remediation and reclamation activities”
- What does “monitoring of the site for paleontological resources” consist of? We note that the Environmental Assessment mentions on page 32 “Monitoring and data collection could include: pre-work stratigraphic and fossil locality ground-truthing and reconnaissance, collection and curation of physical specimens, digital capture (e.g., photogrammetry, 3D scanning) of specimens not physically collected.” The PS would like to know in some detail what the actual monitoring process consists of.
C: Concerning reconnaissance and monitoring at the “direction of the Authorized Officer”
- Does the Authorized Officer defer to the staff paleontologist for the needs of the reconnaissance and monitoring?
D. Concerning the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
- Did this training occur and when?
- What exactly is told to the operators/workers in the training process?
- Are they trained to look for small invertebrate fossil traces that are harder to detect on visual inspection alone? If so, how are they trained?
E. Concerning the Paleontological Resource Discovery
- Given the small size of the fossils present at the site, how does the BLM expect the equipment operators to see the fossils and know to stop working?
F. Concerning the Voigt Excavation area
- Was the Voigt Excavation locality (at the NW corner of the site) flagged, as indicated on page 14? If so, when did the flagging occur, and has the area not been disturbed?
- According to Figure 5 of the EA, both the Apache Dam Formation and Robledo Mountains Formation are present in the NW corner of the project area. Will this limestone cap also be blasted? Fossils have been reported in the red bed layer all around and underneath the limestone cap (page 28), but the removal of 100 vertical feet of limestone cap and red beds at the NW corner of the site are not mentioned in the EA report. The PS would like assurance that they will not be removed, as the EA states that “the entire stratigraphic layer is fossil-rich.” (page 23)
Section 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed
Section 2 of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 listed in the Environmental Assessment (section 1.4) and in the Decision Record (IV Authorities) reads: “The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage … (4) the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.” The PS notes that any method beyond blasting and ripping was not explicitly stated in the Environmental Assessment.
- Did the BLM consider other reclamation methods, such as terracing, during the writing of the EA?
- If not, for what reasons?
- If so, why was it dismissed but not mentioned?
Section 3.4 Paleontological Resources
A. Were the indicators measured and documented, beyond the data recorded previously by BLM LCDO paleontologists? And when were those data recorded originally?
B. On pages 26–27 of the EA, it states “Lerner and Lucas (2015) described an exception to this rule, a unique and spatially limited marine or tidally influenced depositional environment in the uppermost red beds at the top of the measured Community Pit Stratigraphic Section and in related red beds adjacent to the Community Pit No. 1 Project Area. This tidal flat paleoenvironment preserved a unique collection of trace fossils (both vertebrate and invertebrate) that are rarely, or totally lacking, from the rest of the Robledo Mountains Formation.” Fossils (well-documented) from this tidal-flat paleoenvironment are those of greatest concern to the PS: “the most diverse ichnofauna of Paleozoic age in the world” (Lucas et al., 1994), and that “most of the trace fossils reported from the Selenichnites ichnoassociation are extremely rare in the rest of the Robledo Mountains Formation; they are only found in the Community Pit No. 1 Project Area and an adjacent locality.” Other marine fossils, somewhat more commonly found elsewhere, also occur here (Kues, 1995), but are valuable to protect and preserve as well.
Section 3.4.2. Environmental Impacts
Robledo Mountains Formation.
A. “While the red beds would not be blasted directly” This is particularly important to establish as the most significant fossil layer occurs only “four feet below the bottom of the limestone cap.” It is difficult to understand how they would not be blasted (and destroyed) also when the limestone cap is blasted.
- What is the BLM doing to ensure the Robledo Mountains Formation is not blasted directly? As the EA states, the ripping and pushing “would damage the fossils and reduce their scientific value.” This is clearly of concern to the PS.
B. “Future research within these 10-acres would be limited to the remaining 2-acres that are outside of the Community Pit No. 1 Project Area.” as “all 8-acres of the Selenichnites ichnoassociation within the Community Pit No. 1 Project Area would be impacted, either by removal or burial, which is ~80% (8/10 acres) of the layer known to exist.” This loss will obviously greatly limit the scope of scientific research that can be accomplished at or near this site.
C. Photogrammetry and 3D scanning is unlikely to “preserve the [full] scientific value of these fossils”.
- How does the BLM anticipate that the monitoring on site will be effective?
- What is the scale and scope of the monitoring and collecting, both temporally and spatially?
D. “Future proactive paleontological resource inventories . . . may discover additional locations of the Selenichnites ichnoassociation.” But that “the discovery of additional localities containing these scarce paleontological resources in not guaranteed or likely based on previous surveys and known stratigraphic composition of the Formation.”
- Have the resources been fully inventoried at this point in time?
- Have other fossils been found since the initial inventory?
- Have future inventories (“that are reasonably foreseeable”) been planned, and if so, when will they occur?
- How will any impacts on scientific value that are detected be evaluated and mitigated?
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination
The Paleontological Society strongly supports the statement from the Pueblo of Acoma that “requested it be known that commonly, paleontological resources are overlooked as resources that may have cultural value or other importance to Tribal nations.”