Marlene Braun, 1958-2005

In Memory of Marlene A. Braun July 3, 1958 – May 2, 2005. First Monument Manager of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The Carrizo has the greatest concentration of threatened and endangered vertebrates species as well as many plant species in California. Her many friends recall her brilliance, kindness, deep appreciation of the natural environment, her loyal friendship, and her beautiful laugh.

It has now been five years since her death. Many articles and blogs have been written about her and are listed below. Her contributions to the CPNM are not forgotten, and the many people who visit there each year reap the benefits of her stewardship.

What’s new with Ron Huntsinger, the BLM National Science Coordinator?

Readers of this blog might be interested to know what the Bureau of Land Management’s National Science Coordinator is up to these days. Mr. Ron Huntsinger has joined the CESU COUNCIL. The CESU Network is coordinated and provided support by the CESU Council. That stands for Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units. “The Council includes representatives of participating Federal agencies operating under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the CESU Network. A CESU Council Coordinator is elected by the members.”

US Dept. of Interior:

Ron Huntsinger
National Science Coordinator
Bureau of Land Management
1620 L Street , Room 1050
Washington , DC 20036
Phone: (202) 452-5177
Fax: (202) 452-5112
Email: Ron_Huntsinger@blm.gov

The Public Lands Monitor for Fall, 2009 also has a presentation by Ron Huntsinger, National Science Coordinator, BLM Headquarters Office, Washington, D.C. “BLM Adaptations to Changes in Climate.”

Click for Ron Huntsinger’s PowerPoint presentation.

Secretary Salazar has issued a Secretarial Order on climate change and renewable energy. Four work groups have been formed to develop a supplemental strategy for the BLM. It is working on adaptive management guidance to complement the climate change strategy for both the DOI and BLM. It is developing a rapid assessment process at the eco-regional scale to allow for identification of areas suitable for renewable resource development. A national monitoring network and regionalized science support capability is being proposed in DOI, in which BLM will participate. Under the new BLM science strategy, it is developing a technology transfer process to assure that best management practices, adaptive management strategies, decision support tools, and research results are incorporated in BLM training and management programs, as well as being made available to other users.

Also at that meeting was Mike Pool, BLM Deputy Director for Operations, Washington, D.C., who described some of the major public land initiatives BLM is dealing with:

BLM is focused on renewable energy development. Solar and wind energy facilities have the potential for large scale displacement of other public land values. A Solar Programmatic EIS is being prepared to help BLM decide how to implement renewable energy programs. At the same time, BLM is reviewing how it manages conventional energy resource goals.

The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) fits well with the Department’s landscape protection initiative. The NLCS created a balance and gives strength to BLM and the agency’s array of management programs. There will be emphasis on identifying and protecting cultural and historic resources. Friends groups are being developed that are building new coalitions, partnerships, and diplomats for the BLM.

The BLM’s Resource Management Plans (RMP) are one of the foundations of the BLM. These “masterful documents” are rich with information, and are good temporary blueprints of what BLM needs to do to manage for today’s uses of the public lands. The RMPs are continually being amended to meet changing needs. Local governments and local publics compliment the BLM in saying that nobody works with them better than the BLM. There is a culture in the BLM that knows how to deal with the public on difficult issues, and a process that leads to good, sound decisions.

The BLM will continue to manage a high level of economic resources and recreation. Challenging lawsuits over sage grouse, desert tortoise and other Threatened and Endangered Species are now recognized as part of the decision making process and BLM is improving its products for dealing with these issues.

Mike Pool presented retiring PLF President George Lea with a bronze buffalo statue with thanks for George’s service and dedication to the Public Lands Foundation, and he thanked the PLF for being a great supporter of the BLM.

DR. Huntsinger (no, he didn’t actually get a Ph.D.) also has been presenting on Climate Change at conferences such as the Southwest Region Fish and Wildlife Service Workshop. It probably looks better for him to appear to have an advanced degree, but all he has a BS.

The “bad science of the Bush administration” seems to be perpetuating itself under the Obama administration.

Sarah Christie, environmental expert, forced to resign from Planning Commission

A story is playing out once again that will end with the removal of a woman of intelligence, vigor, dedication and vision from the Carrizo. It is not the work of BLM this time, but apparently being too good at one’s job is dangerous for women in cattle/oil’n’gas/and solar energy country. “Headstrong” is a bad quality in women working for the environment, and a lot of people like to see these women put in their place. (KT)

So long, Sarah
Supervisor Jim Patterson intends to ax Planning Commission Chairwoman Sarah Christie.
BY COLIN RIGLEY

AXED
Sarah Christie is expected to resign from the SLO County Planning Commission at the request of Supervisor Jim Patterson, who appointed her five years ago.

