Dear Elizabeth Verdecchia, My name is Iohn Moen and I am president of a wildlife conservation group that has for 22 years worked to educate sportsmen about ethical hunting. We have been informed that the river between Radium Springs and Shalem Colony might be closed to hunting, We think this area should be considered as just another part of the river system. No special status should be given to this area. The New Mexico Game Fish Department has guidelines in place for hunting in the county for proper distances from homes and business's. Our organization has over 200 members. 2 Dear Ms. Verdeochia I am to you concerning the proposal to allow hunting on land lrom the shalem Colony bndge north to the Leasburg Dam. I grew up at 8406 Rocky Acres Trail, --are my parents. My lamily has owned that property since 1935 when my great grandlalher purchased it. we have atways had a problem with hunters in that area. Most ol the time they would hunt on the east side oi the river and shoot west toward our property. The danger in that situation is obvious. Olten hunters would Corrie across the river when itwas low enough and we would encounter them on the road that parallels the Flobledo mountains and leads to our propeny. The were usually not cordial and we were otlen threatened. Now that the river is dry tor most oi the year the problems have only Locks to gates are trequently cut or the gates are damaged when drlvers push them open with their vehicles. I'm sure the incidents are too numerous to count when added together with our neighbors on both sides of lhe rlver. No Trespassing and No Hunting signs have never been very ellectlve on either slde ol the river, they usually are shot lull ol holes or just torn down. This proposal presents a senous salety ooncern lorthe residents Dt this area that tar outweighs the vmrlis ot a small group oi hunters. There ls plenty at land New Mexico that ls available to hunt on. I ask that proposal be amended arid that this area will remain oil limits. Thank you tor yourliine. Respectiullyg .1 3 Dear Elizaoelh. I am thrilled to know that you are considering opening up three areas to bird hunting along the Rio Grande. lam particularly interested in the is mile segment below the Dam. Please do so. Thank you. senliian nty il>ao 4 international Boundary and Water commission, thank you tor proposing to allow hunting on IEWC lands 'in the lower Rio Grande llood plain. on the levee Is one 01 the best their is tor people who cant altord a hunting lease or have no Idea were to water on public land so its great to know that can always hunt on the levee please open it up it will create more hunting opportunity for me and other hunters thank you Marco Arzola 5 I say NO! to bird hunting along the Rio Grande. Why? Birds must be unsafe in their habitat just because humans love the thrill of killing, love talking about killing, and bonding in the wild with their friends! I say NO! to bird hunting, making it unsafe for those who enjoy being out in the wild risk the threat of being shot at by the hunter. I say NO! Hunters will trample down vegetation, litter, and frighten other wildlife in the process of hunting. I say NO! and ask my friends to do the same. Much happiness to you, 6 I would like to support the proposal to allow hunting on IBWC property along the Rio Grande. I also support, in general, the hunting areas developed by the New Mexico Fish and Game Department. That includes allowing hunting between Leasburg Dam and Shalem Colony Road. I am a property owner in this stretch of the river. I have a farm on the west side of the river about a mile below the Rio Grande Bridge at Radium Springs. This stretch (from Leasburg Dam to Shalem Colony bridge) is lightly populated and legal bird hunting should pose no threat to anyone living there. As stated many times, there is a distinct difference between legal hunting of gamebirds (mostly doves) in season and the use of IBWC property for target practice and other shooting activities. The former is a regulated and defined activity using only shotguns and occurring during specified times and hours. The latter is an unregulated and illegal activity often carried out by irresponsible shooters. To lump these activities together and call them hunting by opponents of hunting is simply not correct. I also believe there should be better response by law enforcement to reports of illegal gunfire. I would also recommend extending the northern boundary.I think that legal hunting should be permitted from the southern boundary of Percha Dam State Park on south. Again this stretch has very few houses anywhere near the river and legal hunting should pose no threat to anyone or their property. I would also recommend that the southern boundary be set at the boundary of the Anthony Country Club. Remembering that it is illegal to discharge any firearm while hunting within 150 yds of a dwelling, I see no reason to exclude the stretch from the bridge at Berino to the Country Club. Thank you for your attention. 7 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. As an avid waterfowl and game bird hunter I would very much like to see hunting allowed on the river. There is no place else nearby to hunt waterfowl and I personally cannot afford to travel very far to hunt. I am sure I am not alone in that respect! I have already been locked out of my favorite elk area by a rancher and have seen the rest of my bird areas swaowed up by development. If my waterfowl hunting goes too I am seriously considering moving to another state. Please consider the many people like myself in making your decision. Thank you 8 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I've read the proposal and I agree with it. You should allow hunting down there. I've been looking for someplace near Las Cruces to dove hunt but didn't think hunting was allowed around the Rio Grande. I find your proposal reasonable and I hope you have time next year to propose opening up that canyon you said you couldn't do an assessment on this year. 2 9 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, Please see my attached comments about the proposal to allow hunting along the Rio Grande, specifically the middle section from Shalem Colony to the Highway 185 Bridge. I hope you will give serious consideration to my thoughts, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Sincerely, August 20, 2013 Elizabeth Verdecchia 4171 N. Mesa C100 El Paso, TX 79902 elizabeth.verdecchia@ibwc.gov Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposal to open up the Rio Grande corridor from Shalem Colony to the Highway 185 Bridge to avian hunting. While I am somewhat familiar with the other two sections being proposed, I live adjacent to the Shalem Colony-Highway 185 section and it is this middle section about which I am chiefly concerned. I first learned of the proposal from an acquaintance of an acquaintance, which in itself is problematic as we did not have the full month to consider the many ramifications before our comments are due. While I appreciated the opportunity to meet with Sheryl Franklin at Joan Smith’s home to discuss some of the issues involved, why weren’t all residents living adjacent to the levee or floodplain formally notified about this proposal, which could impact our lives substantially? Right away I was taken aback that IBWC would even contemplate officially opening up this stretch of river to hunting because of the large number of houses very close to the river or levee, with more being built literally as I write this (opposite Hill-Lujan Road). A quick check of Google Earth revealed at least 44 homes or major structures within 450’ of the river’s edge and 76 within 450’ of the levee along this stretch. That’s a huge number of people residing within the proposed firing range, and that doesn’t even account for the people, pets, and livestock that may be present in their yards that are within those ranges or closer! Compounding the proximity problem is lack of visibility in some places, such as in the dry riverbed, where vegetation along the banks obscures the view of whomever else might be walking along the river or recreating in the floodplain. Even from the floodplain, the tall height of the new levee makes it difficult to see people on the other side and trees often obscure structures. Even careful, responsible sportsmen would have difficulty both concentrating on their quarry and paying attention to what residents might be doing in their yards or where other recreating visitors might be in the floodplain (bird watching, dog walking, jogging, horseback riding, and picnicking). Less careful or responsible hunters would present a significant potential danger. Both my husband and I have spoken to parties on occasion to ask them to move to a less populated area, and once were challenged by a pair that insisted they had the right to shoot wherever they pleased, that the 150-yard buffer “only applied in the city.” Promoting legal hunting here will only increase this type of unwelcome confrontation. In addition to the danger from stray shot or bullets, we residents would be subjected to several important nuisance issues. Where I live, on Ironshoe Road, is usually a relatively quiet part of the valley, but any loud sounds are amplified by echoing off the cliffs of the Robledo Mountains so noise from gunshots – 3 including target shooting – would be considerable. Because of the newly surfaced levee vehicles now speed by at 40-60 miles per hour, so increased traffic would result in that much more vehicle noise and dust being raised and coating our properties. There would also be increased noise from ATVs driving up and down the riverbed, as some are already doing now that the water is low again. More trash – including spent shells, field dressing remains, carcasses, and beer cans – will be a given; we already encounter these regularly now. Trash cans at either end might help mitigate the garbage left in the immediate vicinity but would not adequately accommodate the vast middle. 4 On a personal level, opening up this stretch of the river to hunting would fundamentally and negatively impact my quality of life. During the several months of open season I would no longer feel comfortable walking along the river almost daily as I do now, because of the issues of visibility I described above – and blaze orange wouldn’t make a bit of difference in many locations along this stretch. Most importantly, I wouldn’t feel very safe working in my yard either, and since we own and operate a plant nursery it’s next to impossible not to be working in the yard at any given time. I am also afraid for the wildlife (both target and non-target species), which has been acutely stressed by the continuing drought and low river levels the past few years. My husband and I moved here 11½ years ago primarily because of the rich bird diversity along this stretch of river, and in that time have seen nearly 250 different species just from our yard. I have also performed both point and traveling bird surveys for Mesilla Valley Audubon Society at Broad Canyon Ranch (Selden Canyon) for several years, in addition to the informal surveys that I do on my regular walks along the river here. This past year, when the Rio Grande was largely dry from Hatch southward, the occasional pools south of Leasburg Dam that were fed by the springs there supplied critical habitat for ducks, herons, egrets, rails, shorebirds, and kingfishers. These pools continued to occur southward to just north of Hope Road, persisted through winter, and because they were more substantial supported a wider array of wildlife than did the few lingering Selden Canyon pools. By early spring Snowy Egrets and Belted Kingfishers could be seen fighting over the remaining fish in the pools opposite our place, indicating dire circumstances indeed, and sometimes I felt guilty even walking along the river, knowing that I would likely flush a desperate bird. In such extreme drought conditions alternative water sources are slim to none – it’s not like the birds can simply relocate to another pond or playa or stretch of river because most or all are bone dry. Putting additional pressure on these birds, whether target species or not, seems unconscionable. On multiple occasions in the past we have observed unsportsmanlike “hunters” driving along the river and jumping ducks, but with little water in the river such folks will likely now be on ATVs in the riverbed doing the same thing; more of such behavior will amount to harassment very quickly. Even the most careful of sportsmen will not be able to avoid spooking the non-target wildlife and that could have a lasting and detrimental impact to the resident bird life long after the hunting season has ended. I urge you to drop this section of river corridor from consideration, at least for now during what appears to be our new normal of severe drought, and focus instead on one or both of the other sections where many fewer people reside and the habitat is less unique and critical. I thank you for the opportunity to comment and hope that you will give my thoughts your careful consideration. Sincerely, 10 I find it refreshing that an agency is willing to collaborate with the local sportsman/ agencies and come up with a plan that allows access. Thanks for your support. Go IBWC! I for one leave an area better than I found it! Take care, 11 Not sure how or why you feel this is a good idea. I have lived in Las Cruces for more than fifty years, and for you to propose hunting in these areas at this time is ridiculous, there are to many houses that have been built in these areas and to allow hunting along the Rio Grande in these areas is not safe. I do not live in the area but I have family that does. If someone is hurt I would hold the acency that allowed the hunting responsible. Where is the common sense ? 5 12 I am in favor of continuing to allow hunting along the river near Shalem Colony. The people who live there choose to build there, knowing that people hunted in the area. These are newcomers who try to influence the way of life for us just because they do not like something. I have been hunting there since I was a kid, and I am 65 years old...Please do not listen to a couple of mal-contents...vote yes to allow hunting. thanks pete 13 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: In reading our Sun News this morning our family was appalled at the possibility of legal hunting along the Rio Grande, especially on North Valley where there are so many residents and community activities taking place. My daughter and her friends like to raft the Rio and have taken "schrapnal" from people shooting guns during dove season. The fact that children cannot play in their own yards and that folks need to be afraid to sleep in their own homes is ludicrous. Please do not allow this to happen. Thank you for taking your time to read this and we sincerely believe you will do what is right for the people who do not want hunters along our river. 14 Dear Elizabeth, My name is Grace Goeglein and I live along North Valley, between Shalem Colony and the Leasburg dam. I am extremely concerned about the hunting that is being proposed in this area because I run along the river several times a week with my dogs. I also live on the west side of Valley Road making my house an easy target for shooting. I have two horses as well as my three dogs that also spend most of their time outside. I don’t want to feel unsafe in my own front yard, or even house. I feel strongly about this matter and am hoping others can see it the way I do. Please consider my viewpoint and alert me if there is anything I can do to keep this from being passed. Thank you for your time, 15 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To whom it may concern, I am suprised to learn that areas along the Rio Grande that I grew up hunting for doves, quail, and especially waterfowl were posted last year with "No hunting Signs". I moved away a year ago, but plan to return to Las Cruces each fall for dove and waterfowl hunting trips with my family. I had always considered the river as public property. To hear that it is not regarded as such is a suprise, but more especially to now hear that I am not allow to hunt those areas that I have hunted for the past 5 years...? I didn't know that such a restriction was possible. My family and I have always hunted these areas responsibly and ethically, and have always picked up the trash of others in an effort to leave things better than we found them. I would plead with you to allow hunting to continue along those poritons of the river that are being proposed, and have honestly been open to hunting for centuries. I do intend to travel down to Las Cruces each fall to hunt doves, and each winter to hunt waterfowl with my kids, as I have always done. 16 PROPOSED HUNTING IN DONA ANA COUNTY from Shalem Colony to Leasburg Dam This is NOT a good idea to allow hunting of birds, etc. in that corridor along the dried up Rio Grande River. There are way two many houses in the vicinity and the danger posed to residences in the area is far too great to allow hunting there! Please make certain this does not happen. 6 17 I just wanted to send a short note in support of the hunting corridors proposed by the IBWC along the Rio Grande. I have noted some opposition to an area from Leasburg Dam to Shalem Colony Trail. While I am sympathetic to the home owners in the area, I believe there are not enough home sites to exclude this area from bird hunting. The illegal shooting that already takes place will continue no matter what regulations are put in place. This should not penalize responsible hunters who will abide by all regulations already in place. Again, count me in as one of those who support the proposed hunting corridors. Respectfully, 18 Hi Elizabeth, Please do not allow any kind of bird hunting (or other hunting), along parts of the Rio Grande. There are so many houses & businesses that are in the area you proposed, that it would be insane to allow hunting to happen. Eventually, someone would be shot. It's a crazy idea. There is enough hunting in Las Cruces & the surrounding areas anyway. 19 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am writing in reference to the proposed hunting along the Rio Grande. This will be in close proximity to my home. My husband and I just relocated to this area from El Paso. We built our dream home to retire in and now after living here for a month we find out that hunting may be approved. Our home is close to the levee as well as many other homes and we are opposed to this proposal. Please consider the safety of others. If the proposed hunting was in an area that was secluded it would make sense, but too many people reside close to the river. I fear for our safety, the safety of my pets and my property. Please decline this request allowing avian hunting in our area. Thank you for your consideration, 20 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposal to allow hunting on the upper Rio Grande. My name is Scott Stevenson and I have lived at 225 Hwy. 189, Vado NM for more than thirty years. I have always been a good steward of the levee area and always helped out the local maintenance crews by repainting the gate, repairing the signs and picking up trash weekly. I have always had serious trouble with hunters who have littered excessively, shot up up the signs, destroyed the levee slopes and river banks by driving all manner of vehicles everywhere including in the river bed itself. This year the river bed is dry due to the drought and we are experiencing reckless people ( and hunters) on ATVs and motorcycles racing up and down the levee road and in the river bed. Every year that I have lived here, in the opening days of dove season we get about twenty to thirty hunting parties who absolutely slaughter the birds with no respect for bag limits or daylight hours. There will be literally thousands of spent shells just laying on the levee road. Many many birds are not found and many more are just left in piles, not cleaned and taken for food but just slaughtered for sport. Alcohol is almost always involved. My specific area of concerne is from the Vado bridge on Hwy. 189 south to the Berino bridge. Please, please include this area in the exclusionary (no hunting) zone. My house has been shot repeatedly as have those of my neighbors. There are five families on the area from the Vado bridge south one mile to the gate. Hunters are organized and supported by the Game and Fish dept. because they represent a monetary income to the state. Nobody represents the local landowner and wildlife except possibly you. PLEASE 7 HELP Dear Ms. Franklin: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposal to allow hunting on the upper Rio Grande. My name is Scott Stevenson and I have lived at 225 Hwy. 189, Vado NM for more than thirty years. I have always been a good steward of the levee area and always helped out the local maintenance crews by re-painting the gate, repairing the signs and picking up trash weekly. I have always had serious trouble with hunters who have littered excessively, shot up up the signs, destroyed the levee slopes and river banks by driving all manner of vehicles everywhere including in the river bed itself. This year the river bed is dry due to the drought and we are experiencing reckless people (and hunters) on ATVs and motorcycles racing up and down the levee road and in the river bed. Every year that I have lived here, in the opening days of dove season we get about twenty to thirty hunting parties who absolutely slaughter the birds with no respect for bag limits or daylight hours. There will be literally thousands of spent shells just laying on the levee road. Many many birds are not found and many more are just left in piles, not cleaned and taken for food but just slaughtered for sport. Alcohol is almost always involved. My specific area of concerne is from the Vado bridge on Hwy. 189 south to the Berino bridge. Please, please include this area in the exclusionary (no hunting) zone. My house has been shot repeatedly as have those of my neighbors. There are five families on the area from the Vado bridge south one mile to the gate. Hunters are organized and supported by the Game and Fish dept. because they represent a monetary income to the state. Nobody represents the local landowner and wildlife except possibly you. PLEASE HELP 21 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I am a hunter that wants to continue the bird hunting tradition and opportunity along the lower Rio Grande. 22 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, While the City of Las Cruces does not extend into the area about which you are requesting comment, I do feel compelled to offer some points in support of leaving hunting and shooting of any kind illegal along the Rio Grande between the Shalem Colony Trail bridge and Leasburg Dam: 1. General respect for the law is compromised when the main reason for changing any law is that 8 "people are breaking it anyway." It is almost an invitation to break laws we find inconvenient because the pervasive attitude becomes "by breaking them we make them go away." 2. Respect for human life and safety in our area would also seem to be compromised by giving the impression that the right to hunt outweighs the right to feel safe in one's home. The sound of gunshots nearby does not help most people feel safe. Any kind of shot whistling past one's head or lodging into one's property is far from comforting, and I have heard reports of both in that area. 3. A number of people use the areas along both sides of the Rio Grande just north of the Shalem Colony Trail bridge for recreation. People picnic along the sides of the river, go swimming in the river (when there is water), and play in the river bed (when there is little or none). To legalize shooting in the area is to invite a greater likelihood that someone will be shot there, even if only by accident. 4. Several roads run close to the river in the proposed area. Most obviously, the Shalem Colony Trail bridge, by becoming the southern boundary, also becomes an inadvertent recipient of gunfire as hunters intent on following the flight of their targets lose sight of things like bridges, and vehicles and people on those bridges. North of Shalem Colony, Rocky Acres Trail runs close to the river on the west, and farther north, Valley Drive and other neighborhood roads on the east are also too close to be entirely safe from gunfire near the river. 