Sarah Christie is the type of public official who can rip you to shreds and hold a quizzical look that says, “How did you not see this coming?”

She’s a brutally incisive decision maker who can steer a meeting, sway a vote, and shift opposing political views, using keen reasoning and unparalleled knowledge of local laws.

Maybe it’s because of those very qualities that Christie has become one of the most divisive members of SLO County government. And maybe they account for why, after five years, she’s being forced out of office.

Christie is expected to resign from the SLO County Planning Commission during the Dec. 17 meeting. She’s been perceived by some critics as an extreme, left-biased roadblock and by supporters as one of the best planning commissioners in memory. When she steps down—barring a change of heart by Supervisor Jim Patterson, who appointed her—she may allude to spending time with her family or other such political clichés. Whatever her official explanation may be, Christie is not stepping down by choice.

Throughout her tenure, Christie has been at the forefront in the pitched battles between SLO County’s environmentalists on the left and developers on the right. Despite vigorous campaigns by pro-growth agitators to unseat her, her position has been secure. But somewhere along the line very recently, Patterson turned against her.

About 15 people met with Patterson on Dec. 7 to change his mind: As far as anyone can tell, they failed.

Many political figures self-destruct amid scandals and corruption charges; Christie may meet her demise for no reason other than she’s an expert. “I just think it’s really sad for Sarah personally … just because she’s so smart,” one supporter said. “Just because we have an intelligent woman. And that’s a bad thing?”

Christie is an undeniable pain in the ass to any developer who relies on smooth public relations consultants and slick PowerPoints. Pat Veesart, a former District 3 planning commissioner, thinks “it’s always been an unlevel playing field” in the world of county development. Christie, he believes, provided a counterbalance for the public, who is usually shortchanged compared to developers with deep coffers and ready access to decision makers.

Ultimately, Christie is just one vote on the commission, a government body that can be easily overridden by the Board of Supervisors. And the Planning Commission rarely gains much public attention, aside from a small circle of activists and wonks. But Christie’s departure would signify much more than just the loss of a mid-level decision maker who is virtually a volunteer (planning commissioners make $150 per meeting); it would be a sign the county’s political infrastructure is vulnerable to pressure from private interests.

“I think the message is going to be loud and clear among those circles,” Veesart said.

What’s odd is not that Christie might be forced out; what’s odd is the timing. She’s served for five years as Patterson’s appointee and has come under fire before. Calls for her blood peaked months ago but have faded.

Why now?

By most accounts, her position on the county’s future energy policy was the final straw; a position that poses a financial threat to large solar projects—projects involving people with ties to certain county officials.

“I think it’s the solar stuff, I do,” said Robin Bell, of the Carrisa Alliance for Responsible Energy.

Two large solar electric projects have been proposed for construction in the Carrizo Plains, which is in Patterson’s district. There were originally three projects, but after several sales and company buyouts, SunPower and First Solar stand as the only applicants. Both companies have a lot riding on those projects, which came about after PG&E brokered a deal to add 800 megawatts of power to its grid. State law requires utility companies to increase supplies of renewable energy.

The latest Wedbush research report for stock investors, published Dec. 4, gave both solar companies neutral ratings. The report warns that expected lawsuits and delays in the approval process could significantly extend company timelines to construction. According to the Wedbush analysis, SunPower’s share price anticipated for the next 12 months is scaled back from $29 to $21.

And the escalating global market, particularly because of Chinese solar manufacturers, means First Solar and SunPower must build a lot of solar panels to stay competitive, explained Wedbush solar analyst Christine Hersey.

“Investors just need to realize it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than maybe they were previously thinking,” Hersey said, adding that the Carrizo projects are the largest U.S. projects ever proposed by either company.

Although the projects are the vanguard of a state and national push for green energy, they have come under intense scrutiny because of potential impacts to wildlife. Neither project has yet moved to the county’s approval process—both are still drafting environmental review documents.

In June 2009, a deliberative process began to unfold that potentially could undercut such large projects as the ones proposed in the Carrizo, and it originated in the Planning Commission.

Simultaneously, some critics were calling for Christie’s resignation as she and the other commissioners were redrafting the county’s General Plan. Over multiple meetings, the commissioners have been updating policies for the Conservation and Open Space Element of the plan. Some of the policy reforms focus on energy: namely what kind, where should power plants be built, and should there be large power plants or should we instead favor solar panels on rooftops? Should energy companies be required to avoid environmental impacts or merely offset them?

Such were the questions the commissioners pondered during the course of the early meetings. It was a rough start, but as the commissioners gained momentum in their review, Christie became the focal point in the most contested debates about the new energy policies. Indeed, Christie provided the groundwork for the current version of policies with a draft she wrote based on public comments—if only because no one else brought language to the table. Though the commissioners continued to work from Christie’s draft, she personally caught so much flak she felt obligated to explain what she had provided. “They’re not necessarily my edits,” Christie said on July 6. “They’re a reflection of the public’s input.”

But what the public wanted and what some commissioners were willing to concede were mostly disparate. Some policy language gave preference to distributed power sources—solar panels on rooftops—instead of large local industrial solar plants. Other bits of wording went a bit beyond historical county guidelines by saying that in SLO County, new projects should avoid environmental impacts. Historically, commissioners and some county planners argued, projects are only expected to mitigate impacts. But asking developers to avoid impacts may preclude some projects from passing county standards.

“My guess is four of us are a little more on the side of accepting that there may be some trade-offs,” Commissioner Anne Wyatt said. In other words, the policies Christie proposed went too far.

Commissioner Carlyn Christianson also warned the policies might restrict projects from moving through the county’s approval process. But Christie countered, laughing as though she was going crazy, “So nothing in this document is going to prohibit anything from happening. All this document is going to do is to lay out a general path. These are general guidelines.”

She continued, “And I’m getting a little bit of a sense that we’re trying to craft this document to meet the needs of some specific applicants, which I think is completely inappropriate.”

By July 23, representatives from the solar companies were attending the meetings in person and submitting letters on the record urging the county to pull back on the restrictions.

As the commissioners wrapped up the energy element, they tentatively approved the language, but left it on uncertain ground. Surprisingly, Christianson and Wyatt, who are both part of the Democratic 3-2 majority, actually apologized as they closed the books on the energy element.

“I do not feel that some of the decisions made by the commission are things I do agree with, but I do think the Board of Supervisors will have a chance to review some of those decisions made by the commission,” Christianson said.

On Dec. 17, Christie and the rest of the commission are scheduled to finalize the new General Plan elements. Some commissioners hinted they want to revise the earlier language and gut the suggestions Christie included.

It is an undeniably tense issue for the commission, so significant that solar representatives have been drawn into the debate before their projects go up for public review.

“There’s been quite a bit of discussion about Sarah’s role as chairman of the Planning Commission and her extensive involvement in revising the open space element of the county’s General Plan,” said Chris Crotty of Crotty Consulting in San Diego.

NOT WORTH IT ANYMORE
Supervisor Jim Patterson long withstood pressure to remove Planning Commissioner Sarah Christie, but something or someone recently changed his mind.
PHOTO BY STEVE E. MILLER
Crotty’s name might sound familiar for two reasons. First, he has a long history as a political consultant in SLO County, having guided the election campaigns of Supervisors Patterson, Adam Hill, and Bruce Gibson. And second, SunPower recently hired Crotty as a consultant.

“Let me put it this way,” Crotty said. “The document that the planning commission utilized to make those changes was a document that was authored by Sarah Christie.”

It’s not only that Crotty is being paid to represent a company trying to build in SLO County and is buddies with the people who will make the decision, or that Christie may have upset the balance on a project in Patterson’s district. If you ask Bell or Veesart why they think Christie’s job is on the line, it’s because she irked the wrong people.

When it comes to the large-scale solar projects, Bell said, “It was apparent that Sarah was going in one direction and Jim was going in the other.”

But after tidal waves of pressure for Patterson to remove Christie, which she had always survived, would the solar companies somehow be able to drown her out? “You can bet that it’s a factor in this,” Veesart said. “You can bank it.”

Crotty responded that no one from SunPower asked that she be removed.

Damage control

Neither Christie nor Patterson would confirm she’s slated to retire from her position, though Patterson told New Times on Dec. 14 he would have a statement later during the week. Perhaps a wave of support for Christie would sway Patterson’s decision, though many say they worry it’s unlikely things will change.