5. Those who have homes near the river are already there, and they built or purchased their homes when hunting has been illegal. It would be one thing to say they chose to live there knowing that hunting would be occurring; quite another to say the rules have now changed. I realize that this question stems largely from the fact that hunting illegally has already been occurring along the river and signs saying it is illegal get shot up to the point that they cannot be read. So, let me offer two suggestions: * Enlist the help of other agencies in the area (such as the City of Las Cruces and Doña Ana County) to produce public service announcements encouraging hunters to hunt only in designated areas so as not to endanger others or their property. * Participate in more vigorous communication with the Sheriff's Office and other appropriate law enforcement agencies when signs are found shot up and shells or other indications of illegal hunting are found. Thank you for the invitation to comment. I have copied Mayor Miyagishima and City Manager Garza in this response. I hope you can find a solution to this question that allows hunting where it is appropriate and otherwise allows those living near the river to feel safe. 23 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Please do allow the Proposed Hunting Alternative. We need these lands to be able to pursue our outdoor hunting adventures with our family. 24 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. PLEASE support the opening of this IBWC land for the public use of bird hunting. Our future generations need assurance that they have a place to enjoy the great outdoors. THANK YOU for your time and consideration of this. 25 Good afternoon. I am an avid hunter in these areas. I believe they should stay open to hunting as long as the fish and game service controls the limits and keeps the populations sustainable. Thank you for your time and consideration 9 26 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I am a regular hunter and user of the areas that are controlled along the Rio Grande river by the International Boundary and Water Commission. The proposals that they have would severely limit our ability to hunt many of the migratory birds. This, in part, is because of the year to year changes in the river which effects where the birds can be found. There is no reason to limit either migratory game hunting, or other bird hunting in these areas, for any reason. 27 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To whom it may concern, I just recieved an email notification from the New Mexico Wildlife Federation regarding hunting along the Rio Grande below Percha Dam. I am suprised to learn that areas along the Rio Grande that I grew up hunting for doves, quail, and especially waterfowl were posted last year with "No hunting Signs". I moved away a year ago, but plan to return to Las Cruces each fall for dove and waterfowl hunting trips with my family. I had always considered the river as public property. To hear that it is not regarded as such is a suprise, but more especially to now hear that I am not allow to hunt those areas that I have hunted for the past 15 years...? I didn't know that such a restriction was possible. My family and I have always hunted these areas responsibly and ethically, and have always picked up the trash of others in an effort to leave things better than we found them. I would plead with you to allow hunting to continue along those poritons of the river that are being proposed, and have honestly been open to hunting for as far back as I can remember. Again, before this I had no idea that the river wasn't public property and therefore open to public hunting. I strongly urge you to support hunting along the proposed protions of the river. I want my kids to grow up having the same opportunities to hunt down there that I did. I do intend to travel down to Las Cruces each fall to hunt doves, and each winter to hunt waterfowl with my kids, as I have always done. 28 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, We would like to express our opposition to legalized hunting on "our" stretch of the Rio Grande. My husband and I have lived about a third of a mile from the river itself on Trail's End Rd. for sixteen years. Trails End Rd. is a river's edge development of sixty sites and currently at least 125 people. We have a trail to the river itself along the EBID easement south of the drainage ditch that abuts our back field. I see other seniors in the neighborhood walking for their health to the river along the easement. When my grown children and grandchildren come to visit, they also like to walk to the river. Trails End Road has also functioned as an equine trail to the river because one or two of the "horsey" families that live on the edge of the river allow horse riders to cross their properties at a designated place. Naturally when we get to the Rio Grande, we like to sit or walk or ride near the riverbank and delight in its riparian natural beauty, whether it is dry or flowing with water. These are only a few of the recreational uses of the riverbanks that take place. Recreational use and legalized hunting could not happen together. It is too dangerous to be near the river when even illegal hunting occurs. High powered rifle shots, not just bird shot, sound with revealing explosive sounds clear to where we live. Many who come to shoot birds (or anything that moves) are not licensed, responsible hunters. Friends who live along the river have told shocking stories of bullet holes on front porches, and bullets or birdshot whizzing past them when they are outdoors. Many of us shudder when bird hunting season starts, although (illegal) hunting occurs at other times too. I have often warned casual hunters about their illegality when they park their cars and shoot into the drainage ditch itself, where coyotes, foxes, quail, rabbits and birds like redwinged blackbirds and orioles live, as well as the white-winged dove. We enjoy living alongside these wild 10 species. Twice a bullet has narrowly missed our home. When we hear rifle shots we feel insecure and tend to stay indoors. The situation is the same for my neighbors a short distance away on the river itself. If hunting is legalized, the conflict between river residents and recreational users on the one hand, and hunters on the other, will certainly increase. The local sheriff's department and fish and game agency, their funds cut back, have fewer and fewer people to oversee hunting violations . Since time before time, rivers in the arid Southwest have been the waterholes of life. All species have drunk from, enjoyed and used the water in various ways. Surely we don't want a bully to change the nature of our life-sustaining waterholes. Legalized hunting along the designated areas of the Rio Grande is a bad idea. Yours very truly, 11 29 August 13, 2013 Ms. Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist USIBWC 4171 N. Mesa, C-100 El Paso, TX 79902 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: The Dofia Ana County Associated Sportsmen organization (DACAS) would like to offer the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment: Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project, Sierra and Dofia Ana Counties, New Mexico. DACAS strongly endorses the Allowed Hunting Alternative. For many years, local residents have utilized IB WC lands near the river for countless types of outdoor recreation, including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing (notably birding), hiking, pet recreation and dog training, photography, rafting and canoeing, etc. The list goes on and on Pursuit of these activities is part of a healthy lifestyle, and is also of economic value to our community. The IBWC is to be commended for their responsible approach to authorizing these pursuits. DACAS also commends the IBWC for working with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (N MDGF) in a cooperative manner to establish the preferred altemative, which we support. Rather than identify each particular species and season for which hunting is authorized, DACAS would suggest leaving the determination of seasons and species entirely to regulations. This will avoid confiision of possible conflicts between long term authorization to hunt within IBWC boundaries and current and/or evolving statewide regulations. For example, Sandhill Cranes are hunted annually along the Rio Grande, but they are not identified in your drafi EIS. In addition, proper management of all game species requires the to set seasons and bag limits. If regulations change in the fiiture, we can imagine great confusion and enforcement complications if the IBWC regulations are different fiom those of the We would recommend a statement along the lines of "Determination of seasons, regulations, and species to hunt will conform entirely to state and federal wildlife management agencies." Your draft EIS states: "Big game and turkey are not expected to be present in the river corridor under existing habitat conditions and limited range,"zthen later states, "Typical wildlife that could inhabit the project area include blacktailed jackrabbit, desert cottontail, cotton rat, ground squirrels, mourning dove, meadowlark, kestrel, redtail 12 Ms. Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist August 13, 2013 Page 2 hawk, mule deer, skunks, burrowing owls, several species of waterfowl, and other nongame animals (USIBWC 2007)." Those statements appear to be in conflict. The fact is that big game (specifically mule deer) inhabit the river corridor to a large extent today. As with all hunting, big game hunting needs to be conducted in a responsible manner, but as an example, DACAS can readily imaging allowing bow hunting for mule deer within the river corridor, and we would encourage that option to be considered. There are in fact times when farmers along the river corridor complain about mule deer depredation on their crops, and hunting can be an effective management technique to address those concems. DACAS would also like to point out that several years ago a wild turkey transplant effort was conducted in the river corridor addressed by your draft BIS. While it is believed that wild turkey do not presently occupy this corridor in sufficient numbers to hunt, it is not inconceivable that with ongoing habitat restoration efforts or other unforeseen circumstances wild turkeys could be reestablished in this corridor of the river. DACAS would therefore recommend that hunting turkeys not be explicitly precluded in the final EIS. This could be addressed by simply stating that: "Hunting for avian species as allowed under and USFWS regulations is authorized." The current preferred alternative calls for the authorization to hunt to end at the Berino Bridge. We recommend the authorized hunting corridor be extended further south, to the Washington Street Bridge in Anthony. There is little difference in the habitat and development between this area and that immediately north of the Berino Bridge. It is very common for small game hunters, particularly bird hunters, to hold a license to hunt in only one state, in this case in either New Mexico or Texas, but not both. It therefore makes sense to make the end of the authorized hunting corridor close to the state line. (Few New Mexico hunters will be interested in hunting further south along the river than this, as they probably will not purchase a Texas small game license.) Again, DACAS strongly endorses the preferred altemative, including allowing hunting between.Leasburg and the Shalem Colony Bridge, and we thank you for your efforts to address hunting along the Rio Grande corridor. Ba wards>> /y 13 30 Elizabeth: Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Document. Pleased find our comments on the attached document. We hope our comments and concerns are adequately addressed. I am forwarding a copy of this to my County Commissioner for her records. Sincerely, Elizabeth Verdecchia IBWC 4171 N. Mesa, C100 El Paso, Texas 79902 RE: Draft EA Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Channelization Project Comments by Jerry & Ellen Paz Dear Ms. Verdecchia: This letter is written in response to the Draft Environmental Assessment to allow hunting on IBWC designed areas in Dona Ana County, NM. Specific comments I have regarding this document include the following: 1. Section 1.2, Page 4: The document states that “Shells on the ground and bullet holes on federal signs indicate that people are already using IBWC lands to hunt or shoot firearms, regardless of current prohibitions…” This is evidence that hunters along the Rio Grande are there illegally and therefore by definition are law breakers. Granting law breakers enhanced status over the objections of law abiding citizens is simply unfair and inappropriate. 2. Section 2.2, Page 8: Under the second bullet of the USIBWC Enforcement Action Plan; It is recommended that those annual meetings be opened to public comment. Property owners should be given the opportunity to provide specific documentation regarding the conduct and appropriateness of the hunters to help determine if the policy should be rescinded for future years. 3. Section 2.5, Page 9: The sub-title under Land Use; A. USIBWC Floodplain is not consistent with the title listed under Section 3.4.1. 4. Section 3.3.1, Page 16: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative” I take exception that this will not impact the ability to control floods and impair water deliveries. Specifically, my concerns are as follows: a. Increased use of levee roads for hunting will result in surface rutting, washboarding, and an overall degradation of the driving surface over time. b. As the levee road degrades over time, it requires increased maintenance that IBWC has neglected to do unless specific high profile emergency funding is provided such as what has occurred under the ARRA program. c. With a lack of road maintenance, the levee becomes exposed to increased erosion, settlement, deterioration, and overall become compromised. d. A compromised levee is prone to rupture and could impact the ability of IBWC to control floods and deliver water. In addition, the levee roads are not designed or constructed in accordance with local, state, or federal roadway design standards, but levee standards. The levee roads are insufficient in width to allow for two-way traffic, do not meet minimum design speeds for horizontal curvature, super-elevation, sight distances, roadside design (slopes, guardrail, clear zone….), nor do they have adequate signage for safety. This lack of roadway design consideration will result in increased traffic accidents by the hunters that file in along the river during hunting season in large numbers. I have personally pulled out drivers who slid 14 off the side slopes of the levee behind my house. Vehicles that damage the levee, or potentially block the flow of water, impair the ability of IBWC to carry out its mission of flood control and water delivery. Increasing the use of the levees by hunter traffic increases the risk to IBWC. 5. Section 3.4.1, Page 17: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” second paragraph states Allowing hunting will increase the trash left behind, principally shell casings. Keep in mind that shotgun shot routinely (at least once a week, every year, during hunting seasons) hits the roof of my house. I have a metal roof, and hear it rain down on my home. This is also a known impairment to the surrounding properties. 6. Section 3.4.2, Page 18: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” this proposal puts the rights of hunters above hikers, joggers, bicycle riders, horseback riders, fishermen, pick-nickers, rafters, canoes, and swimmers. When bullets fly, people scramble away and avoid the river. It is sad that IBWC feels the need to chase away peaceful folks enjoying the beauty of the river for the noisy hunters, particularly in areas with adjoining homes. 7. Section 3.5.1, Page 19: I categorically take exception that this proposed action will not have any Environmental Justice impairments as documented below: a. Dona Ana County, largely within the reach under this proposed action, has a 70.6% minority population (US Census Estimates). The unincorporated minority populations that have NOT received accommodation under this policy (outside the cities of Las Cruces, Sunland Park, Anthony, and Mesilla) are 73.1%. This shows that those incorporated communities who have been accommodated with red-no hunting zones, is lower than those that have not been accommodated. b. Dona Ana County as a whole has a 25.6% population below the national poverty level (US Census Estimates). The unincorporated poverty level that have NOT received accommodation under this policy (outside the incorporated cities of Las Cruces, Sunland Park, Anthony, and Mesilla), is 25.2%. This shows that high levels of low income residents have still not been accommodated. c. Low income residents, with less disposable income, disproportionately seek out recreation areas that are free, or low cost. d. Recreational activities on the river include walkers, joggers, bicycle riders, fishermen, pick-nickers, rafters, canoes, and swimmers are enjoyed disproportionately by Hispanic and low income residents of the region. I witness this all the time behind my house, people of low income and minorities enjoying the benefits the river offers for recreation. e. It will be the low income and Hispanic population that are disproportionately affected when hunters begin shooting, thereby chasing them away for fear of getting accidentally shot. This action definitely has EJ consequences which should be further investigated and included in the final EA. It is simply not sufficient to state “No decision was made based on race or income.” That does not matter. What matters is who suffers the consequences from the decision and in this case it is low income and minority populations that will suffer. 8. Section 3.6.2, Page 21: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” in the first sentence, the word general should be replaced with generate. 9. Section 3.6.2, Page 21: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” the noise level is not “minimal” if it happens in your back yard. A friend of mine commented that it sounded like he was in Viet Nam when he heard all of the shooting going on. It is not pleasant and the noise is not “minimal” if it happens behind your house. 10. Section 5, Page 22: An additional mitigation measure should include additional “No Hunting” signage within the approved hunting areas where homes completely occupy the river floodplain (up to the edge of the primary channel flow). This will also allow law 15 enforcement the ability to quickly identify those zones without having to guess. Personal Concerns about this proposal include the following: 1. Distance from my house to edge of the permanent river flow is within 150 yards. See Attachment 1. 2. Hunters have not shown courtesy to local residents: a. They shoot over our house and shot hits our roof; b. They shoot birds that fly east and the birds fall and die in our yard; c. They shoot from bed of pick-up; d. Small children are shooting shot guns from the back of pick-up trucks; e. They are not capable of judging 150 yards from house as shown on the photograph in Attachment 2. They do it every year, every season, early morning and late in the evening when the birds are active. Recommended Amendments to Draft Document: 1. Consider the No Action Alternative for the following reasons: a. This proposal is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the residents along the Rio Grande; b. This proposal may impair the ability of IBWC to carry out its mission of flood control and water deliveries within the Rio Grande from the degradation of the levee by continuous use of the levee roads by increased hunter traffic; c. This proposal violates the Environmental Justice of the minority and low income residents of Dona Ana County. 2. As an Alternative, please consider amending the No Hunting zone maps Figure 2 and Map 3 of 6 (see Attachment 3), beyond the residential homes north of the Shalem bridge. The advantages of this proposal include: a. Avoids confrontation with adjoining densely populated homes along river basin. b. Reduces the need for continuous law enforcement between Shalem Bridge and Lujan-Hill Road. 3. If the maps shown on Figure 2 and Map 3 of 6 remain approved by IBWC, please consider another mitigation measures as follows: 16 a. Post additional signs where homes are within the 150 yard limit. The advantages of this mitigation measure is: i. Hunters can't seem to judge 150 yards, nor are they willing to exercise prudent judgment on their own. It needs to be made simple for them. Something visual where they have to be willfully negligent to shoot in those zones. ii. Signs will help Law Enforcement to clearly issue citations when the distance boundary is violated because of the extra signage. It would be similar to a 15 School Zone on a 40 roadway. The overall area would be open to hunting, but very specific and identifiable' areas would be off limits due to the 150-yard limit and signage posted to identify as such. iv. At a public meeting on August 13, 2013 with the Dona Ana County Sherriff and the NM Game and Fish, when asked, they both stated they would support this type of proposal if it was agreeable to IBWC. It would require additional work on the part of IBWC (to identify those properties, but with the help of Google Earth, not to difficult as demonstrated on Attachment 1), but is manageable. b. Install additional gates along the levee at the Shalem Bridge and at Lujan-Hill Road (See Attachment 4). This would require the hunters to walk along the river to those areas where there is a higher density of homes. Hunters, who are willing to walk, are generally the ones who obey the 150-yard distance requirement. They also are more likely to see the homes as they walk along the river. The gate could be locked only during the hunting season, and opened the rest of the year for everyone else to enjoy. Nobody in their right mind would fish or ride their bicycle out there during hunting season. So by locking the gates only during hunting season (two months out of the year), it forces the hunters to respect the adjacent property owners more. By limiting the hunter traffic, IBWC also minimizes the degradation of the levee road and minimizes the risk of potential levee breach. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and hope our recommendations are considered. 17 Jerry & Ellen Paz August 14, 2013 2336 Alta Mira Court Las Cruces, NM 88007 575.527.8604 Elizabeth Verdecchia IBWC 4171 N. Mesa, C100 El Paso, Texas 79902 RE: Draft EA Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Channelization Project Comments by Jerry & Ellen Paz Dear Ms. Verdecchia: This letter is written in response to the Draft Environmental Assessment to allow hunting on IBWC designed areas in Dona Ana County, NM. Specific comments I have regarding this document include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 1.2, Page 4: The document states that “Shells on the ground and bullet holes on federal signs indicate that people are already using IBWC lands to hunt or shoot firearms, regardless of current prohibitions…” This is evidence that hunters along the Rio Grande are there illegally and therefore by definition are law breakers. Granting law breakers enhanced status over the objections of law abiding citizens is simply unfair and inappropriate. Section 2.2, Page 8: Under the second bullet of the USIBWC Enforcement Action Plan; It is recommended that those annual meetings be opened to public comment. Property owners should be given the opportunity to provide specific documentation regarding the conduct and appropriateness of the hunters to help determine if the policy should be rescinded for future years. Section 2.5, Page 9: The sub-title under Land Use; A. USIBWC Floodplain is not consistent with the title listed under Section 3.4.1. Section 3.3.1, Page 16: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative” I take exception that this will not impact the ability to control floods and impair water deliveries. Specifically, my concerns are as follows: a. Increased use of levee roads for hunting will result in surface rutting, washboarding, and an overall degradation of the driving surface over time. b. As the levee road degrades over time, it requires increased maintenance that IBWC has neglected to do unless specific high profile emergency funding is provided such as what has occurred under the ARRA program. c. With a lack of road maintenance, the levee becomes exposed to increased erosion, settlement, deterioration, and overall become compromised. d. A compromised levee is prone to rupture and could impact the ability of IBWC to control floods and deliver water. In addition, the levee roads are not designed or constructed in accordance with local, state, or federal roadway design standards, but levee standards. The levee roads are insufficient in width to allow for two-way traffic, do not meet minimum design speeds for horizontal curvature, super-elevation, sight distances, roadside design (slopes, guardrail, Elizabeth Verdecchia August 14, 2013 Page 2 of 4         5. 