According to several of Christie’s supporters, who asked not to have their names disclosed because a decision has not been made official or public, Christie will be replaced during the first meeting next year. One of her supporters, referring to criticism levied against Christie throughout her five years in the position, said, “I think that it’s just been this drum beat. I figure that it’s gotten harder and harder for the supervisor to ignore.”

Her worried supporters have lobbied Patterson. But Patterson insisted a recent meeting with several of them had nothing to do with Christie and anything about her being kicked out was merely gossip.

One person who attended that meeting told New Times “it was just weird.” The group urged Patterson to change his mind while he sat, listened, jotted a few notes, but didn’t indicate what he would do.

“What prompted him to even think about hanging her?” the attendee wondered.

For now, the message is being tightly controlled. One potential replacement could be Patterson’s appointee to the Water Resources Advisory Committee, Dan O’Grady, who was nervous to comment on the matter and a bit cryptic about whether he had been pegged for the job.

“I need to just refer you to Jim about any questions about his appointments,” O’Grady said dryly. “I don’t think that would be appropriate for me to [comment].”

O’Grady didn’t return a follow-up call.

Andy Caldwell, who’s a Santa Maria talk show host and executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, has become one of Christie’s biggest, or certainly one of the loudest, critics. On July 14, Caldwell publicly called for Christie to be removed from the commission. He asked the Board of Supervisors directly and repeated his opinion in a commentary he contributed to New Times (“Remove Sarah Christie from the planning commission,” July 23).

Asked about Christie, Caldwell was thrilled she might be on the way out.

“But I think what’s occurring right now is what I would refer to as an echo,” Caldwell said, meaning the blasts from himself and others were reverberating from the opposing political spectrum. “And that is the truth about Sarah Christie is a lot of the lefties don’t even like her because she doesn’t listen to them.”

He went on: “I think ultimately this is going to come back to Patterson and [Supervisor Bruce] Gibson where it rightly belongs because they’re not reining her in. … Sarah Christie’s days are numbered.”

Christie has never pretended she’s trying to win friends. Her reputation and tone on the commission is usually hard-edged and sometimes stubborn. After the 2008 election—which switched the Board of Supervisors from a Republican to a Democratic majority, which was reflected by the commission—Christie appeared to mellow a bit. No longer on the defensive as far as voting, her attitude tempered from boiling to a quiet simmer. By reputation, Christie has been a strong voice on the commission for smart growth and environmental stewardship—a voice that has likely won her as many fans as it’s created enemies.

“Sarah has shown more people skills than she had previously,” said Jerry Bunin of the Homebuilders Association of the Central Coast. “But I wouldn’t call her a fair and balanced commissioner. She’s not objective unless the housing is overwhelmingly affordable and therefore difficult to make financial sense to build.”

Patterson was first elected in 2004—he was re-elected in 2008—beating out contender Mike Ryan. Christie was integral in the first campaign and was appointed to be his planning commissioner. She held the office through his re-election last year. She’s also the legislative director for the California Coastal Commission, and has a long résumé of community and environmental activism, starting as a journalist and local government employee.

In 2009, as part of a regular rotation, Christie landed the commission chairmanship, which seemed to throw a fresh coat of paint on the target on her back. Earlier this year, the bloodlust from Christie’s detractors spiked after the release of a 2008 grand jury report. Though Christie wasn’t named, the grand jury reported that she may have overstepped her bounds when she contacted the state Department of Fish and Game about a sand and gravel mining operation proposed in Paso Robles. But the grand jury recommended no punishment, nor in fact any actual wrongdoing, stating instead that planning commissioners should have more training.

If indeed Christie is forced out, it would be a huge loss, several supporters told New Times.

SLO Councilwoman Jan Marx said Christie is “very thorough, very bright, and she knows a lot. Sometimes that’s threatening to people.”

“She is magnificent,” Veesart said. “There’s no other way to describe her. … She’s leagues above everybody else in county politics.”

If Christie is forced out, her absence will resonate far beyond the Planning Commission. As one supporter said, “I think this is getting very political and I am sorely disappointed in Jim Patterson.”

Staff Writer Colin Rigley can be reached at crigley@newtimesslo.com.

Christie says she was betrayed
By Bob Cuddy | bcuddy@thetribunenews.com

Former Planning Commissioner Sarah Christie says the man who appointed her, Supervisor Jim Patterson, betrayed her in “a muscular act of political disloyalty” and has created a rift in the North County environmental movement.

Christie resigned Thursday under pressure from Patterson, who asked her to leave.

Christie said Patterson knuckled under to people “who came running into his office with their hair on fire and said Sarah Christie is trying to hijack the General Plan.”

Patterson denied the existence of either a betrayal or a rift among environmentalists.

Some Christie supporters said at a minimum Patterson may lose support among his base should he run for re-election in 2012.

Sue Harvey of the environmental group North County Watch said the chief problem with Christie’s departure is the loss of her knowledge and skills. But, she added, “If you are asking does this fragment and erode Patterson’s political base, yes I believe it does.”

Morro Bay Vice Mayor Betty Winholtz was part of a group that tried to talk Patterson out of replacing Christie a week before he did so. She told The Tribune on Tuesday that the group warned him it would be political suicide to abandon Christie.

However, Patterson told them and later the general public that he asked Christie to resign because a growing number of people were telling him that they were not being treated even-handedly when they went before the commission.

He said, for those people, “It was like going to court and thinking the judge is biased and you don’t have a chance.”

“I try to … build consensus,” Patterson told The Tribune. “I don’t think she was good at building consensus.”

Asked if that were perception or reality, Patterson said, “It’s actuality as well.” He said he observed her at commission hearings and “she was not handling herself well,” coming off as confrontational and “too forceful.”

Political fallout

Christie and Patterson spoke with The Tribune in separate interviews.

The discussions delineated a fissure that has been widening since at least last summer between the two old friends and political collaborators. The pair worked to dislodge conservative Supervisor Mike Ryan in 2004 and fend off a strong attack from Ryan acolyte Debbie Arnold in 2008.

Christie, a strong-minded, highly knowledgeable environmentalist and a member of the California Coastal Commission staff, drew criticism from the start, particularly from North County ranchers, gravel miners and property rights advocates.

She acknowledges being a lightning rod for criticism but adds, “Lightning rods are important; they keep your house from burning down.”

Until this past summer, Patterson defended her, even during the 2008 campaign when she was being loudly reviled by Patterson’s opponents. He said in light of that and other acts of loyalty, he finds Christie’s accusation of betrayal “odd.”

“I don’t get the betrayal thing,” Patterson said.

During the 2008 election, Christie said Patterson’s campaign polled to see how much of a drag she was on his re-election chances. “It was on the table,” she said.

Patterson was re-elected in June 2008, but it was not until this past August that he told her to prepare her exit strategy, she said.

Christie said he told her there are people in the community who would not speak to him because she was his planning commissioner.

“He thinks with me gone the noise will stop and he can go back to being the beloved, benevolent politician he sees himself as,” Christie said.

Christie believes the change in Patterson’s thinking occurred after she submitted comments ahead of time for the commission’s discussion about energy last summer. None of the other commissioners did that this time around, although Christie said they had in previous meetings on other subjects.

She said people unhappy about the way that meeting went showed up at the next hearing and “excoriated the Planning Commission.”

Patterson said it is “absolutely untrue” that he is being pressured by energy companies.

He said he had been “thinking about this for a long time,” and his feeling that it was time for a change grew when he began hearing complaints about Christie’s confrontational style from people who were “not the usual critics.”

“I’m talking about the general public,” he said, citing people in business, health care, agriculture and housing, for example.

None of Christie’s fellow planning commissioners who spoke at the commission meeting after she resigned echoed Patterson’s criticism.

Bruce White, who represents the conservative North County on the commission, called her “thoughtful, considerate and respectful.”

South County farmer Gene Mehlschau, who sometimes disagrees with Christie on policy, added that “the issues are more widely discussed because we are different; that’s the beauty of it.”

In one sense, the matter is academic. Patterson has appointed Dan O’Grady of Atascadero, who has similar values but a different style, saying, “She (Christie) is not the only one who can do this work.”

But if the coalition that worked to put Patterson in office falls apart, it could put a conservative back on the board from the 5th District. That in turn could tip the board’s 3-2 environmental balance back into a 3-2 pro-growth dynamic.