6. 7. clear zone….), nor do they have adequate signage for safety. This lack of roadway design consideration will result in increased traffic accidents by the hunters that file in along the river during hunting season in large numbers. I have personally pulled out drivers who slid off the side slopes of the levee behind my house. Vehicles that damage the levee, or potentially block the flow of water, impair the ability of IBWC to carry out its mission of flood control and water delivery. Increasing the use of the levees by hunter traffic increases the risk to IBWC. Section 3.4.1, Page 17: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” second paragraph states Allowing hunting will increase the trash left behind, principally shell casings. Keep in mind that shotgun shot routinely (at least once a week, every year, during hunting seasons) hits the roof of my house. I have a metal roof, and hear it rain down on my home. This is also a known impairment to the surrounding properties. Section 3.4.2, Page 18: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” this proposal puts the rights of hunters above hikers, joggers, bicycle riders, horseback riders, fishermen, pick-nickers, rafters, canoes, and swimmers. When bullets fly, people scramble away and avoid the river. It is sad that IBWC feels the need to chase away peaceful folks enjoying the beauty of the river for the noisy hunters, particularly in areas with adjoining homes. Section 3.5.1, Page 19: I categorically take exception that this proposed action will not have any Environmental Justice impairments as documented below: a. Dona Ana County, largely within the reach under this proposed action, has a 70.6% minority population (US Census Estimates). The unincorporated minority populations that have NOT received accommodation under this policy (outside the cities of Las Cruces, Sunland Park, Anthony, and Mesilla) are 73.1%. This shows that those incorporated communities who have been accommodated with red-no hunting zones, is lower than those that have not been accommodated. b. Dona Ana County as a whole has a 25.6% population below the national poverty level (US Census Estimates). The unincorporated poverty level that have NOT received accommodation under this policy (outside the incorporated cities of Las Cruces, Sunland Park, Anthony, and Mesilla), is 25.2%. This shows that high levels of low income residents have still not been accommodated. c. Low income residents, with less disposable income, disproportionately seek out recreation areas that are free, or low cost. d. Recreational activities on the river include walkers, joggers, bicycle riders, fishermen, pick-nickers, rafters, canoes, and swimmers are enjoyed disproportionately by Hispanic and low income residents of the region. I witness this all the time behind my house, people of low income and minorities enjoying the benefits the river offers for recreation. e. It will be the low income and Hispanic population that are disproportionately affected when hunters begin shooting, thereby chasing them away for fear of getting accidentally shot. This action definitely has EJ consequences which should be further investigated and included in the final EA. It is simply not sufficient to state “No decision was made based on race or income.” That does not matter. What matters is who suffers the consequences from the decision and in this case it is low income and minority populations that will suffer. Elizabeth Verdecchia August 14, 2013 Page 3 of 4         8. 9. 10. Section 3.6.2, Page 21: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” in the first sentence, the word general should be replaced with generate. Section 3.6.2, Page 21: Under “Allowed Hunting Alternative,” the noise level is not “minimal” if it happens in your back yard. A friend of mine commented that it sounded like he was in Viet Nam when he heard all of the shooting going on. It is not pleasant and the noise is not “minimal” if it happens behind your house. Section 5, Page 22: An additional mitigation measure should include additional “No Hunting” signage within the approved hunting areas where homes completely occupy the river floodplain (up to the edge of the primary channel flow). This will also allow law enforcement the ability to quickly identify those zones without having to guess. Personal Concerns about this proposal include the following: 1. 2. Distance from my house to edge of the permanent river flow is within 150 yards. See Attachment 1. Hunters have not shown courtesy to local residents: a. They shoot over our house and shot hits our roof; b. They shoot birds that fly east and the birds fall and die in our yard; c. They shoot from bed of pick-up; d. Small children are shooting shot guns from the back of pick-up trucks; e. They are not capable of judging 150 yards from house as shown on the photograph in Attachment 2. They do it every year, every season, early morning and late in the evening when the birds are active. Recommended Amendments to Draft Document: 1. 2. 3. Consider the No Action Alternative for the following reasons: a. This proposal is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the residents along the Rio Grande; b. This proposal may impair the ability of IBWC to carry out its mission of flood control and water deliveries within the Rio Grande from the degradation of the levee by continuous use of the levee roads by increased hunter traffic; c. This proposal violates the Environmental Justice of the minority and low income residents of Dona Ana County. As an Alternative, please consider amending the No Hunting zone maps Figure 2 and Map 3 of 6 (see Attachment 3), beyond the residential homes north of the Shalem bridge. The advantages of this proposal include: a. Avoids confrontation with adjoining densely populated homes along river basin. b. Reduces the need for continuous law enforcement between Shalem Bridge and Lujan-Hill Road. If the maps shown on Figure 2 and Map 3 of 6 remain approved by IBWC, please consider another mitigation measures as follows: Elizabeth Verdecchia August 14, 2013 Page 4 of 4 a. Post additional signs where homes are within the 150 yard limit. The advantages of this mitigation measure is: i. Hunters can't seem to judge 150 yards, nor are they willing to exercise prudent judgment on their own. It needs to be made simple for them. Something visual where they have to be willfully negligent to shoot in those zones. ii. Signs will help Law Enforcement to clearly issue citations when the distance boundary is violated because of the extra signage. It would be similar to a 15 School Zone on a 40 roadway. The overall area would be open to hunting, but very specific and identifiable" areas would be off limits due to the 150-yard limit and signage posted to identify as such. iv. At a public meeting on August 13, 2013 with the Dona Ana County Sherriff and the NM Game and Fish, when asked, they both stated they would support this type of proposal if it was agreeable to IBWC. It would require additional work on the part of IBWC (to identify those properties, but with the help of Google Earth, not to difficult as demonstrated on Attachment 1), but is manageable. b. Install additional gates along the levee at the Shalem Bridge and at Lujan-Hill Road (See Attachment 4). This would require the hunters to walk along the river to those areas where there is a higher density of homes. Hunters, who are willing to walk, are generally the ones who obey the 150-yard distance requirement. They also are more likely to see the homes as they walk along the river. The gate could be locked only during the hunting season, and opened the rest of the year for everyone else to enjoy. Nobody in their right mind would fish or ride their bicycle out there during hunting season. So by locking the gates only during hunting season (two months out of the year), it forces the hunters to respect the adjacent property owners more. By limiting the hunter traffic, IBWC also minimizes the degradation of the levee road and minimizes the risk of potential levee breach. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and hope our recommendations are considered. Thank You, Area bounded by circles represent No Hunting Zones (From only Paz Home) Small Boy in bed of truck shooting Trucks & Hunters in Photo Paz Home Attachment 1 Length of Yellow Line is 150 Yards from House Corners mEm> of 8:0; . . . UcEmo_ .. .i .. 7 . ..4 --.-- .. aux". -. iv 9.. . I ..7.. USIBWC Draft Environmental Assessment: Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization  Project, Sierra and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico    Extend No Hunting Zone to Lujan-Hill Road (Paz Proposal)       Figure 2 Proposed Designated Hunting Areas for the Allowed Hunting Alternative 10  Attachment 3a  USIBWC Draft Environmental Assessment: Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization  Project, Sierra and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico    Extend No Hunting Zone to Lujan-Hill Road (Paz Proposal)   28  Attachment 3b   Requested Shalem Bridge Gate Install Levee Gate Similar to West Side Valley Drive Install Levee Gate Attachment 4 LujanHill Road Requested LujanHill Road Gate 31 no hunting along the Rio Grande-- we have a shortage of birds already 32 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: I received a draft environmental assessment allowing avian hunting in designated areas along the Rio Grande River north of Shalem Colony Trail. We are opposed to this idea because our property and our neighbors' property in our subdivision butts up to the levy. Our home is less than 150 feet from the levy. This will create a dangerous situation for ourselves, pets and property. Please Google my address and observe the close proximity of my home to your purposed hunting area. Just imagine the liability if something happens to include loss of life or damaged property. 33 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: We have for two generations enjoyed the privilege of hunting on the jurisdictional boundaries along the Rio Grande, specifically for migratory birds, such as Morning Doves and waterfowl. We are therefore extremely supportive of allowing hunting recreation to occur within the jurisdiction of IBWC and EBID. Sincerely, 34 Hope this finds you doing well, I am sending this in support of the proposed corridors for hunting on the Rio Grande. There are some folks who are expressing opposition to allowing hunting in some of the included areas, ....specifically, the stretch between Leasburg and Shalem Colony bridge that is proposed to be included. I complete support hunting in these areas under NM Game and Fish Department guidelines, but I want to point out that responsible hunters recognize the safety concerns expressed, and that G&F regulations already prohibit shooting with residences nearby. Thank you for your time! 35 Elizabeth I fully support hunting in the proposed corridors along the Rio Grande under the guidelines of the NM Dept of Game and Fish. I recognize the safety concerns expressed by some but believe the Game and Fish current regulations regarding shooting with residences nearby is all that is needed. 36 Dear Sally I would not like to see bird hunting in the Rio Grande, because as I remember from my younger years as my grandfather and I would ride horses with a wagon through the bosques, it appears that the birds and wild animals of the area would be greatly disturbed. I sure would like to see the real bosques to return to their natural state as I remember them. Mel. 37 I have a major concern with hunting on the Southern Rio Grande in NM since much of the area is used for other forms of Recreation. From Las Cruces to Sunland Park there are a lot of trails used by runners, 1 walkers, bikers and dogs. So if hunting is allowed in Southern NM it should be allowed in very limited areas. Basically only in areas north of Leasburg. 38 Ms. Verdecchia: I have reviewed the documents presented on the IBWC website concerning hunting along the Rio Grande. Being a responsible New Mexico Sportsman from Dona Ana County and wanted to specify that I'm in favor of the Alternative Hunting sites and of course the proposed hunting responsibilities to clean up trash, shell casings, etc. Based upon my experience, this area is mainly utilized during the Sepember Dove season and during this timeframe the area has a significant dove issue that hunting assists in population control and potentail diseases from over population. I believe that this proposal is the best solution to promote the Dona Ana communities ecomonics and protect the limited hunting areas offered for Southern New Mexico residents. 39 I am opposed to opening hunting along the Rio Grande River from Shalem Colony Bridge to Leasburg. I am a property owner and resident of the area close to the Shalem Bridge. This area is much more densely populated than the IBWC Draft EA indicates. There are many children in the area. Pets, other domestic animals and livestock are in abundance. The EA frequently has statements that the effects of opening up hunting “are not known.” YET THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT!!! Please consider this an OFFICIAL REQUEST for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the following reasons: 1) BWC’s own words in the EA…the effects are not known or lack of adverse results are ASSUMED. 2) Sport Shooting by IBWC’s own words will be increased and IBWC admits to problems from that dangerous change. 3) The human population of RESIDENTS in the area is much much greater than described by IBWC. There is only one reference in the whole EA to “nearby residents” The EA shows very little concern for HUMANS. 4) Noise pollution… page 20 (3,6,2) page21 40 Elizabeth, I have lived next to the IWBC levy for the past 22 years. Dove season has been an ongoing nuisance for the month of September each and every one of those years. My house is subjected to a continuous berage of shot and noise as in a battle field. One season I personally called the sheriffs department 34 times. Records were kept and turned over to the sheriff before the on slot of the next season. The sheriff obtained a letter from you folks with intent to prosecute people hunting on The Boundary Commission property. Nothing came of that agreement, although the sheriffs department was called a number of times that season. Bottom line: Why would The Boundary Commission condone hunting in a housing area? 41 July 31, 2013 To Whom It May Concern: We are property owners on Rocky Acres Trail and wish to express our concerns about allowing access to bird hunters on this side of the Rio Grande River. We have private property and a home at 5403 Rocky Acres Trail. We drive back and forth to work and to town every day. Our children and grandchildren walk and drive along our property and we have already had problems being peppered by shotgun bb's from hunters across the river. We have animals that would be in danger also. Allowing access on this side would even be of greater concern for our safety and the protection of our homes and vehicles. We have 2 had a 4 wheeler stolen, a farm tractor vandalized to great expense and several other incidents of trespassing. Our neighbor, Gene Cassidy, private property owner, has asked us to include him also in requesting you prohibit access to hunters on this side of the Rio Grande. For the safety of all concerned, we ask that hunters be prohibited access on this side. Sincerely, 42 I live near the River Bridge on Shalem Colohy Trail. Our house is on River Heights Drive just off Rocky Acres Trail. As our street name suggests, it borders the Rio Grande, and we live close enough to be in danger of being hit by a stray bullet if hunters are allowed to shoot in that vacinity. PLEASE consider the lives of humans who live near the river before you allow hunting around here. We have rights, too. 43 Elizabeth, I am Maretha Branson and live at 4401 Rocky Acres Trail... near the Rio Grande River. When Dove season opens.. I have to be careful when I go out side as the Bird hunters do not care where they are shooting..private property or BLM. I cannot walk my dog during the season because of fear of being hit with bird shot. It would be a travesty to allow Bird Huntng in this area and the river because everyone and the domestic animals are in jeopardy of being shot by hunters who don't care where thy are shooting as long as they get birds..This must be stoped for the safty of those of us and our pets that live in this area. Sincerely, 44 Dear Elizabeth, I have been a hunter for many years in the U.S. and overseas and have taught safety classes for hunters. However encouraging hunters to shoot toward occupied homes and persons outside their homes could cause an unexpected tragedy. Does it seem prudent to take such a risk? 45 Hello my name is Eric Sodemann and I am an El Paso native and have been hunting along the Rio Grande in New Mexico for many years. I purchase a non-resident Fishing and hunting license every year from New Mexico because that's where I do all my fishing and hunting. I have many friends that do the same and we enjoy spending our time along the area mentioned in the IBWC article. We have never run into any opposition and always clean up after ourselves and additionally when we find other peoples messes. The alternative would be awesome and I would really like to see it happen so that myself and my friends can continue to hunt along this corridor. Respectfully Avid outdoorsman 46 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, 3 If the IBWC Environmental Assessment (EA) indicates that hunting along the Rio Grande corridor will have little-to-no environmental impact may we respectfully request that the IBWC move forward with the “preferred alternative”? We are responsible members of the North American Versatile Hunting Dog Association (NAVHDA) and accordingly like to occasionally get out with our trained German Wirehaired Pointers. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 47 Thought I would send a quick note about hopefully opening up access for bird hunting along the river. As you know in New Mexico we do not have a lot of water and the Rio Grande is the common flyway of this state for waterfowl and dove. I have had the opportunity to hunt both as a youth and now as an adult now it's my turn to take out my kids for their first dove hunts and waterfowl hunts. There really is not a lot of places down along the river to hunt other than state wildlife areas which some people have to drive a long ways to do it. Lot of it is private land. In this day and age I think it's in our best interest to get the youth involved with the great outdoors, otherwise city life will consume them and our way of life will die off. By opening up access to the river for hunting and other usage. You can have a after school bonding experience with your family, getting friends involved with a new sport etc. Now I know a big concern is the trash dumping and other stuff. Most bird hunters I know are good people that care about the environment, we pack it in we pack it out. Including trash than maybe left by others. There are a few bad apples in every tree, but don't let that persuade your thoughts to all the great things this can open up for the public. Thank you for your time, Danny 48 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the IBWC proposed alternative for continued bird hunting in the Rio Grande corridor. 49 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I am a hunter who wants to continue the bird hunting tradition and opportunity along the lower Rio Grande. 50 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I am a tax payer, hunter, land owner and a registered voter. The people have the right to access goverment lands for the peoples use. I see no valid reason to keep hunters or sportsman or any responsable persons from recreational use of the land in question. I am against keeping people out of that area for any non legimate reason. There should be at least seasonal use of those lands. I am in support of the use of that land for hunting or any other legal or nondistructive reason. Thank you for listening to my opinion. Gary Lemmel 51 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Please Support Bird Hunting along Lower Rio Grande! As of right now we have no opportunity to hunt any waterfowl along the Lower Rio Grande. Please Support for all New Mexican Sportsmens and outdoorsmen. 4 Thank you, 52 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support hunting on the lower Rio Grande river. I have hunted there when I was going to NMSU in the 60s. Finding places for the public is becoming more and more difficult. 53 Please allow game-bird hunting on the southern Rio Grande. Thank You, 54 Dear Elizabeth Verdecchia, Please include these comments with others regarding the EIS associated with the proposed Hunting 07232013 on IBWC lands along the Rio Grande in southern NEW Mexico. What game birds are hunters targeting in these proposed areas? The ones spilling over from refuges, the ones that still follow the Rio Grande on their migratory routes? We are in a severe drought and the river and its environs are not healthy. As a long term resident in Radium Springs below the Leasburg Dam, I am seeing fewer and fewer of these birds as irrigation canals are covered and the Rio Grande is dry most of the year. If this addresses a culling or limitation of bird populations normally sheltering in the Bosque del Apache and formerly marshy -areas along the Rio Grande, it flies in the face of projects like the El Camino Real walk- way from El Paso to Belen , efforts to bring back natural riparian areas, not to mention that all along this route, development has sprouted new clusters of residences and commercial orchards that severely change the open character of land adjacent to the canalization of the Rio Grande. This proposed avian hunting would bring gun-shot reports to areas where horses, cattle and other animals are being raised on pocket farms as well as older established farms where they are part of owners's livelihood. Hunters would be looking for places to park along narrow agricultural roads and the two lane HWY 185. If you drive this area from Percha down to Mesilla, you can see how mixed the settlement is and how huge the pecan orchards are, making for a confusion about exactly where a hunter could safely shoot a game bird. I return to my first question: what game birds? I have only spotted one Great Blue, five mallards and one Common Egret this summer. In this time of habitat crisis, I think the expansion of hunting would precipitate problems that we would all regret, both for the people and for the wildlife in this narrow band adjacent to the Rio Grande. Sincerely, 55 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. there is no reason to limit hunting on the lower rio grande floodplain. do the right thing and vote to support the proposal 56 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands 5 in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I for one would appreciate the continuation of being able to hunt along the Rio Grande. As a parent with three children who love the opportunity to hunt doves along the river. I don't have the money or time to take guided hunts elsewhere. I do believe that most who hunt along the river are responsible hunters. I also believe that local sporting goods vendors would suffer an economic loss without these hunting areas. Thanhs, John F. Hunter 57 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I'm a hunter who wants to continue the bird hunting tradition and opportunity along the lower Rio Grande. 58 To whom it may concern: This letter is to request the approval of the proposed hunting zones along the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Dove and waterfowl hunting has been a tradition in the border region for decades. The zones in the proposal are very generous and are in areas where non-hunters and the general public would not be affected. There is also a financial and environmental benefit that hunters provide from the purchase of licenses, habitat improvement stamps and federal duck stamps. Local vendors also benefit from the sales of food, ammunition, fuel, ect. It is my opinion that if this area is denied, illegal hunting would continue and lawful hunters, like my friends and family, would not have an affordable alternative in New Mexico due to extended travel time and distance. Thank you, 59 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the proposal for continued hunting on IBWC lands along the lower Rio Grande 60 Hello, I strongly support the IBWC preferred alternative allowing bird hunting along sections of the Rio Grande in southern NM. 61 Just wanted to drop a quick email stating that I am in support of the new hunting areas that the IBWC is proposing for this season. thank you for your time and consideration. 62 Hello Elizabeth, I would like to take just a moment of you time to advocate for the right to safely, ethically and legally hunt along the Rio Grande. Having attended New Mexico State I have years of fond memories hunting waterfowl and doves along the river. Over the years my buddies and I have picked up countless bags of litter, reported illegal dumping, assisted with two auto accidents (one severe enough to require helicopter transport of the victim) and assisted countless stuck vehicles. All this while safely creating memories and having fun. 6 Having responsible citizens hunting along the river not only allows us to enjoy our right to participate in the scientific management of our wildlife but also provides more vigilant, caring individuals in the field to help protect the sensitive and wonderful resource that is the Rio Grande. Thank you so much for allowing us to have a voice in this important discussion! Sincerely 63 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I would like to express my support of the proposal. As a responsible hunter I would also be happy if Fish & Game could show a bigger presence in this area during hunting season. 64 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I fully support bird hunting in the Rio Grande floodplain. 65 Hello: I have recently moved back to Las Cruces after 20 years away. One of the reasons I moved back is the abundance of outdoor activities all over Southern New Mexico, including hunting along the Rio Grande Flood Plain. I want it known that there are many of us that oppose any type of restrictions that would be outside of standard hunting/fishing regulations. Respectfully, 66 I would like the area open to hunting. It is government land that is owned by the tax payers, which government agency manages the land is not important to me. “It’s the peoples land”. I have been a bird hunter for more than 30 years. My father introduced it to me as a teenager and now my kids are teenagers and would like to bird hunt with me. I pay 135 dollars a year for my hunting and fishing license in New Mexico. We can understand the low level of water in Elephant Butte from the drought, fishing was poor this year. I bought the license from New Mexico this year in hopes of bird hunting on the levee with my kids. If the land is not opened this year, I will be done spending any fishing or hunting money in New Mexico. I spend over 1,000 dollars a year on hunting/fishing in New Mexico,(gas, ammunition, camping/supplies). That money will be lost to New Mexico along with thousands of others who feel like me. Dove and duck hunting is part of the heritage of the united stated, all the way back to early times. It can either be an event to spend time with your children and educate them on firearms and ethical hunting (best learned from parents) or just to enjoy an early morning or evening with friends. There is nothing illegal about bird hunting, just the land in which you hunt on. Thank You for hearing my request. 67 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Please maintain and protect this bird hunting area for licensed NM hunters. 68 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands 7 in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I strongly support maintaining as much bird hunting opportunities as possible on ibwc and all government lands in southern N.M. This important part of our heritage is quickly being diminished by the closing of most private lands with fee hunting rapidly becoming the only source left to experience this wonderful sport. This puts this wonderful heritage sport beyond the economic reach of most N.M. families. 69 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the IBWC preferred alternative. It's getting harder and harder to find good hunting places, we need to keep those that were historically. 70 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. As you know hunting on the El Paso section of the Rio Grande is over. And all we have left is the New Mexico side. Pleas don't take that away from us. Its all we have. 71 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To: Whom It May Concern, As a hunter who respects the land and wildlife as well as our precious water. I would plead with you to continue to allow the priviledge to legally hunt the wildlife which flourishes along the Rio Grande. As an average citizen,who does not own large tracts of private land the only viable way to experience the outdoors is to use Public land. The proposed alternatives of forcing the general public onto small, select parcels of land diminishes the experience,opportunities for success and may possibly endanger the land users by over-crowding the area. Please keep our Public Land open to those who will respect the land. Thank You, 72 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Requesting that bird hunting be allowed along the lower Rio Grande. Hunting brings no environment impact to the river! We should not be denied access to this area. More could and should be done to promote avian hunting in this state. Possibly thousands to millions of dollars of revenue are lost to the state and local communities due to this oversite George Harper 73 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To whom it may concern, I strongly support the USIBWC Allowed Hunting Alternative. I have enjoyed hunting in the proposed areas in the past and would appreciate the opportunities to do so in the future. 8 74 Elizabeth. I prefer the "preferred alternative" plan for the rio grande between percha and anthony. In southern NM this is the only viable flyway for those hunting ducks and geese. Restrictions of our hunting rights/privledge will only affect the law-abidding sportsmen and will destroy a traditional sport practiced by New Mexicans for many generations. thank you. 75 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Dear IBWC, Please do not remove anymore hunting privileges, as we tend to lose more & more, slowly as time goes by. I would greatly appreciate the preservation to be passed down to my son & further generations to continue to have the opportunity for bird hunting in these areas. From a hunter: Thank You for your kind consideration. Sincerely, 76 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Please support continued hunting along the Rio Grande flood plain. 77 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I see nothing wrong with hunting along the river as long as it is done responsibly. I grew up hunting dove and quail along varios stretches of the river. Bird hunters have been hunting the river way before people started deciding to build their homes there. They should have taken that into account before they decided to own a home there. 78 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. If there is no damage from the hunters why not let them hunt .It is not like the property belongs to you ,I was under the impresion that it belongs to the TAX payers. 79 Dear Ms. Verdecchia , I am writing in support of the proposed corridors for hunting along the Rio Grande. As an avid hunter, I am in support of hunting along these proposed corridors and under NM Game and Fish Department guidelines. Responsible hunters recognize the safety concerns expressed, and that G&F regulations already prohibit shooting with residences nearby. I feel that good sportsman should not be punished for the actions of a few unethical hunters. Thank you for your work on this issue. 9 Sincerely, 80 Ms. Verdecchia, I would ask that hunting be allowed and controlled under existing regulation & laws that are enforced by the Sheriffs and New Mexico Game and Fish. It is my opinion that those are sufficient and adding to the complexity is not warranted. Thank you for considering my point of view. 81 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Please support continued hunting opportunity on IBWC land along the lower Rio Grande. 82 I am in favor of this proposal. I think it is a good idea. 83 To Whom it might concern, My parents and I live close to the river levee near Hwy 226/Berino Road bridge. Since I was a child we have hunted on the river levee along with many other hunters that do it with respect to the farmers along the river. In years that we were unable to hunt we could hear the sounds of shotguns from our house and for us it signaled the beginning of fall. While technically I understand that we were hunting illegally it was never enforced and have many times been checked by Game Wardens and have been in full compliance. Many things have changed in my 40 years of hunting. Road access is now very limited (I understand the reasons), many houses have been built around the area. Having said that.... Hunting can still be accomplished following the already existing hunting guidelines provided by the Game and Fish. Please keep hunting within our reach in order that I can pass on a tradition of respect for others, the environment and Wildlife. Video games have desensitized our youth about what it is to pull the trigger, hunting allows us to teach our next generation to respect firearms and the consequences of them. You will hear from others of those hunters that are unethical and don't follow rules, but those exist in every area I have hunted and are a minority. Please don't let the majority of us pay for the those few. PLEASE ALLOW LEGAL HUNTING ON THE DESIGNATED AREAS ALONG THE RIVER! 84 As a family of hunters, we have hunted in NM since 1971 and support hunting in the proposed corridors, (specifically from Mesilla Dam to Hwy 226/Berino Rd. Bridge), under NM Game and Fish Dept. guidelines. We are responsible hunters who know the concerns and rules of safety, and laws prohibiting shooting near residential areas. The picking up of spent shells and trash is also a known requirement. Thank you for myself and family members who hunt in NM. Respectfully, 10 85 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am very much in favor of opening areas along the Rio Grande to bird hunting. Opening these public areas to thoughtful bird hunting will utilize a resource that should be made available to New Mexico hunters. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. 86 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Hello I am a bird hunter that would like to keep hunting the southern area. As a kid my uncle always took me out to those places which you have closed and he's dead now and I have showed my honor to him by hunting the areas he took me to. please reopen the areas you have closed. Sincerely 87 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. my family and i support all bird and deer hunting along the river and in those areas its being a tradition for many generations we support the proposal thanks 88 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support hunting along the Lower Rio Grande. 89 Dear Miss Verdecchia, I am writing in response to the Allowed Hunting Alternative along the Rio Grande. I'm a hunter who wants to continue the bird hunting tradition and opportunity along the lower Rio Grande. Thank you for your time and consideration. 90 Dear Elizabeth, I am writing you in support of the Allowed Hunting Alternative on the Rio Grande Canalization Project. New Mexico public land hunting is one of the greatest things about our state. In addition to being a long tradition, it is also a means to get young people in our state out into nature. It helps people appreciate the importance of our scarce waterways. As a waterfowl hunter in New Mexico there are many limitations to river access and very few rivers. If there continues to be less and less space available to hunt, duck hunting will become clustered into fewer overcrowded areas. Overcrowding impacts the affected areas much more than having a system where hunters can spread out to a greater extent. It also becomes a safety concern at a certain point. As duck hunters we must have respect for the land and through organizations like Ducks Unlimited and by being good stewards of the land we can have a positive impact 11 on areas where we are granted public access. Through reporting illegal hunting and cleaning up both our trash and the trash of others that washes down the river we have a positive impact. So, I kindly ask that you support greater access for Hunters along the Rio Grande Canalization Project and in return we will be good stewards to the land. Sincerely, 91 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, As a resident of 8406 Rocky Acres Trail, Las Cruces, NM 88007 from 19691983, avid hunter and career law enforcement officer in the state of New Mexico it is my opinion that allowing hunters access to IBWC land along the Rio Grande that borders private property is a bad idea. I am asking that you prohibit hunters from accessing IBWC Land in this populated area. The dangers to both hunters and property owners who reside in this area are many. There have been many incidents over the years involving hunters trespassing on private land that have escalated to arguments and armed confrontations. There have been instances over the years where I have had to produce a badge and firearm to make an argumentative armed hunter leave my families private land while visiting. Hunters do not heed the no trespassing no hunting, private property signs that have been posted repeatedly over the years. Instead they have been shot full of holes and torn down. The amount of land available for hunting in this area is a narrow strip covered in thick vegetation bordering right of way and private deeded land. Furthermore the hunting is not that good in the area. I grew up there and hunted elsewhere. It is reasonable to open up land along the river where there are no populated areas. That is not the situation here. Please reconsider your decision, this is a safety issue for all concerned, including the hunters. 92 I would like to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment referenced above. I live about a half mile from the river near the area that would be closed to hunting. I use the La Llorona trail for biking and bird watching quite a lot. I have no opposition to hunting in the designated areas outlined in your EA, however, enforcement in the hunting and no hunting areas of what is proposed does concern me. First of all, the Game and Fish Dept can only enforce their regulations. Game and Fish have no legal jurisdiction in the no hunting areas because that is a federal regulation. The EA says you will sign an agreement with sheriff's office for enforcement. However, especially during hunting season this area will take a lot of patrolling to be effective and it is unreasonable to expect an already over worked sheriff's dept to do that without additional funds to hire extra officers. I did not see any provision for that in the EA and would strongly suggest it be done. Secondly, the EA indicates that hunting would only be allowed during appropriate small game season. Does this mean that at all other times shooting would not be allow in those hunting areas? I would strongly advocate no shooting outside of the hunting season. Also, is shooting allowed in the no hunting areas? I would hope not. This will require year around enforcement---more officers. I think these issues need to be clarified in the final EA Thirdly, I think there may be times when hunting the open areas should be curtailed or closed (for example when the river is reduced to isolated pools, the only water birds and wildlife have for long distances). In other areas the Game and Fish Dept would do that, however, they do not have the jurisdiction to do that in this case since allow hunting is a federal regulation---only IBWC can do that. Such emergency situations should be provided for. 12 Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important regulation. Sincerely, 93 Below I add comment for the EA. I concur with the preferred alternative. The vast majority of hunters are responsible and follow rules. One possible mitigation could be to not allow use or hunting with rifles of any kind, at least in stretch 2, and possibly 3. I support shotgun only hunting use in all three stretches. From a NEPA standpoint it would be stronger to modify the hunt alternative on page 7 to not allow the use of rifles in the areas where hunting is being allowed, since big game hunting in not allowed. Disallowing the use of rifles should be added to the signs. I feel the majority of careless incidents are not from hunters but shooters. Same can be said for impacts of offroad vehicles in these areas. thank you for the chance to comment. 94 To IBWC, I think that the proposed hunting areas are well thought out boundaries, that will serve the hunting and non-hunting public equally. As long as the hunting regulations are followed, there shouldn't be any problems, as is with hunting and fishing anywhere for that matter. I am in favor of the current boundaries. Thank you for all your work on this. 95 To whom it may concern, I would be in favor of the hunting alternative being proposed by the IBWC. Regards, 96 Madam ; I s upport the proposed corridors for hunting in and under NM Game and Fish Dep artment guid elin e s . I also feel that responsible hunters know , recogni z e and fo llow the safety concerns expressed by residents along the Rio Grande and that NM Game and Fish Department regulations prohibit shooting near occupied b uildings. I re quest that you strongly con sider adopting these gui del ines . Tha nks, 97 Hi Elizabeth, I would like to state for the record that I am in favor of the proposal to allow hunting in the proposed zones as outlined by the IBWC. Although it has not be "officially" authorized in the past, we are all well aware that hunting has been an acceptable practice along the river system for decades without causing significant problems. Recognizing that some landowners and residents that 13 live along the river have expressed concerns regarding hunting, it should be noted that laws and regulations already are in place that address the safety issues raised. Game and Fish Department regulations already prohibit shooting with residences nearby. I understand there are specific areas within the proposed corridors where hunting will be allowed within which some residents have been exceptionally vocal about safety concerns. If there are truly legitimate concerns being expressed, IBWC should consider closing these isolated areas rather than not allowing hunting in entire sections of the river. Perhaps some additional signage in these areas would prevent negative interactions between residents and hunters. If manpower or funding to install this kind of signage was an issue for the IBWC, I am certain that the local sportsmen's groups in the Las Cruces area would be willing to assist with this endeavour in order to help resolve some of these issues. Responsible recreational hunting is enjoyed by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals along the river system,..and that has been taking place for many years. Further, the river and the land between the levees presents the only opportunity for many people to enjoy this pursuit in the valley. It is of the utmost importance to those of us that participate in this pastime for the river and levee system to remain open to hunting. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the matter. Sincerely, 98 I just wanted to drop you a note saying that I support the proposed hunting corridors on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. I have many friends that enjoy New Mexico hunting and want to assure you that we are responsible in our activities. Safety is always paramount and we take very seriously any regulations that prohibit shooting within nearby residences. Thank for considering my input. 99 Dear Ms. Verdecchia - I would like to register my support for hunting in the proposed corridors along the Rio Grande under NM Game and Fish Department guidelines. I understand that some folks are againt hunting in one of the proposed sections, but responsible bird hunters, hunting with shotguns and following the Game and Fish Department regulation will pose no threat to any person, livestock, or property. Thanks, 100 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hello Mrs. Verdecchia. I would just like to take a minute of your time to express my support for the proposed hunting corridors along the Rio Grande. I feel that the proposed safety corridors are very sensible since the areas that would be off-limits to hunting are technically in town anyway. For the 14 other areas where residences may be a concern, please know that responsible hunters already know that hunting is not allowed within certain distances of residences, as stated by law in the NMDGF guidelines. The areas that are proposed to be hunting areas give us sportsmen ample room to enjoy our river and the hunting that takes place along it. Thank you for hearing our concerns and supporting our hunting heritage in New Mexico. Sincerely, 101 Dear Ms. Verdecchia Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the International Boundary and Water Commission's proposal to allow--and importantly, bring order to--bird hunting along the Rio Grande below Percha Dam. The old, long-standing 'system' was unenforceable and invited conflicts between bird hunters and valley residents. The correction, to forbid all hunting, went too far the other direction, depriving sportsmen of a legitimate recreation even in areas where conflicts would be minimal or nonexistent. The IBWC proposal is a fine compromise that allows the hunters access to rural areas along the river while clearly delineating residential and commercially developed areas and putting them off limits to hunting. Rio Grande Valley residents and recreationists alike are fortunate that significant stretches of the southern New Mexico Rio Grande remain undeveloped and available to bird hunters, among others. As a career employee of the NM Game and Fish Department (now retired), I watched with dismay as development continually eroded hunting opportunity along the Middle Rio Grande, to the point that it is barely a shadow of what it once was. Having seen that opportunity disappear, I strongly urge that the IBWC pursue the controlled hunting scenario as proposed for the Low Rio Grande. Again, my appreciation to you and the IBWC for taking the initiative to work with NM Game and Fish, sportsmen and other entities to find a workable solution, which I believe this is. Sincerely, 102 Thanks for accepting my comments concerning the hunting proposal. I am both a big game hunter and a river levee resident. I understand the access concern people have. I have experienced it personally in areas I used to hunt. I don't hunt where people live. We have had numerous encounters with both bird hunters and rifle and handgun shooters. We have had a window in our home shot and my wife was peppered in our back yard, both from the levee. The same has happened to our neighbors. Although the Sherriff's Dept. has been fairly responsive, they can't be there all the time. I seldom see the Game and Fish officers. Bird hunting runs concurrently with Elk and Deer hunts, the priority hunts. Enforcement would be spotty at best. The biggest concerns I would identify would be the added traffic and dust, which is dawn - dusk, the litter, and the shooting of non-bird firearms. Another concern is the motion to extend the hunting seasons. I also thought you could not hunt within a mile of NM State Park property. Our property used to be farm land. It is now zoned residential. The area is growing and people are moving to the country. What used to be traditional hunting and shooting areas can no longer be safely used in that capacity. Thanks for your hard work and time. 103 Hello Ma'am, I am a concerned hunter and I speak for a lot of Soldiers that are stationed at Ft. Bliss, that will probably never get this message. Since we are stationed at Ft. Bliss, TX, we are very limited to the areas that we can hunt. New Mexico has a lot of places and makes up about 85% of the areas that we normally hunt. There are about 30,000 Soldiers on Ft. Bliss. I know not every one of them hunt, but I do know that dove and quail hunting is becoming more popular in New Mexico and this area that is going to be banned is an extreme opportunity for us to have a great time and enjoy the outdoors. I know I personally have about 15 -20 buddies that love to hunt dove in the Lower Rio area because of the pecan trees and water that it 15 produces. This area is a huge moral builder for our group and I've noticed that other hunters and Soldiers use this area as well. I can honestly say that I'm speaking for a lot of people that will never get to email you. Please let our voice be heard. We don't want to lose our one and only great dove hunting area. Thank you very much!! Hooah!! Army Strong!! 