In Memoriam: Anne McMahon

A great environmentalist and writer passed away this weekend. Anne McMahon, who worked with the Nature Conservancy during the period that Marlene Braun was the monument manager for the Carrizo Plain National Monument, but who left TNC shortly before Marlene died, was a champion for justice. She worked for Representative Lois Capps before moving to her job as Federal Programs Manager for the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco. In the Los Angeles Times article about Marlene’s death, she was one of the few willing to be quoted. A small notice appeared yesterday in the CalCoast News. There is a topix comment thread on which you can leave a comment if you like, to remember Anne.

If you would like to read Anne’s article about the Carrizo, “A California Gem,” the Wilderness Society has reposted it.

Anne, may you rest in peace.

Update:
Please make donations in Anne’s name to North County Watch (http://www.northcountywatch.org/).

Update:
Local political player hailed as dedicated
Anne McMahon, who died Saturday at 57, worked for the California Coastal Commission
By Bill Morem | bmorem@thetribunenews.com

Anne McMahon, 57, who died Saturday at her Santa Margarita home after a seven-month battle with cancer, was known for her keen intelligence and sense of humor.

Referring to her as “my dear friend,” Rep. Lois Capps said, “Anne was one of the first Congressional staffers (my husband), Walter, hired when he was elected in 1996, and she was a tremendous asset to the office and the constituents of the 22nd Congressional District.

“Anne was a wonderful writer,” she added, “having worked as a local journalist for several years before moving to politics. She also had a quick wit and generous spirit. It was truly a joy to work with her and an honor to be her friend.”
Click image to see caption

Anne McMahon was described as having a ‘quick wit’ by Lois Capps.

California Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas hired McMahon three years ago to be the commission’s Federal Program Manager, acting as a liaison with a variety of federal agencies and Congress.

Douglas said that although McMahon “knew the Coastal Commission, its policies and its work, she was not familiar with the wide range of responsibilities and issues she would need to address in her new capacity. She stepped right in, and through her dedication, strong work ethic, good mind and fine people skills, she was able to catch on remarkably fast.

“In my 30-plus years with the commission,” he added, “I know of no one who joined our coastal family and earned the love and respect of her colleagues more quickly than Anne did.”

Jim Hayes, former journalism professor and writing coach for the Los Angeles Times, taught McMahon when she returned to Cal Poly for a degree in journalism after having raised a family.

“She was smart, shrewd and determined to learn. Annie — as her friends knew her — had a heart as big as the outdoors she loved so well.

She drove herself with passion for good causes and compassion even for those who failed her. She taught me that politics, played by honest people for the right reasons, could be a wonderful game. She ended up teaching me. She was one-of-a-kind.”

Former county supervisor David Blakely hired her as his board aide. “She had been with me through my political career,” the now-retired Blakely said from his home in Santa Margarita.

“First and foremost, she loved her family and right behind that, this little community.”

Toward that end, Mc-Mahon fought the development of the Santa Margarita Ranch, pointing out that almost a dozen environmental problems associated with the project couldn’t be fixed or mitigated.

“She was great to work with,” Blakely said. “You know how you’ve got some employees that you don’t have to worry about? She was one of those. She just knew what to do and did it. She engendered a lot of respect from county staff.”

Neil Havlik, natural resources manager for the city of San Luis Obispo, said McMahon’s love for the county was evident in her efforts with the Nature Conservancy to get an area of the Carrizo Plain designated a national monument.

“I don’t know who got Bill Clinton to sign the designation,” Havlik said, “but it wouldn’t surprise me if her hand were in there.”

When she tried to drum up support for a countywide green belt, she pulled in such disparate groups as the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Association, Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Center.

“She was nothing but a lady,” Havlik said.

She is survived by her husband Peter Kincaid; sons Jono and Ryan; parents Bob and Janis McMahon; three sisters — Noreen, Megan and Michelle; and two brothers, Gerard and Dan.

No services are planned, although an Irish wake will be held at a later date.

“Honest Chief” Chambers wins appeal against Dept. of Interior

CHAMBERS WINS APPEAL AGAINST U.S. INTERIOR DEPARTMENT
Privacy Act Violation for Bush Officials Destroying Favorable Personnel Evaluation

Washington, DC – In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today upheld the claim of former U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers that records exonerating her may have been illegally destroyed by Bush administration officials. The ruling also sets a precedent for using the Privacy Act to redress improper shredding of personnel files and other records, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

The case involves the disappearance of a favorable performance evaluation for Chief Chambers prepared by then-Deputy Park Service Director Donald Murphy covering the same period when Murphy later alleged Chambers had ignored the chain-of-command – allegations utterly absent from Murphy’s appraisal, according to sworn testimony. Chambers is seeking restoration as Chief of the U.S. Park Police following her dismissal in 2004 after an interview she gave to The Washington Post concerning staff shortages. Her dismissal was based in part on charges that would be impeached by a glowing performance evaluation.