104 Dear Sir/Madam, I think that I speak for thousands of hunters from New Mexico and neighboring areas in voicing my opposition to IBWC's proposed closure of Federal Lands along the lower Rio Grande corridor to public hunting. Sportsmen have been enjoying the hunting opportunities for waterfowl, dove, and other game along the lower Rio Grande for generations. In doing so, the sportsmen have provided the additional benefit revenue to businesses in small towns and local communities along the river where they have hunted and stayed, as well as much-needed revenue to NM state conservation programs through the purchase of tags and licenses. They have also served as stewards with a vested interest in safeguarding the river and its natural resources through organizations like Ducks Unlimited and other private initiatives. Without the incentive of hunting opportunities, these individuals will have few reasons to invest the time or money in stewardship and conservation. With ever more restrictive land access laws and either prohibition of trespass or outrageous access fees being charged by private landowners, our dwindling public hunting lands are among the few remaining places where people can readily partake in their time-honored traditions and introduce the next generation of outdoorsmen to hunting and to the natural world. Please do not take these opportunities away from the current and future generations of sportsmen. Thank you for considering my request and petition. Sincerely, 105 I just wanted to be another person to say I enjoy the ability to bird hunt along the rio grande. Thanks, 106 16 IJnti tied 8-14-13 Dear Ms verdecchia, I am happy to contect you on a11owing hunting a1ong parts of the Rio Grande. I have 1ived at 2885 wi11ow creek Lane for 21 years. My 1ot backs on to The River and the De1 Rio Drain. Every year we get bu11its coming down on our barn and Dressa arena were my grand chiidren 1ike to ride the 2 horses we own. en the bu11its hit the horses they buck. I have ca11ed the po1ice and the buero of Fish and Game and they te11 me there is nothing is nothing they can do. our house is too far from the river. They say the barn does not count. Thank you for taking the time to 100k into this prob1em. Hunters shoot some rea11y nice birds that are not doves or qua11. 107 17 108 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: Thank you and the IBWC for the opportunity to comment on the proposed official change to allow for game bird hunting along portions of the Rio Grande Canalization Project. Please know for the record that I strongly support this. As an affiliate of some wildlife conservation and hunting organizations in Las Cruces, be assured this is much appreciated. I have a couple of short comments that you may want to consider as changes to wording in the EA. Although sandhill crane an quail are not specifically mentioned in the list of species mentioned to be open for hunting, the wording does not preclude them. Nonetheless, they are the only two significant remaining species that were not mentioned and you may want to include them. In more than one location of the EA, 'bullets' are mentioned appropriately as something of a potential hazard resulting from hunting. For years, the Dept. of Game and Fish has regulated that all the birds to be included for hunting here are only to be hunted with shotguns shooting shot. The ballistic differences between 'bullets' and 'shot' are significant. While shot fired from shotguns is only dangerous for less than 100 yards, a bullet is a single projectile generally of significantly more mass and may travel significantly 18 further, a mile or more, while retaining significant energy to be dangerous. Lastly, in the section concerning noise pollution, it should be noted that all hunting of the bird species being considered in the EA are again regulated by the Dept. of Game and Fish by legal hunting hours each day. All these species are only to be hunted from one half hour before defined local sunrise to one half hour after defined local sunset. All shooting that occurs outside those hours is not legal game bird hunting. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. 109 I'm sorry that this is coming in so late on Friday, but i did want my voice to be heard before the deadline. I am a hunter here in New Mexico that attends NMSU, I agree with the proposed hunting boundaries along the Rio Grande as i use these areas frequently to supply food during the school year and to take a break from school work. I do hope that you allow there to be hunting along the Rio grande and will take my voice into consideration. I am aware that there was some concern as to an environmental impact statement, but i feel that hunting is actually bettering the wildlife habitats instead of destroying them. The current construction and equipment that have been along the river i feel are more of a threat than the hunting, plus a majority of hunters are also conservationists and are concerned for the well being of the wildlife for futures to come just as you guys are. Please move to allow for further hunting along the Rio grande so that we can protect the wildlife, and promote conservation awareness for future generations to come by teaching others through hunting and being in the great outdoors. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 110 I am a hunter who has carried on the family tradition of hunting, and I am for the alternative plan that will allow hunting in the designated areas of this corridor. The other hunters that I have been with are ethical and law abiding citizens, that will obey any postings of restricted or no access areas, but we would very much appreciate the opportunity to be able to bird hunt lawfully in this region. Our vote is for the alternative plan allowing hunting in these designated areas. Thank you. 111 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. IBWC, As a bird hunter in Otero County I have little opportunity to hunt river environments and bottomlands. I urge you to reopen the proposed areas to bird hunting again. Thank You, 112 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: I am writing to you in support of the proposed preferred alternative along the Rio Grande River. Please allow us to utilize our property, public lands, and waterways in our pursuit of game. With kind regards, 113 Ms. Verdecchia; 19 I am writing in support of the proposed action in the EA which allows hunting along certain stretches of the Rio Grande but precludes hunting in other sections. Generally I believe hunting should be allowed along the Rio Grande as long as it is done in a safe manner and consistent with Game and Fish regulations. Having worked for a Federal land managing agency (BLM) for over 30 years I understand the challenges your agency faces in making land use decisions such as those addressed in the EA. The first premise in making such decisions must be that individuals will act in a responsible manner and will operate within existing laws and regulations such as those that guide hunting and fishing in New Mexico. Those regulations require individuals to be some distance from residences when hunting and to operate fire arms in a safe and responsible manner. None of the alternatives addressed n your EA will change irresponsible behavior or illegal use of fire arms by irresponsible individuals. I support the proposed action which would allow bird hunting on USIBWC lands in three areas along the Rio Grande – a 30-mile segment downstream from Percha Dam State Park, a 10-mile segment downstream from Leasburg Dam, and a 15-mile segment downstream from Mesilla Dam. Bird hunting is generally done with a shotgun which generally have a range of less than 60 yards. I believe bird hunting in the areas identified in the proposed action can be easily done in a safe manner if NM Game and Fish rules are followed. I realize some residents are concerned about the IBWC proposal but my experience is their concern is more about noise, dust and other issues associated with living near an area open to the public than it is responsible hunters enjoying their sport. Thank you. 114 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I would ask the commission to please proceed with the Hunting option along the Rio Grande. Wildlife funding relies upon hunting opportunity and hunting license sales. People and wildlife suffer withmthenelimination of hunting. 115 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the proposal for bird hunting along the lower rio grande. This is a great opportunity for hunters, and I will respect the flood plain as I respect all land that I am allowed to hunt on. 116 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I personally don't live in the area but on occasion my son and I like to explore new places to hunt and fish. So my comment is biased in that hunting be allowed. The reasons to allow hunting are many, but mostly because it gives our residents and nonresidents another place to hunt and maybe give some of the other overhunted areas in the area some relief from over hunting. It brings money into the area as well. I know when my son and I go out to different places we spend the night in local motels buy food and fuel at the local merchants in that town. It would make good economic sense to let us hunt there. Thank you. 20 117 118 Ms. Verdecchia/Ms. Spener, My name is Chris Skillern. I am writing to submit a public comment for the proposal to allow bird hunting in Southern New Mexico. Please find attached my comment. Thank you very much for your consideration of this issue. 21 August 23, 2012 Via Email International Boundary and Water Commission Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natrual Resources Specialist 4171 North Mesa Street, Suite C-100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Re: Public Comment to Proposed Rio Grande Hunting in Southern New Mexico Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am writing in response to the International Boundary and Water Commission's request for public comment regarding proposed Rio Grande Hunting in Southern New Mexico. I am writing in full support of the proposal. I believe the proposal strikes an appropriate balance between public and recreational use, environmental considerations, and safety considerations. I urge the IBWC to adopt the proposed policy in full. The role of the Rio Grande River in the support of bird populations in Southern New Mexico cannot be understated. The river provides a substantial flyway for many migratory birds, including ducks, geese, cranes, teal, as well as dove. Hunting along the river in this portion of New Mexico goes back for generations, and has been passed down from generation to generation. The Rio Grande truly represents an oasis in the desert for large number of migratory birds. Among the species of duck that flourish along the river during the winter months are Mallards, American Wigeons, Mexican Mallards, Gadwalls, Buffleheads and Redheads. In addition, the river often teems with Sandhill Cranes and Green Wing Teal. However, beyond the reaches of the river and the land immediately abutting it, waterfowl are relatively few in number and are limited to small stock tanks and ponds that are mostly located on private property. The only meaningful waterfowl hunting in this area is located on the river. in other words, the river is the only game in town. In addition to waterfowl hunting, the river provides an extremely rich dove habitat. Dove hunting along the levee area of the river provides the best dove hunting grounds in Southern New Mexico. I am unaware of any other game birds that inhabit the stretch of the Rio Grande River that is the subject of the proposal. 22 Following IBWC's recent levee improvement project, new signs were placed at levee road entrances that specifically prohibited hunting. now prohibit hunting. Prior to this time, there were not publicly posted signs that specifically prohibited hunting. Nevertheless, dove and waterfowl hunting has taken place along this stretch of the Rio Grande for generations. However, the current prohibitions make illegal virtually all waterfowl and dove hunting along the river south of the Caballo Reservoir. There are simply no other public hunting grounds that attract waterfowl in the numbers, or with the regularity, that the Rio Grande river does. The current policy essentially forecloses public waterfowl hunting in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, as well as a portion of Sierra County, New Mexico. Although the restrictions on waterfowl hunting currently imposed by IBWC are considerable, the actual impact of waterfowl hunting on the Rio Grande River and the levee area managed by the IBWC are extremely minimal. First, waterfowl hunting seasons in New Mexico run from late October until late January for ducks and for a brief early season in September for -teal. No hunting can occur outside of those times. Waterfowl hunting is most productive during a short period of time in the morning. As such, it is often limited to one or two hours of the day. As a practical matter, hunting days are also limited to weekend days for many hunters. In addition, the number of waterfowl hunters that have traditionally hunted the relevant section of the Rio Grande are relatively small, and their impact on the environment is virtually unnoticeable. In other words, if the proposal is adopted, their impact will be virtually unnoticeable because most of the time there will not be any hunting occurring by virtue of hunting laws and the characterof the game itself. As for any impact on the preservation of the levees, the very nature of waterfowl hunting precludes the use of ATV's, dirtbikes, and other motorized vehicles that might damage levee construction. Such vehicles are a dead giveaway to the keen eyesight of both waterfowl and dove. In other words, if a hunter is driving around on such a vehicle, is parked on such a vehicle, or is near such a vehicle, the hunter is not going to be successful. Were IBWC to adopt the hunting proposal, it is highly unlikely that hunters would use such vehicles for hunting purposes. In addition to waterfowl hunting, dove hunting along the IBWC managed levee areas is extremely productive. Dove hunting might be more revered than any other hunting in this area of the United States, and dove hunting along the levee areas is among the best in the country. Dove hunting, perhaps more than any other type of hunting in this region is a cultural and social tradition that is passed down from one generation to the next. Indeed, certain IBWC managed lands in the Lower Valley Region of El Paso Country were made available for dove hunting following completion of the recent levee reconstruction. The dove hunting season in New Mexico is relatively short, lasting approximately four weeks in September and one week in December. As a practical matter, dove hunting is popular during "opening weekend." I-Iowever, following the opening weekend, the number of dove hunters drops precipitously. In addition, dove hunting is only productive during a brief period of time in the morning and for a brief period of time in th evening. As with waterfowl hunting, dove hunting's impact is minimal, both with regard to the amount of time during any given day during the season that hunting is viable, and because dove hunting is subject to a season that is fairly short 23 119 Ms. Verdecchia, I support the IBWC Allowed Hunting Alternative along the Rio Grande. I attended NMSU in Las Cruces earning a BS degree in Wildlife Sciences in 1983. During that time my friends and I regularly hunted dove and waterfowl along the Rio Grande from Percha Dam to Sunland Park. I'm sure hunting along the river had 24 occurred long prior to my attending NMSU therefore, setting up the precedent that hunting was a legally accepted activity along the Rio Grande. After I became a Conservation Officer with NMDGF, many of the Las Cruces officers continued to hunt dove and waterfowl along the Rio Grande. They also checked many other hunters along the river, so that area wasn't legally recognized by the state as an area off limits to hunting small game hunting. Once I became the Migratory Game Bird Biologist part of my job was developing and printing the hunting rules and regulations for NMDGF. In those published regulations were listed areas where hunting was not allowed, including areas closed by federal agencies. From 1994-2010 the IBWC did not contact me to include the southern portion of the Rio Grande as off limits to small game hunting. It has only recently been decided by the IBWC that hunting was not an appropriate activity on IBWC property, and this was done without any public involvement. In the draft EA I didn't notice any reference of damage to property or infrastructure caused by lawful hunters, so I'm uncertain why hunting was deemed unacceptable on IBWC property in NM. While many parts of the lower Rio Grande have become populated there are still areas where hunting is appropriate. The proposed three hunt areas in the Allowed Hunting Alternative address that issue. Hunter's license fees and equipment purchases provided the funds allowing state conservation agencies to manage wildlife resources. Access to hunting areas is a major concern for public hunters and one of the reasons stated for why some stop hunting. Diminishing hunt areas will continue as urbanization increases. Allowing hunting on IBWC property addresses this issue by keeping an area open to the hunting public, who have long recognized the lower Rio Grande as a preferred small game hunting area. Though there has recently been little waterfowling opportunity on the lower Rio Grande due to drought, most years there is ample water in the river to support duck hunting. Due to limited water in Dona Ana County, the Rio Grande is realistically the only place a waterfowler has any opportunity to hunt ducks. Unless one has a boat and can hunt the reserviors. Thank you for addressing this issue. I appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tim Mitchusson Retired NMDGF 120 I support the proposed hunting areas along the Rio Grande. 121 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To whom it my concern: Please allow huntin along the flood plain as this has been a family hunting area for many years. I wish to pass this family tradition down to my grandchildren. Thank You 122 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands 25 in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support continued hunting opportunity on IBWC lands along the lower Rio Grande. Thank You.....tmd 123 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. We have hunted for years and.all.of sudden you stop it, make no. sense . Let's us.hunt 124 Dear Elizabeth, I am a long time bird hunter from El Paso who has had to travel just south of Albuquerque for many years in order to do any decent duck hunting. I want to thank you and your organization for coming up with a proposal to allow us to hunt the lower Rio Grande areas. Do you have an idea of when this proposed plan will be either enacted or denied? Thank you, 125 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the proposal to continue bird hunting on the lower Rio Grande. Thank you 126 I am in support of allowing hunting along the southern Rio Grande corridor. 127 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I am a sportsmen interested in protecting our right to hunt in the Rio Grande floodplain. I request the IWBC approve the proposal to continue the bird hunting tradition and opportunity along the lower Rio Grande. 128 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Please do not close any of the Rio Grand river area or flood plane for hunting. I have hunted the Rio Grand for many years and it is one of the few,close,areas left that is not private.Please don't bow down to the anti-gun group. 129 Please let us continue to hunt along the Rio Grande so our children can enjoy in the future the pleasure of being outdoors. Thanks for your time and effort . 130 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, 26 As a propeny owner on 3405 Rocky Acres Trail, Las cruces, NM 88007, I am asking that you prohibit hunters trom access to IBWC Land along the Rio Grande that borders private propeny. The inherent dangers to both hunters and property owners who reside in this area are many. Members ot mytamily have lived here since my grandlather purchased this ranch in 1936. There have been too many incidents over the years involving hunters trespassing to even begin to cite in this e-mail. Needless to say. some have been serious and could have led to lnlury ordeath or a lamily memberor the hunter involved, Thi 9 biggest danger is the road accessing our propeny runs along the western edge ot IBWC land, crossing onto private property. l-lunters coming across the Rio Grande to shoot birds along that narrow ship oi land between the edge oi the river and the road that we have to travel on, are therelore shooting into the brush and across the road, presenting a clear and present danger to anyone driving past. Hunters historically do not heed the NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, signs that have been put up over the years. instead they have been shottull or holes and torn down. we have conlronted many hunters who were actually trespassing on our land, thinking they were on ELM Land. we have been threatened, have had livestock shot, lences have been cut. gates have been broken into, and hunters have carelessly oesecrated and littered our property as wen as IBWC Land. This problem will only become worse and be an even blgger risk to people wno live here it you open this up to hunting seasons. Please reconsider the satety ot all belore you endorse this. it is reasonable and understandable to open up land along the river where there are no populated areas, But that is not the situation here. Iwoulcl invite you to come to the meeting at the home oi one ot our neighbors, Ms on River Heights Dr. on Thursday, Aug. t, 2oi3 and we would be glad to take you on a drive on the road that we have to use every day and past the IBWC Land in question that borders our property. You cannot understand the situation we are in, until you actually see it. A map is not going to show you that. 131 international Boundary and water commission, thank you tor proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands 'in the lower Rio Grande tlood plain. I, Cruz sanchez live right next to the Rio Giarlde levee tor over 12 years and have not experienced any damage trom hunters hunting along the Rio Grande. I too am a hunter and would like to keep the bird hunting tradition along the Rio Grande. Thanks 132 Elizabeth. I am an electrician and a bird hunter. I think opening the Rio Grand corridorto bird hunting is a good idea. I am opposed to keeping the public out ol public lands. T33 lntemational Boundary and water commission, thank you tor proposing to allow hunting on lands in the lower Rio Grarlde tlood plain. I support the IWBC Preierred plan allowing hunting along the Rio Grande in southern NM. I have hunted here torover 20 years and this is an important resource tor my lamily. T34 Dear Ellzabelnl have allached our recent letter to you to make sure we meet your deadline Please listen.There are many PEOPLE in the proposed hunting area, contrary to the way it is described in the EA. i35 Dear Elizabeth. Please accept this letter as input "Against" the proposal to allow hunting on IBWC land trom the shalem colony bridge North to the Leasburg Dam As a member olthe Duval lamily, residing at 8406 Rocky Acres Trail, during my childhood, I have lirst hand experience oi the disrespect and dangers oi 27 hunters and others who disregard the no trespassing and no hunting signs that are posted. Opening an area that borders, roadways, residences and ranches (including livestock), for hunting, is extremely dangerous to the safety of my family and neighbors. Boundaries are already not respected or intentionally disregarded, giving authorized use of the area will only increase the danger to the residences. I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected for the safety of my family and neighbors. Thank you, 136 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. please do not lock us out of IBWC lands along the lower Rio Grand as a life long hunter we are continually locked out of tradtional hunting grounds 137 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to urge that you allow continued bird hunting along the Rio Grande in southern NM. Please support the IBCW proposal. Thank you. 138 I would like to say please do not close these hunting grounds I come all the way from Silver City, New México to hunt there. It is a beautiful place there along the river. Keep it open so all of our grand kids and many generations after can enjoy it like we do. Omar 139 Ms. Verdecchia Attached are my comments, concerns and questions regarding the draft Environmental Assessment to allow avian hunting along sections of The Rio Grande river from just below Percha Dam to north of Anthony, NM. Please let me know that you have received my comments OK. Thank you and have a great weekend, 139 continued Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am writing these comments to express my objection to the proposal to allow avian hunting along the Rio Grande corridor from Percha Dam to just north of Anthony, New Mexico. I am a property owner adjacent to the levee in proposed Area 2. I have many questions that I would like answered concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment that was produced in response to the proposal. Given that I was informed of this issue about two weeks ago from a Las Cruces Sun News article, please forgive the brevity of my comments and any grammatical or spelling errors. I did not have adequate time to more thoroughly review the information provided in the Draft Environmental Assessment nor had the time to critically review my own comments. Respectfully yours, 28 Comments Regarding The Draft Environmental Assessment to Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project, Sierra and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico. Submitted by: James Zabriskie, 994 Ironshoe Rd, Las Cruces, NM 88007 915-203-4385, jimmyzabriskie@aol.com (Due to the fact that my comments may offend gun owners I DO NOT want my name made public.) Submitted to: The United States International Boundary and Water Commission c/o Elizabeth Verdecchia, 4171 N. Mesa C100, El Paso, TX 70002 Elizabeth.verdecchia@ibwc.gov August 23, 2013 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am writing these comments to express my objection to the proposal to allow avian hunting along the Rio Grande corridor from Percha Dam to just north of Anthony, New Mexico. I am a property owner adjacent to the levee in proposed Area 2. I have many questions that I would like answered concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment that was produced in response to the proposal. Given that I was informed of this issue about two weeks ago from a Las Cruces Sun News article, please forgive the brevity of my comments and any grammatical or spelling errors. I did not have adequate time to more thoroughly review the information provided in the Draft Environmental Assessment nor had the time to critically review my own comments. Respectfully yours, James E. Zabriskie Comments, Concerns and Questions Why were not ALL landowners adjacent to the levee not informed of this proposal? Why were all land owners adjacent to USIBWC property not give at least 30 days to comment on the proposal? Why were adjacent property owners not allowed to participate in the coordination process since the fall of 2012? Why were some but not all landowners who own property adjacent to USIBWC lands contacted? Was I discriminated against because of my low economic status? Why are adjacent property owners not considered stakeholders? Why have I NOT been given a chance to go to meeting concerning the issue of hunting? Why should I have to learn about this issue from the Las Cruces Sun News newspaper two weeks prior to the end of public comment? Being a property owner adjacent to the levee and not being informed shows a strong bias to hunting groups and a lack of care for property owners rights. According to USIBWC Draft EA section 1.2 Purpose and Need “Shells on the ground and bullet holes on federal signs indicate that people are already using USIBWC lands to hunt or shoot firearms, regardless of current prohibitions, and stakeholders felt it would be better to formalize the areas where hunting could be allowed and where hunting should not be allowed.” This assumes that the only stakeholders are hunting groups and does not take into account that adjacent property holders are also stakeholders. The logic of this argument is also very flawed: since people are already performing the illegal activity shooting guns along the river it should just be legalized. If this same logic was followed why not allow hunting year around since some shooters poach game out of season? If this same logic was followed why not legalize drunken driving, rape, or murder since some people do it anyway? In section 2.2 it states “USIBWC will also install trash receptacles at accessible locations, such as at bridges. USIBWC field staff will periodically empty the trash and dispose of it at the local landfill.” Where exactly will the trash receptacle be located? What type of trash receptacles will be provided? Will the trash receptacles be resistant to tampering by animals? How often will they be emptied? How will the USIBWC stop illegal dumping in or near the trash receptacles? Why should taxpayers pay for trash receptacles and pay for staff to empty and maintain them to benefit a very small percentage of the population? Why not have the sportsman’s groups that are pushing to allow hunting pay for the trash receptacles and also be responsible to empty and maintain them? It appears that the USIBWC is favoring sportsman’s groups by providing trash receptacles and then cleaning up after them at the expense of ALL taxpayers. Why taxpayers should be required to provide assets and services that will only benefit sportsmen and illegal shooters? In section 2.2 it states “USIBWC will also develop strong enforcement partnerships in order to enforce the hunting areas and restrictions.” How can the public be insured that the NMDFG will be able to enforce hunting regulations along the river? How will NMDFG be able to cope with more areas to patrol with their existing staff? Will NMDFG hire additional staff to patrol these new areas for hunting? If the Hunting Alternative is adopted, and accidents occur to adjacent land owners because of it, will the USIBWC be liable? In section 2.2 it states “The target date for the action to be implemented is November 2013.” Why is there a rush to complete the Environmental Assessment without contacting property owners who are adjacent to the proposed hunting areas? Why have sportsman’s groups been allowed to discuss the issues with the USIBWC for the past year but property owners who are adjacent to the proposed hunting areas are only allowed to comment on the issue with less than a 30 day notice? There appears to be a strong bias to complete the Environmental Assessment to allow hunting this season with little regard to adjacent property owners rights or concerns. In section 2.3, Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives, Table 3 states under Biological Resources A. Wildlife, Effects of Allowed Hunting Alternative, Hunted Species AND Non-Hunted Species will be: “Potentially Adversely Affected.” How can the EA state that both target and non-target species will only be “Potentially Adversely Affected”? If a target or non-target species is killed or maimed should that not be call negatively affected? It would seem apparent to just about anyone that killing or wounding an animal is going to have a VERY negative affect. Again it seems that the Environmental Assessment has been written to benefit sportsman’s interest without the proper consideration of the effects on target and non-target species. In section 2.3, Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives, Table 3 states under Community Resources, A. Environmental Justice: “Not Affected.” What kind of justice is it to not contact all adjacent property owners? Was I not contacted because of my low income? Again it appears that sportsman’s groups have more say about the issue that adjacent property owners since all adjacent property owners were not informed about allowing hunting for approximately 5 months in “their own back yards.” In section 2.3, Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives, Table 3 states under Community Resources, B. Law Enforcement “Not Affected, Not Significantly Affected.” How can it state that Law Enforcement will not be significantly affected when law enforcement, especially NMDFG, have more area to patrol? Would this not have a significant effect on law enforcements ability to cover more area with the same amount of manpower? Will law enforcement hire additional personal to patrol all of these new areas for hunting? In section 3.1.1 Wildlife, it states “Because the hunting season is during the winter, no impacts are expected for nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA with the Allowed Hunting Alterative.” Very little of the hunting season would take place in winter (December 21 to March 21). The hunting season would start in summer (September 1) and continue for the three weeks until the first day of fall (September 21). The season would continue all fall (until December 20) and then continue for about four weeks into winter (December 21 to January 27). Most of the hunting season will take place during the fall, not winter. Many resident birds (Greater Roadrunner, Verdin, Curve-billed Thrasher, and Northern Mockingbird, all of which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, will breed in the fall if conditions are favorable. How can the USIBWC insure that these birds will not be impacted if hunting is allowed? If the species are not targeted the increased noise and traffic could affect nesting success. Why has the USIBWC not prepared an Environmental Impact Statement that addresses this issue? Is there such a rush to allow hunting this season that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared as to appease sportsman’s groups? In section 3.1.1 Wildlife it states “There is the potential for adverse impacts if hunters do not abide by the USFWS regulations.” Since it is apparent to the USIBWC that illegal shooting is already taking place (holes in signs, spent shells, etc.) why would it assume that by allowing hunting that sportsmen and shooters would follow regulations? In section 3.1.1 Wildlife it states “However, nonhunted species may be adversely impacted with respect to contamination, since lead is commonly used in ammunition for hunting game birds. Wildlife may be negatively impacted by lead in bullets. "Wild birds, such as mourning doves, bald eagles, California condors, and loons, can die from the ingestion of one lead shot, bullet fragment, or sinker".” Has the USIBWC investigated the impacts on domestic animals that landowners adjacent to the levee own? How will domestic farm animals such as chickens, Guinea fowl, ducks, and or geese, to name a few, be impacted from ingesting lead shot that may fall on private property from the proposed hunting? Will the USIBWC be liable for domestic animals that are harmed from ingesting lead shot because hunting is allowed? In section 3.3.2 Water Quality, it states “It is unknown if spent shell casings could cause water contamination as they may contain residual lead particles, and the bullets and lead fragments may disperse up to two feet (Minnesota DNR 2008); however, minimal pollutants could be introduced from shell casings or stray bullets, but the quantity would likely not be substantial enough to impact water quality in the Rio Grande, nor reduce the river's ability to meet the designated uses.” Since it states that it is “It is unknown if spent shell casings could cause water contamination” why is an Environmental Impact Statement not being prepared to properly address this issue? In section 3.4 Land use, 3.4.1 USIBWC Land Use and Surrounding Lands, it states “The designated areas are more rural”. According to Goggle Earth (see attached exhibits 1-20) there are approximately seventy two (72) buildings within one hundred and fifty (150) yards of the levee in proposed “Hunting Area 2” (see attached images). Why would the USIBWC condone hunting in Area 2 since there is a great potential to cause harm or death to people living adjacent to Hunting Area 2? The season for proposed hunting will be approximately 5 months. Should residents adjacent to the levee abandon their residences during the hunting season and seek a safe place to live? I have not surveyed buildings in proposed Hunting Areas 1 and 3 because I do not live adjacent to them but I request that a survey be done by USIBWC personal to determine how many structures there are within 150 yards of the levee before any decision is made to allow hunting. In section 3.4 Land use, 3.4.1 USIBWC Land Use and Surrounding Lands, it states “It is unknown if the shell casings remaining on the ground for extended periods of time will leave behind contamination. Shells from lead bullets may contain residual lead particles (Lahner and Franson 2009; Minnesota DNR 2008).” Why is an Environmental Impact Statement not being written to determine if spent shell casings will cause contamination? In section 3.4 Land use, 3.4.1 USIBWC Land Use and Surrounding Lands, it states “Allowing hunting will also allow sport shooters to fire weapons in the area. Sport shooters will likely leave more shells than hunters. Sport shooters will not be concerned about scaring the wildlife and may drive throughout the floodplain. However, sport shooters appear to currently use the floodplain, as is evident with shell casings in certain areas of the project, and it is not expected that the Allowed Hunting Alternative will increase the presence of sport shooters significantly more than those who are currently illegally using USIBWC lands.” Why should adjacent property owners have to be subjected to ANY more illegal shooting no matter how insignificant it might be? This is a public safety and property rights issue. Just because a few sportsmen want to hunt along the river why should adjacent property owners be subjects to their wants? Why should an illegal activity be made legal because people are doing it anyway? Again some people murder and rape so should that be made legal? Of course NOT! In section 3.4 Land use, 3.4.1 USIBWC Land Use and Surrounding Lands, it states “However, the Allowed Hunting Alternative Plan includes signage to remind hunters to remove all trash and debris they bring into the area”. Since according to the USIBWC shooting is already taking place as evident by signs being shot, will the USIBWC monitor and replace signage that is vandalized by sport shooters? Will tax payers be required to pay for replacement signs? Why not require sportsman’s groups to pay for and maintain signage? Why should taxpayers be required to subsidize hunting by paying for signage, trash receptacles, and the personal to maintain them? In section 3.5 Community resources, 3.5.1 Environmental Justice, it states “a proposed action must be evaluated in terms of an adverse effect that: Is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or low income population; or would be suffered by the minority population and/or low income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non low income population.” It seems that the low income or potential low income population has not been considered in this assessment. Only large land owners adjacent to the river were contacted concerning this Assessment. Smaller land owners, some such as me, who are lower income, were not contacted concerning this Assessment. It would appear to me that because of my income and social status I was not contacted. Why was I not contacted and given the opportunity to participate in meetings? Why were large landowner adjacent to the levee contacted by not small landowners? Does the USIBWC favor the rights of large landowners over small land owners? In section 3.5 Community resources, 3.5.1 Environmental Justice, it states under the allowed hunting alternative, “Areas designated as hunting areas in the Allowed Hunting Alternative were chosen because they were away from official recreation areas and away from urban areas. Allowed hunting areas are rural in nature. “Just because an area is rural does not mean that hunting should be allowed. The decision should be based on if an area is occupied by home owners. Why should people who live in less densely populated areas be subjected to stray bullets, shot, noise, and trash because they chose to live in a rural setting? In section 3.5.2 Law Enforcement it states “The Allowed Hunting Alternative will rely on external law enforcement to a greater extent. These resources are already spread thin within county and municipal areas. The action may have indirect impacts to the availability of law enforcement officers in other needed areas of law enforcement.” Since the USIBWC recognizes the fact that law enforcement will be challenging if the Hunting Alternative is allowed why would it approve of such an action? Why would the USIBWC condone hunting when it states that law enforcement is already “spread thin” within the proposed hunting areas? Why is the USIBWC adding MORE work for law enforcement than it can potentially handle now? Why not have sportsmen create a fund to pay for additional law enforcement in the proposed hunting areas? In section 3.6.2 Noise Pollution it states “Noise pollution is defined as unwanted or disturbing sound that either interferes with normal activities such as sleeping, conversation, or disrupts or diminishes ones quality of life (USEPA 2013)”. Gunshot to me is unwanted and disturbing sound that would diminish my quality of life since I am a landowner adjacent to the river. Why should the USIBWC allow my quality of life to be diminished by allowing hunting and the associated noise pollution? Is it because I am of a low income status? One reason people live in rural areas is to escape noises generated in more urban areas. Why does the USIBWC think that people living in rural areas are more tolerant of noise pollution? In section 3.6.2 Noise Pollution under the Allowed Hunting Alternative it states “This noise pollution may be adverse for nearby residents and livestock. However, because the designated hunting areas are in remote rural areas away from major urban areas and from recreational areas, the overall expected noise pollution will be minimal.” The noise pollution cause by hunting and shooting might be minimal in urban areas but it will not be for residents adjacent to the river. This assessment states that the noise produced from shooting produces noise that IS HIGHER than the threshold of pain and well over the OSHA level. Will the USIBWC be liable for pain, suffering, and or hearing loss that may be caused by allowing hunting in these areas? In section 3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts it states “Unavoidable adverse impacts include the minimal noise pollution that would be generated by the Allowed Hunting Alternative.” How can the USIBWC state that noise pollution would be minimal? Is this because adjacent property owner are deaf? Is this because adjacent property owner don’t care about their quality of life? It seems that the USIBWC is more concerned with pleasing Sportsmen and Shooters that the rights or quality of life of adjacent property owners. In conclusion the Draft Environmental Assessments does not adequately address a host of questions and concerns regarding allowing hunting in designated areas along the Rio Grande canalization project in Dona Ana and Sierra Counties, New Mexico. Since hunting in the proposed areas has NEVER been legally allowed why is there such a rush to make a decision without an Environmental Impact Statement? Because of the gravity of the situation and how it would affect me and other adjacent land owners, I request that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement would better review all issues and would also allow time for the USIBWC to contact ALL property owners adjacent to the proposed hunting areas and let them be allowed to participate in the decision making process. The MOST important stakeholders who were marginalized through this whole process are the adjacent property owners, NOT sportsmen and shooters. our-Guido .L :2 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 I..- Exhibit 11 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 140 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Dear Sir or Ma'am, I would like to cast my vote for the allowance of hunting along the Rio Grande River in the Dona Ana County area. If this does not infringe on any individual's private property rights, i believe it should be open to the piblic for recreational purposes without delay. Thank you for your time. 141 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I live near the Rio Grande in Radium Springs. I do not hunt dove or anything for that matter along the Rio Grande. Lots of people hunt dove along the river here. I do not see a problem with them. They are kind of noisy at times but if they are out there having fun with family and friends, more power to them. Let them hunt along the Rio Grande and do not listen to the few negative people that live along the Rio Grande that are very vocal. 142 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To whom it may concern. I am, and have always been an advocate for hunting. It has been and is the reason for population of game animals thriving today.Small game and bird hunting gives oportunities for youth and other hunters to be able to have hunting oportunities otherwise out of their capabilities to perform. I feel that the proposed closing does more damage than leaving the property open as when closed only the type folks who damage and contaminate property will come in , where as with the property being open you then have respectful hunters and outdoors people there and will help prevent those who would trash and crimnalise the property at bay somewhat. Thank you 143 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Thank you for considering this option and allowing New Mexico sportsman to continue one of their passions! 144 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the preferred alternative set forth in your draft environmental impact statement. 145 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. To whom it may concern, I am a hunter in New Mexico and I would like to continue bird hunting and other opportunities along the lower Rio Grande. thank you 146 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. The International Boundary and Water Commission, at the request of southern New Mexico bird hunters, has proposed to allow bird hunting on its property in the Rio Grande floodplain from Percha Dam State Park nearly to Anthony. Please support support continued hunting opportunity on IBWC lands along the lower Rio Grande. 147 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, I am writing this letter as an extremely concerned property owner. The Duval Family has owned property along the Rio Grande River since 1936. Five generations of my family have witnessed firsthand the disregard hunters have shown for the “NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, PRIVATE PROPERTY, DO NOT ENTER” signs. These are usually shot full of holes or torn down. Please reconsider or further explore the ramifications before sanctioning the proposal to allow hunting on IBWC land between the Shalem Colony Bridge north to the Leasburg Dam. The potential dangers to property owners who reside in this area have proven to be too great to permit for merely a group sport. Neighbors have witnessed and have concrete proof of incidents too numerous to count in the form of pictures, documented calls to law enforcement and personal accounts of occurrences. Based on the additional information made available to you in the form of telephone calls, letters and emails from this community, not to mention the media exposure this topic has received, we are also requesting an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared and made available to all the property owners and residents in this area that will definitely be impacted by your decision. See last paragraph page 9, 2.7 of the draft environmental assessment. Regards, 148 Ms. Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist United States International Boundary and Water Commission 4171 N. Mesa, Suite C – 100 El Paso, TX 79902 Re.: PUBLIC COMMENT; IBWC Environmental Assessment 07/23/2013 and “Allowing Bird Hunting Along Rio Grande” Las Cruces SUN News article dated August 13, 2013 Dear Elizabeth Verdecchia, As an area resident , I support allowing responsible, licensed sportsmen to legally pursue the sport of bird hunting along the Rio Grande river in the three(3) locations specified in your July 23, 2013 Draft Environmental Assessment. Avian bird hunting during New Mexico Department of Game& Fish legal hunting seasons can be safely enjoyed by licensed enthusiasts—with respect for individuals, property owners and livestock. I support your idea of providing trash receptacles and encouraging participants to collect their spent shells and trash and then properly dispose of them, thus protecting the environment. One suggestion I would make to make this endeavor safe and enjoyable for all would be to take the 150 Yard rule one step further. That is, in addition to following the rule that it is illegal to discharge firearms within 150 Yards of an occupied slructure--bird hunters should be required to maintain a minimum distance or 150 vaids lrom other vehicles/hunters. Thank you for allowing me to submit my public comment. Sincerely, 149 Dear Ms. verdecchia. I am writing lhis letter on behall ol mysell, and our teenage children, who reside al 8408 Rocky Acres Trail, Las cruces, NM 86007. This letter is a protest in response lo the proposal to allow hunting in the arealrom shalem colony Bridge nonh lo Leasburg dam. Hunting should nor be allowed in lhis area lorlhe lollowing reasons. i) lhe salely ol lhe residenls 2) there is no distinct boundaries or maps lor hunlers lo adhere lo, keeping lnem oil or privale property salely ior lhe residents in lhis area is oi lhe ulmosl concern. The area along lhe river is surrounded by houses to the easi and west. on the wesl side or lhe river, which is where our house Slls, lhere is very thick brush. Our house is barely visible and the road in which we have to travel in order to get lo shaiem Colony Trail is complelely obscured. My house sils approximately loo yards lrom the river. Every year during hunting season we have lo call lhe Dona Ana counly sherilis ollioe or lhe Game and Fish oepanmenl because people are shooting across the river towards our house. I have had a bullet lly pasl my ear while nding my horse in lhe past because people/hunlers can nol see lhrough lhe brush and trees. Even ii hunlers are not shooting at or nearlhe house, they are inevilaoly shooting lowards the road Due to the low alone lhere is a serious risk it hunting were allowed, serious iniury or dealh could possibly occur. Anolher concern is lhe area between IBWC land and privale property. Much or lhe land on lhe wesl side is deeded land. in moslcases hunlers would have lo cross privale propeny to access lhe IEWC land. Again, every hunting season. lhere will be hunlers on mylamilies pnvale properly and when it has been explained to them that lhey are on privale land, many reruse to believe il. There are several "Nu Trespassing", "Private Property", "Keep Out" signs posted, bul tor the most pan they are ignored. My iianoe is and avid hunler as ourour boys and mysell. we are aware or lhe rules or hunting on boundary commission land and private prooeny. The issues with this proposal is loremosl SAFETY, lhere are iusl loo many residenls silualed very close lo lhe Fllu Grande and secondly lhe area. The hunlers can easily enough access lhe boundary commission land lrom lhe backside oilhe Flobledos. That way they are not crossing private properly. we are respecllully asking lhal you consider lhis proposal oarelully and prohibillhe molron. sincerely, P.S. I would like to add, in addition lo lhe dangers, lhere are several pecan orchards lhal run along lhe Rio Grande on the easl side. ll you were lo discuss lhis proposal with lhe pecan larmers lhey would be opposed, when buck shot is aimed around lhe trees at lhe overhead ilying dove, those pellets rail to lhe ground, knocking ol the maturing pecans and in some cases piercing me hulls and shells pecans, destroying the nuts. Allowing hunling in lhis area could have a negative impact on lhe larmers and cause linancial losses. 150 I am writing this letter oi protest as a very concerned property owner on the West side of the river North of the Shalem Colony Bridge. Our property address is 8406 Rocky Acres Trail, Las Cruces, NM 88007. Having lived on this property since marriage to Tom Duval in 1969. I have had many incidents of dealing with hunters who erroneously believed they had every right to hunt on both our deeded property and our leased land in the above mentioned area. County Fload D-13 ends at the point where Fliver Heights Dr. intersects the pavement on Rocky Acres Trail. There is a gate that was installed in the early 1970's that was a joint effort between the IBWC, the DAC Sheriff's Dept. and my husband. From that point on North to our home, it is a very rough, narrow, 3 mile dirt/rocky road which crosses both IBWC land and private properties, following along the river at the foot of the Robledo Mountains. We have put up many NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, PRIVATE PROPERTY, DO NOT ENTER, signs over the years to no avail. They are shot full of holes to the point you can't even read them or simply torn down. There is no school bus service for residents with children in this neighborhood. This road is the only access to our properties and we all have a legal Right of Way in place to access our properties. Due to the dense brush (Mesquite, Salt Cedar, Tornillas, Sagebrush, and Cactus, not to mention huge tumbleweeds, it is almost impossible to see vehicles traveling in and out on that road. Most hunters are not even aware the road exists unless they come across the river and stumble upon it. Now that the river is dry for most of the year, that is a more common occurrence. During hunting season, it is common for us to hear multiple gunshots that are often coming from the brush just East of our homes. This is within 100 feet from the front of our daughter's house, and our house is just across the yard to the West. My mother-in-law was hanging clothes outside and bullets were whizzing past her head. She dropped to the ground and was unhurt but screaming when I found her under the clothesline. There have been numerous occasions when I was taking my kids and/or grandkids to school early in the morning and encountered hunters in the brush shooting across the road in front of me. Hunters have cut the locks off gates, torn down fences, and desecrated the landscape by littering. We have had cattle shot, and one of our Tom cats shot and mutilated and hung across one of the gates for my children to see on our way out to school one morning. This area has become more populated and there is more traffic on the road to and from our homes as we now have teen-age grandkids driving to and from school and work. This situation is problematic for hunters as well as those of us who live out here. IBWC no longer maintains the road. That became our responsibility in the late 1960's to this day. We are respectfully asking that you prohibit all hunting on IBWC land that borders private property in the area from the Shalem Colony Bridge North to the Leasburg Dam. Sincerely, 151 My apologies, Ms. Verdecchia, I made an error on your first name regarding the e-mail below. Dear Ms. Verdecchia: Our neighborhood association recommended we forward to you a copy of our e-mail sent to your colleague Ms. Franklin. Thank you. Sincerely, Subject: Bird Hunting North of Shalem Colony Trail, Dona Ana County, NM >> Dear Ms Franklin: >> >> Thank you for taking the time to talk with us by telephone on >> Thursday, July 25, 2013 regarding bird hunting along the Rio Grande >> River north of Shalem Colony Trail, Dona Ana County, NM. My husband >> and I own a home at 2328 Alta Mira Court, Las Cruces, NM. 88007 and >> our property runs parallel to the levee road north of Shalem Colony >> Trail in the Trails End Subdivision which contains approximately sixty >> homes. >> >> During migratory bird season in New Mexico, September 1st to October >> 9th, hunters arrive daily on the IBWC land behind our home and fail to >> comply with New Mexico law requiring hunters to remain at least 150 >> yards from a dwelling and not to shoot across a road, in this instance >> the levee road. Our home and yard are hit regularly with bird shot and >> we find shotgun wads on our property in the immediate area around our >> house. As a consequence, we are often confined to our home during >> bird hunting season out of safety concerns. New Mexico Fish and Game >> is aware that dove hunters on the east bank of the Rio Grande north of >> Shalem Colony Trail often violate hunting regulations by shooting too >> close to occupied dwellings but it lacks the staff to enforce the law. >> >> In summary, it is much too dangerous to allow hunting in this >> populated area since the homes are so close to the river's edge. We >> are strong supporters of the Second Amendment, but firearm safety is >> essential and it is not safe to allow hunting in the immediate >> vicinity of occupied homes. >> >> We appreciate that you and your colleague, Mr. Solo, plan to visit our >> neighborhood on August 1, 2013. If you would provide us with a time >> and a location we would be happy to meet with you personally. >> >> Thank you for your courtesy. >> >> Sincerely, 152 We live 6 miles north of Picacho. You turn left on Trails End road, and follow it toward the river. The address is 6430 Pony Express Ct. 153 Ms. Sheryl Franklin Operations and Maintenance Division Chief int'! Boundary and Water Commission El Paso TX 79932 Dear Ms. Franklin: I am very pleased to announce in this letter our very avid support of your recent proposal to allow game bird hunting on various suitable USIBWC property in New Mexico adjacent to the Rio Grande at a safe minimum of 150 yards distance from occupied buildings as required by NM Dept. of Game and Fish regulations. Briefly i would like to describe the organization I represent. SCS {Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen) includes 15 various fish and wildlife clubs and organizations with approximately 1500 members primarily residing in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. We have met regularly each month (last Wednesday, 7:00 pm.) since 1986, over 27' years. Our main goals and purposes are to protect, maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats and encourage and enhance scientific research and management by present and future ethical sportsmen and women. we support various progressive activities and legislation laws of federal, state, community, public and private environmental organizations, etc. For example, we thank USIBWC for utilizing our suggestion to delay the annual mowing of excessive andior undesira hie shrubs and other vegetation until July 1 to avoid disastrous destruction of birds, nests, and eggs, and, juvenile mortality. Other very IBWC endeavors we endorse include elimination of livestock grazing leases, and allowing a continuation of a native river border plant such as willow and suppression of an undesirable exotic, salt cedar (Tamarix), and the resulting enhancement of nesting habitats for endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and ye-llow--billed cuckoos. We hope that you will continue to be aware of the contribution of hunting and fishing to the annual economy of New Mexico ?304,000 hunters and fishermen spent $5?9 million annually, which exceeds agriculture income of $539 million annually}. 4 Please continue your plausible and progressive plans for optimum watershed and wildlife habitat conditions. Sincerely, 154 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Verdecchia - Hunting EA From: To: Date: Subject: CC: "Estes, Bob, DCA" "Elizabeth.Verdecchia@ibwc.gov" 8/23/2013 2:31 PM Hunting EA "Mark Howe (Mark.Howe@ibwc.gov)" , Rebecca LittleOwl... Attachments: SHPO comment Hunting EA.pdf OFFICIL RESPONSE OF THE NEW MEXICO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) Dear Ms. Verdecchia, On behalf of the SHPO, I am providing comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) : Allowing Avian Hunting in designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project, Sierra and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico (HPD log 97350). Attached to this email is a copy of the SHPO comments on the draft EA. A hardcopy of the SHPO comments is being forwarded by mail. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me directly at (505) 827-4225or email me. Sincerely, Bob Estes file:///C:/Users/emverdec/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/52177245USIBWCELP10017... 9/12/2013 N, Sm, STATE OF NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION -- 1 -1912-? 223.33 cg qfi' 03 0/ .. -olpy. '90 BATAAN MEMORIAL BUILDING Susana Nlarfingz 407 GALISTEO STREET, SUITE 236 SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 8750] PHONE (505) 827-6320 FAX (505) 827 6338 August 23, 2013 Elizabeth Verdecchia Natural Resources Specialist International Boundaries and Water Commission The commons, Building C, Suite 100 4171 N. Mesa Street El Paso Texas 79902-1441 Dear Ms. Verdecchia, On behalf of the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) I want to thank you for providing notice of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Allowing Avian Hunting in designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project, Sierra and Dofia Ana Counties, New Mexico (HPD log 97350). I have completed a review of the draft EA and have a comment about agency coordination between the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As you probably know, the lead federal agency for a project can coordinate compliance of Section 106 of the NHPA with NEPA compliance by following the process as defined in 36 CFR 800.8. As currently written, however, it is the SHPO's opinion that the draft EA does not meet the standards for developing environmental documents to complying with Section 106 of the NHPA, per 36 CFR 800.8.c.1. The SHPO appreciates the IBWC's commitment to historic preservation as demonstrated by recent consultations. I am looking forward to consulting with you on this undertaking. If you have any question or comments please feel free to call me directly at (505) 827- 4225 or email me at bob.estes@state.nm.us. Sincerely, .4: (lag- Bob Estes 155 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO UNITED STATES SECTION August 21, 2013 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER UNITED STATES SECTION Ma//4/w i 91/ Las Cruces, New Mexico 88004 0 Re: Hunting Restrictions on IBWC Properties Dear Mr. Young: 7 3 I appreciate your interest in the environmental and recreationalvalue of the Rio Grande conidor New Mexico. It is clear you have a deep understanding of the role the river plays as a life- giving flyway for numerous bird species. I hope you will be pleased to hear that as a result of the interest expressed by -you and others, the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) has been coordinating with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others-to determine whether hunting would be appropriate and if it would conflict with other public uses of the floodplain. I Consideration of a policy change such as this requires the opportunity for all concemed organizations and individuals to comment on our proposal as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We expect to publish our EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) of what impacts such a change would have on a number of aspects of our stewardship of the floodplain, including wildlife, cultural and water resources, land use and cumulative effects. The EA will be located on our website, the Federal Register and there will be wide-spread media notice about its availability along with the 30 day period in which the public can provide us comments. Any comments regarding the EA should be addressed to Mrs. Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist at (915) 832-4701. Mrs. Sheryl Franklin, Chief of the USIBWC Operations and Maintenance Division is also available at (-915) 832-4741 to answer any other questions you may have. The Rio Grande is a natural jewel in our desert environment. I assure you the Commission takes its stewardship responsibilities seriously. I appreciate your interest in the recreational opportunities that the river corridor provides and your input into our deliberations as we attempt to balance all uses of USIBWC property in the floodplain. Sincerely 4 . . ward rusma, P.E. Commissioner The Commons, Building C, Suite 100 I 4171 N. Mesa Street 0 El Paso, Texas 79902-1441 (915) 832-4100 0 Fax: (915) 832-4190 0 Page 1 of 3 156 Elizabeth Verdecchia - RE: Sun-News re: hunting From: Sheryl Franklin To: Elizabeth Verdecchia;  Lindsey Anderson Date: 8/13/2013 8:26 AM Subject: RE: Sun-News re: hunting CC: Sally Spener Lindsey: I spoke with our Natural Resources Specialist, Elizabeth Verdecchia, who wrote the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to make sure we all fully understood the language in the draft EA.. It is our intent to only allow bird hunting in the areas proposed for hunting.  The comment in the draft EA you referenced is part of our evaluation of possible impacts in areas proposed for bird hunting.  That comment acknowledges that allowing bird hunting may also increase the opportunity for other types of hunters to use the floodplain for unauthorized purposes.  Anyone firing high caliber rifles, for example, would be subject to appropriate action by the Sheriff or NM Game and Fish wardens, but it may happen that they come to the area since others are shooting.  It is our plan to reduce these types of occurrences by signage and close coordination with the appropriate law enforcement officials.  Thank you for bringing my attention to the possible misinterpretation that others could have of the draft EA.  We will closely review and likely revise that specific language to avoid the impression that we are authorizing shooting of anything other than game birds. Sheryl >>> "Anderson, Lindsey" 8/12/2013 9:13 PM >>> Great, thank you, Sheryl! Lindsey Anderson Reporter Las Cruces Sun-News 256 W Las Cruces Ave Las Cruces, NM 88005 Phone: (575) 541-5462 Web: http://www.lcsun-news.com From: Sheryl Franklin [mailto:Sheryl.Franklin@ibwc.gov] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:07 PM To: Anderson, Lindsey Subject: Re: Sun-News re: hunting Let me check into that more closely and get back with you Tuesday. Sheryl >>> "Anderson, Lindsey" 8/12/2013 8:12:40 PM >>> I thought the environmental assessment said: " Allowing hunting will also allow sport shooters to fire weapons in file:///C:/Users/emverdec/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5209EDA5USIBWCELP1001... 9/13/2013 Page 2 of 3 the area." (top of p. 18) Lindsey Anderson Reporter Las Cruces Sun-News 256 W Las Cruces Ave Las Cruces, NM 88005 Phone: (575) 541-5462 Web: http://www.lcsun-news.com From: Sheryl Franklin [mailto:Sheryl.Franklin@ibwc.gov] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:12 PM To: Anderson, Lindsey Cc: Sally Spener Subject: Re: Sun-News re: hunting We are only proposing to allow bird hunting - nothing else. Sheryl >>> "Anderson, Lindsey" 8/12/2013 7:48:50 PM >>> Thank you, Sheryl. Many residents have said that because the proposal allows recreational shooting, shooters would be allowed to use any weapon of any caliber. Bird hunters would use bird shot, but someone simply target shooting in the area could use large caliber bullets, correct? Best, Lindsey Lindsey Anderson Reporter Las Cruces Sun-News 256 W Las Cruces Ave Las Cruces, NM 88005 Phone: (575) 541-5462 Web: http://www.lcsun-news.com From: Sheryl Franklin [mailto:Sheryl.Franklin@ibwc.gov] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:26 PM To: Anderson, Lindsey Cc: Sally Spener Subject: Sun-News re: hunting Lindsey: Here is a summary of the outreach USIBWC performed to citizens in the area of proposed hunting for birds (only).  There has apparently been some confusion and some people think we are proposing to allow hunting for all game (deer, etc.)  We are ONLY considering birds in accordance with all state and local laws.  Therefore, there should be no large caliber shot used. USIBWC has reached out the public in various ways.  We put out a news release on the issue on July 11 in advance of our July 17 public meeting of the Rio Grande Citizens Forum at which the issue was discussed.  We file:///C:/Users/emverdec/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5209EDA5USIBWCELP1001... 9/13/2013 Page 3 of 3 also sent a meeting invitation to our contact list of interested persons in the area.  I personally met with residents in the Shalem Colony Trail area.  The Draft Environmental Assessment was published in the Federal Register and on our website.  In August, we also sent out a news release and a notice to interested members of the public advising that the agency is accepting public comments. If you need anything else, just let me know. Sheryl >>> "Anderson, Lindsey" 8/12/2013 2:47 PM >>> Hi Sheryl, I am working on that follow-up story on the hunting proposal (It will run Wednesday.), and was wondering if the IBWC had reached out to residents to let them know about the proposal. Thank you! Lindsey Lindsey Anderson Reporter Las Cruces Sun-News 256 W Las Cruces Ave Las Cruces, NM 88005 Phone: (575) 541-5462 Web: http://www.lcsun-news.com file:///C:/Users/emverdec/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5209EDA5USIBWCELP1001... 9/13/2013 157 It looks like the original closure of existing hunting areas on the Rio Grande was a Significant Federal Action Impacting Use of the Environment that actually should have required a NEPA analysis before the areas could legally be changed to posting as "No Hunting". I've worked on many EIS projects for DOE and I think the cart is before the horse here. The NEPA process should have been engaged much earlier, and the No Action Alternative should therefore properly have been to "allow hunting as has been traditional usage:". The other (non-preffered to many of us) Alternative Action would have been to "post the land against hunting because of the major environmental impacts" (which would need to be documented but don't exist). Also, regulating hunting near towns is not the purvue of the Federal Gov't, NM law allows such hunting if the landowners within 150 yds provide written permission, and also prohibits any entity other than the State from regulating instances of firearm usage in NM, including hunting. This arbitrary Federal restriction of hunting areas seems like an end run around our rights as New Mexicans and US Citizens. Anyway, please provide me with the NEPA documents that provided the legal basis for the Significant Federal Action that resulted in the original hunting closure, so I can compare them to this new NEPA effort to possibly restore traditional land usage. Thank you. Disclaimer: since I have spent about 30 yrs on environmental work for various Federal Agencies, I should probably state that these are my own personal opinions and not those of any Agency nor my employer. 158 August 28, 2013 Sir or Madam: As a third generation resident of the r_u;al area between the Mesquite and Vado river bridges, I would like to enhance your knowledge of the ongoing problems we and our neighbors have had, and continue to have, with bird hunters. Our farm's eastern border is the Rio Grande, therefore, every September we have to endure the seasonal lunacy of the dove hunters. I have found, over the years, that a sizable portion of these people have little or no respect for the people that live and work here, nor do they respect private property. I, along with two of my employees, have been hit with bird shot, as well as farm equipment being damaged. This occurred shortly after two hunters, whose parental lineage is questionable, were told not to shoot into the farm or across farm property. These guys have no concept as to what really is. They park their jacked-up 4x4 pickup on the levee, directly across from my house, radio blaring, as they sit in their lawn chairs with easy access to their amply stocked Budweiser cooler waiting for dove to fly close enough so they can unload their 12-gauges, overkill for such a small bird, on them. I have heard four or five shots fired in rapid succession from the same gun. This means that at least one of them removed the plug from their shotgun to increase the shell capacity. I do believe that is against the law. It has been my experience as a bird hunter in my younger days that if you miss hitting a bird on the first shot, chances are pretty good you are not going to get it on the second, third, fourth or fifth tries. We have had people ignore No Trespassing signs, drive through the farm into fallow fields or recently harvested fields and set up camp anticipating a wonderfiJl day of shooting. I have also run people out of cotton and chile fields as they trampled down these crops searching for a downed bird. A few of these honest and upright citizens came back later to help themselves to chile or onions or whatever else is growing. I have lost thousands of dollars in thefts of small pecan and pine trees. The part of the levee these hunters stake out as their own is usually littered with their garbage, food containers and wrappers, beer cans, toilet paper and that for which it was used, and box after box of spent colored shotgun shells which will be there for many years to come. Do these idiots realize that the meager amount of meat these birds have is costing them more than Chateaubriand? Many of us are involved in agriculture and have lived and worked on these gr_a1_ properties for generations and do not appreciate the noise, litter, arrogance, disrespect and aggressive behavior of an increasing number of these so-called hunters, especially the younger ones. I am also tired of finding on our farm dead and injured animals at the hands 159 The attached pdf file is provided in response to the subject Environmental Assessment. Respectfully, Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for Hunting along the Rio Grande To: International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) Attn: Elizabeth Verdecchia Natural Resources Specialist Elizabeth.Verdecchia@ibwc.gov We (the undersigned) are opposed to the proposed action to allow hunting on IBWC property along the Rio Grande between the Shalem Colony Trail Bridge and Leasburg as described in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The most significant shortcomings of the Draft EA are that it does not adequately address the potential harm and impact to residents living adjacent to Rio Grande, to the potential harm and impact to recreational users of the Rio Grande, to the increased legal liability that will be incurred by IBWC, and to problems associated with selective enforcement of hunting restrictions along the Rio Grande. The focus of the EA seems to be on everything but people. It is just not clear that anything proposed in the EA will adequately ensure the safety and rights of the non-hunter. What is clear is that the taxpayers are going to pay for more law enforcement, more cleanup, more regulations, and more government; and, IBWC will have less money to get water to the farmers. Even the preparation and staffing of the EA is costing IBWC and the taxpayer. We are not opposed to “hunting” in areas where access is controlled and the safety of hunters and non-hunters can be ensured. The proposed action does not do that for anyone. The proposed action does not provide adequate notification to adjacent residents or recreational users. IBWC should recognize that when an area is “hot” (i.e., occupied by hunters engaged in hunting), IBWC has a responsibility to keep residents and non-hunters at a safe distance; a much greater distance than the 150 yards in the EA – which incidentally just applies to dwellings and buildings; not to people that one would hope would have greater value than dwellings and buildings. There is little accountability in the EA’s provisions for hunting. For the most part, hunters are unidentifiable, nameless and blameless. If they break the rules, it is unlikely that they will be caught or even identified. People generally do not approach other people with guns so that identification is generally impossible. The EA does not require or provide for hunters to sign-in. We did not find the EA to include provisions for continuing review, analysis and rewrite (if necessary). Environmental Assessments are intended to be living documents that are periodically reviewed for relevance and include provisions for measurement and analysis to assess cumulative impact. This is another continuing cost to IBWC and the taxpayer. We assume that IBWC has the legal authority to either allow or disallow hunting on IBWC Federal Land. This legal authority should be referenced in the EA. Also, other Federal or State approvals should be referenced along with any requirements that must be met. We disagree with reference to the to the Shalem Bridge to Leasburg area as rural and unpopulated. The EA should include a quantitative analysis (perhaps drawing on google maps and census data). We are vested in and consider that Paradise Lane, Trails End, and Rocky Acres Trail area have substantial populations including children, pets, domestic animals and livestock. We have personal experience with bullets passing close enough (estimated within 15 feet) to hear loudly the swish of air and the ping off of our horse corrals. The EA does not address or restrict the types of guns that will be allowed or include any analysis of lethal (or injury) distances. The following specific comments are provided: - Page 6 (2.1) "Because IBWC does not have the authority or staff to conduct law enforcement of USIBWC lands, the agency currently has granted jurisdiction of enforcement to the El Paso & Dona Ana County Sheriffs." It is not clear what laws are to be enforced. If the law to be enforced is “no trespassing” then there can be no hunting. - Pg. 7 “There can be no hunting within 150 yards from a dwelling or building”. There is no mention of people. There are numerous residents and recreational users of these areas. - Pg. 7 “Keep a safe shooting distance from other hunters and government personnel”. There is no mention of the general public (it is an insult that government personnel are more highly valued than the general public). - Pg. 8 “Vehicular access to the floodplain and gated levee roads will remain restricted, and vehicles are not allowed to drive up and down the levee slopes”. We witness that this restriction is being violated virtually every day. To think that hunters will be more observant of this restriction is not realistic. There is fire threat from catalytic converters especially if no mowing restrictions are implemented in the hunting areas. - Pg. 18 (3.4.2) “Currently, camping and all-terrain vehicles use are prohibited throughout the project”. We witness ATV’s and other vehicles being used daily in the vicinity of the Shalem Colony Bridge. When the river is dry, ATV’s and other vehicles run the riverbed often until 11:00 at night or later. Noise from these vehicles is annoying and significant. - Page 18 "Allowing hunting will also allow sport shooters to fire weapons in the area. Sport shooters will likely leave more shells than hunters. Sport shooters will not be concerned about scaring the wildlife and may drive through the flood plane." Please define “sport shooters” and clarify why allowing hunting will also allow sport shooters. Signed by: 160 July 31, 2013 Elizabeth (Liz) Verdecchia, US Section, IBWC Re: Draft EA, Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project, Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, New Mexico I've provided two "sticky" within the attached file (DEA_Hunting_07232013 - CGKeyesJr input-7.31.13). These pertain to the Draft WBP of the NMDA/PdNWC concerning Water Quality that was prepared this summer 2013 for the NMED and the USEPA (which was mentioned in the USIBWC Draft EA), and the socalled distribution of this Draft EA to the membership of the PdNWC (which I don't remember seeing such by email from PdNWC Secretary Sue Watts). However, I did receive the July 24, 2013 stakeholder letter from Gilbert Anaya, Division Chief, EMD, about this Draft EA by regular mail at my home office address. It is entirely possible that there could be a reduction of E.c oli in the measurements taken at the Rio Grande Bridge near Anthony over time, due to the potential reduction of Avian in the designated area below Mesilla Dam during the next 5-10 years. However, such a reduction of Avian in one area could cause an increase in another area in the Canalization Project during the same period of time; causing little effect on environmental consequences throughout the project. I just know from my own Avian hunting experience that game birds will move throughout the region while hunting is occurring. Summary of Comments on Microsoft Word - Draft Environmental Assessement - Hunting in Canalization July2013VER2.docx Page: 16 Author: Conrad G Keyes Jr Subject: Sticky Note Date: 7/31/2013 8:51:12 AM It seems that the DRAFT NMDA /PdNWC report to the NMED about their recommended Watershed Base Plan for the reduction of E.Coli in the same reach should be mentioned and that it could be possible that the E.Coli measurements at the Rio Granda Bridge near Anthony might be reduced over time due to the allowed Hunting Alternative. (CGKeyesJr - Chair, PdNWC and Co-Chair, USIBWC Citizens Forum Page: 23 Author: Conrad G Keyes Jr Subject: Sticky Note Date: 7/31/2013 8:48:35 AM I don't remember that this was distributed to the total Council membership by Secretary Sue Watts as of 7.31.2013. 161 Hi Sally, In the media you have been quoted saying that the DEA Hunting document does not permit target shooting along the proposed area. However in the excerpt below from the DEA document, Page 18, it proposes to "allow sport shooters to fire weapons in the area." Sport shooting involves various weapons, at varying distances and targets. As a resident in the area, this is one of the main components of the draft that creates the concern. As stated, it invites those without a hunting license to discharge their weapons in our neighborhood. Taking that into consideration, can you clarify the IBWC's definition of "sport shooters" in the draft? This will assist in better understanding the proposal. USIBWC Draft Environmental Assessment: Page 18 "Allowing hunting will also allow sport shooters to fire weapons in the area. Sport shooters will likely leave more shells than hunters. Sport shooters will not be concerned about scaring the wildlife and may drive throughout the floodplain. However, sport shooters appear to currently use the floodplain, as is evident with shell casings in certain areas of the project, and it is not expected that the Allowed Hunting Alternative will increase the presence of sport shooters significantly more than those who are currently illegally using USIBWC lands" 161-2 Date: 8/6/2013 3:24 PM Subject: Proposed Hunting along the Rio Grande in Residential Areas To the USIBWC: I have read the attached Draft Environmental Assessment and respectfully ask that you amend your proposal. I am NOT in favor of allowing hunting between the Leasburg Dam and the Shalom Colony Bridge which hunting is currently prohibited. Your draft does not take into consideration the residences, livestock, and pecan crops in the proposed area. To allow hunters to discharge their firearms in populated areas is a danger to those of us who live here and the public at large. There are several places in the proposed area where homes, not to mention roadways, and livestock are well within 150 yards of each other. These homes are especially hard to see on the ground because of the dense vegetation beyond the line of sight in the proposed area. Your draft does not identify these homes or businesses that operate in this area, and this is an oversight that needs to be taken into full consideration. The Draft, if i understand it correctly, does not restrict a person from target practice. This increases the chance of someone being struck by a projectile that misses its target or ricochets. Personally I have two bullet holes in my house due to someone discharging their firearm from the place you propose to open to hunting and potentially target practice. It is with these facts that I object to the changes submitted in the Draft prepared on July 23, 2013. Thank you for your consideration on this matter http://ibwc.state.gov/Files/DEA_Hunting_07232013.pdf http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_23703198/federal-agency-considers-lifting-bird-hunting-r estriction-along cc: New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez New Mexico State Senator Lee Cotter New Mexico State Senator Philip Archuleta US Representative Steve Pearce US Senator Martin Heinrich Local, State, and United States Representation 161-3 Subject: Re: Proposed Hunting along the Rio Grande in Residential Areas Attachments: DEA_Recommendations.pdf Hi Elizabeth, Please accept the attached document which details the area in Section 2 and concerns regarding the DEA for hunting along the Rio Grande dated 7/23/2013. I am available to meet in person or via phone if more information is needed. I can be reached at 575-642-8981. Thank you for considering these concerns. > To the USIBWC: >> I have read the attached Draft Environmental Assessment and respectfully > ask that you amend your proposal. I am NOT in favor of allowing hunting > between the Leasburg Dam and the Shalom Colony Bridge which hunting is > currently prohibited. Your draft does not take into consideration the > residences, livestock, and pecan crops in the proposed area. To allow > hunters to discharge their firearms in populated areas is a danger to those > of us who live here and the public at large. There are several places in > the proposed area where homes, not to mention roadways, and livestock are > well within 150 yards of each other. These homes are especially hard to > see on the ground because of the dense vegetation beyond the line of sight > in the proposed area. Your draft does not identify these homes or > businesses that operate in this area, and this is an oversight that needs > to be taken into full consideration. The Draft, if i understand it > correctly, does not restrict a person from target practice. This increases > the chance of someone being struck by a projectile that misses its target > or ricochets. Personally I have two bullet holes in my house due to > someone discharging their firearm from the place you propose to open to > hunting and potentially target practice. >> It is with these facts that I object to the changes submitted in the Draft > prepared on July 23, 2013. > > Thank you for your consideration on this matter >> http://ibwc.state.gov/Files/DEA_Hunting_07232013.pdf >> > http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_23703198/federal-agency-considers-lifting-bird-hunting-r estriction-along 162 To: Date: 8/3/2013 9:29 AM Subject: IBWC draft EIS Dear Ms. Verdecchia: I would like to offer the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment: Allowing Avian Hunting in Designated Areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project, Sierra and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico. I strongly endorse the Allowed Hunting Alternative. For many years, local residents have utilized IBWC lands near the river for countless types of outdoor recreation, including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, (notably birding), hiking, pet recreation and dog training, photography, rafting and canoeing, etc. The list goes on and on. Pursuit of these activities is part of a healthy lifestyle, and is also of economic value to our community. The IBWC is to be commended for their responsible approach to authorizing these pursuits. I also commend the IBWC for working with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) in a cooperative manner to establish the preferred alternative, which I support. Rather than identify each particular species and season for which hunting is authorized, I would suggest leaving the determination of seasons and species entirely to NMDGF regulations. This will avoid confusion of possible conflicts between long term authorization to hunt within IBWC boundaries and current and/or evolving NMDGF statewide regulations. For example, Sandhill Cranes are hunted annually along the Rio Grande, but they are not identified in your draft EIS. In addition, proper management of all game species requires the NMDGF to set seasons and bag limits. If NMDGF regulations change in the future, I can imagine great confusion and enforcement complications if the IBWC regulations are different from those of the NMDGF. I would recommend a statement along the lines of “Determination of seasons, regulations, and species to hunt will conform entirely to state and federal wildlife management agencies.” Your draft EIS states: “Big game and turkey are not expected to be present in the river corridor under existing habitat conditions and limited range”, then later states “Typical wildlife that could inhabit the project area include black‐tailed jackrabbit, desert cottontail, cotton rat, ground squirrels, mourning dove, meadowlark, kestrel, red‐tail hawk, mule deer, skunks, burrowing owls, several species of waterfowl, and other non‐game animals (USIBWC 2007).” Those statements appear to be in conflict. The fact is that big game (specifically mule deer) inhabit the river corridor to a large extent today. As with all hunting, big game hunting needs to be conducted in a responsible manner, but as an example, I can readily imaging allowing bow-hunting for mule deer within the river corridor, and I would encourage that option to be considered. There are in fact times when farmers along the river corridor complain about mule deer depredation on their crops, and hunting can be an effective management technique to address those concerns. I would also like to point out that several years ago a wild turkey transplant effort was conducted in the river corridor addressed by your draft EIS. While it is believed that wild turkey do not presently occupy this corridor in sufficient numbers to hunt, it is not inconceivable that with ongoing habitat restoration efforts or other unforeseen circumstances wild turkeys could be reestablished in this corridor of the river. I would therefore recommend that hunting turkeys not be explicitly precluded in the final EIS. This could be addressed by simply stating that: “Hunting for avian species as allowed under NMDGF and USFWS regulations is authorized.” The current preferred alternative calls for the authorization to hunt to end at the Berino bridge. I recommend the authorized hunting corridor be extended further south, to the Washington Street bridge in Anthony. There is little difference in the habitat and development between this area and that immediately north of the Berino bridge. It is very common for small game hunters, particularly bird hunters, to hold a license to hunt in only one state, in this case in either New Mexico or Texas, but not both. It therefore makes sense to make the end of the authorized hunting corridor close to the state line. (Few New Mexico hunters will be interested in hunting further south along the river than this, as they probably will not purchase a Texas small game license.) Again, I strongly endorse the preferred alternative, and I thank you for your efforts to address hunting along the Rio Grande corridor. 163 Date: 8/23/2013 12:01 PM Subject: Hunting EIS comments Elizabeth Verdecchia Natural Resources Specialist, IBWC 4071 N. Mesa C100 El Paso, TX 79902 Dear Ms. Verdecchia: I am writing to submit comments on the draft Environmental Assessment about allowing hunting in designated areas along the Rio Grande Canalization Project. I don't live along the river, but I am a frequent visitor, going to the river for bike rides, walks, and birdwatching outings. While I don't object to hunting in and of itself, I do have some concerns about this proposal. My concerns fall into 2 general areas: waterfowl hunting during drought years, and enforcement. Waterfowl in Drought Years Though the draft EA notes that USFWS has primary responsibility for setting waterfowl hunting limits based on population-level productivity and abundance measures, the EA makes no accommodations for conditions at a more local scale. In most years, the Rio Grande represents virtually the only aquatic habitat available for waterfowl in our area, and in drought years, waterfowl are limited to extremely short reaches of the river. For instance, last winter, the Rio Grande was completely dry along much of its length in Doña Ana County, and alternate aquatic habitats such as Burn Lake and playas on the East and West Mesas were dry. There were only a few locations where there was enough water in the river to support waterfowl. One was the reach extending for a few miles downstream from Leasburg Dam State Park, where springs delivered groundwater into the river channel, and another was the reach extending a short distance below the Hatch Siphon, just downstream of the Crow Canyon restoration site. Both of these reaches are within the areas proposed for legal hunting under the EA. It seems to me that allowing waterfowl hunting when drought conditions concentrate waterfowl and other bird species dependent upon aquatic habitats (including shorebirds and herons) to limited sections of the river is going to make waterfowl hunting much more disruptive to all of these species than it would be in years with higher flows. Hunting activity will be concentrated, and the birds will have few alternate locations where they can go to rest and feed. I would encourage the IBWC to incorporate some sort of annual review of habitat availability into their management of waterfowl hunting. Perhaps a threshold could be established to help in annual decision-making, based either on the percent of the Canalization Project length where aquatic habitats are expected to be available in a given year, or flow rates during the irrigation season. It is my understanding that an annual release of 400,000 acre-feet from Caballo Reservoir is the minimum amount that could support fairly continuous flows along the project length through the non-irrigation season, which would minimize the concentration of (and hunting-related stress to) species dependent on aquatic habitats. Enforcement I am also concerned that enforcement provisions, as outlined in the draft EA, are inadequate to protect natural resources and public safety in and around the areas proposed for hunting. The Doña Ana County Sheriff's Department currently has enforcement authority for IBWC lands within the county, and it is evident that their reactive response to complaints, even under current conditions, is not sufficient. As recent media coverage has documented, illegal shooting is a serious problem, and I have also witnessed numerous incidents of trespass when four-wheel-drive and all-terrain vehicles have raced up and down the river channel, disturbing wildlife when they drive through the shallow water of those limited wet reaches during low-water years, and damaging the river's engineered banks when they drive in and out of the channel. The addition of enforcement of hunting regulations to the sheriff department's responsibilities is only going to stretch their limited resources further. If hunting is going to be allowed in some areas, additional resources for the sheriff's department and/or the active involvement of NMDGF personnel should be required, to allow for proactive patrols to ensure that the folks shooting guns are actually licensed hunters, and that other hunting and trespass regulations are being followed. Because of its unique biological, scenic, and recreational values, the river corridor attracts a lot of wildlife, and a lot of people. The issues that are being brought up by the release of this draft EA make it clear that better enforcement of existing regulations throughout the year needs to be pursued, regardless of what decision is made about hunting at the end of this EA process. Sincerely, 164 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. I support the plan to hunt on the Rio Grande from Perchance to Texas border. I have duck, dove, and Crane hunted the river in past and will continue to. Denial of access will remove significant amounts of huntable lands that have a water source. Additionally your signs will continue to be vandalized by locals if you ban hunting. 165 International Boundary and Water Commission, thank you for proposing to allow hunting on IBWC lands in the lower Rio Grande flood plain. Thanks for your post. I would love to say that a health icanrsnue dealer also utilizes the benefit of the particular coordinators of a group icanrsnue policies. The health icanrsnue professional is given a summary of benefits wanted by anyone or a group coordinator. Exactly what a broker really does is find individuals or maybe coordinators which in turn best go with those requirements. Then he provides his advice and if all sides agree, this broker formulates legal contract between the 2 parties.