In 2005, Chambers filed a lawsuit under the Privacy Act on the grounds that this key exculpatory evidence had been intentionally and wrongfully destroyed. In 2008, the federal district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the government only had an obligation to undertake a diligent search for the document. Chambers appealed, arguing, among other things, that a diligent search was no remedy when the government had already improperly destroyed the document that was the object of the search.

“This is an important ruling not only for Teresa Chambers but for all citizens who rely upon the government to safeguard records about them,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein who argued the appeal. “The federal government cannot shred incriminating documents with impunity.”

The ruling remands the case back for a trial on whether Interior in fact intentionally destroyed the evaluation. In the meantime, Chambers’ direct challenge to her dismissal is before another federal appellate court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That latter panel has already ruled once for Ms. Chambers only to have two holdover Republican appointees on the Merits Systems Protection Board again reject her challenge. Her appeal on the underlying action will be argued this fall.

A definitive ruling on the missing performance evaluation would undermine Interior’s contention that the dismissal of Chief Chambers was justified on the merits.

“The long legal saga of Chief Chambers boils down to one question – May a public servant be fired for telling the truth, especially a truth vital to public safety?” Dinerstein added. “We also wonder how long the Obama administration will want to keep on defending the multiple acts of misconduct by their predecessors in this case.”

LA Times Julie Cart Wins Well-Deserved Pulitzer for series on brush fires

Julie Cart, who has been writing on environmental policy and issues as a journalist for the Los Angeles Times, and who, with Maria La Ganga wrote the August, 2005 article on Marlene Braun’s suicide, has just won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism with a colleague, Bettina Boxall. Congrats to both of them. You can link to the articles on the brush fires here. One of the great things about Julie Cart’s reporting is that is so balanced. She is among a handful of investigative journalists still trying to understand all sides of an issue.

Cronkite Alumna Wins Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting

April 20, 2009

Julie Cart, a 1980 journalism graduate of Arizona State University and member of the Cronkite School Alumni Hall of Fame, won the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for a powerful Los Angeles Times series on fighting wildfires.

Cart and Bettina Boxall, both on the Times metro reporting staff, won for their five-part “Big Burn” series that explored the growth and costs of wildfires. The reporters used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain cartons of U.S. Forest Service records.

The Pulitzer board applauded Cart and Boxall for “their fresh and painstaking exploration into the cost and effectiveness of attempts to combat the growing menace of wildfires across the western United States.”

The series revealed that wildfires are growing in both intensity and expense and that firefighters are often pressured into using air tanker drops even when they will do no good because the aerial water drops – dubbed “CNN drops” by fire officials – “make good television.” The series also explained how more Americans are living in areas prone to wildfires where escape routes are inadequate and how wide swaths of sagebrush are being devastated by wildfires.

Cart, who was an intercollegiate athlete at ASU, has the university’s ninth all-time discus throw record with her 52.04-meter mark recorded in the 1980 season. She was one of the first women’s conference champions in ASU track and field history, winning the discus at the 1976 Intermountain Conference Championships. She also made the U.S. Olympics trials.

She graduated with a B.S. in journalism in 1980 and was inducted into the Cronkite Alumni Hall of Fame in 1998.

“Hooray for the L.A. Times,” Cart told the newspaper staff after the Pulitzers were announced. “It was great that we were given the amount of time to report something that is so important to our readers.”

The series took 15 months from idea to publication last summer.

“The Big Burn series is a marvelous example of the kind of important, in-depth and nuanced journalism we hope our students will be inspired by and aspire to produce,” said Cronkite Dean Christopher Callahan. “We congratulate both Julie Cart and Bettina Boxall and are proud to call Julie one of our own.”

The Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting honors “a distinguished example of explanatory reporting that illuminates a significant and complex subject, demonstrating mastery of the subject, lucid writing and clear presentation.”

The Pulitzer is the 39th won by the Los Angeles Times, the nation’s fourth-largest daily newspaper.

“Wildfires are part of the landscape in Southern California and we did what any serious newsgathering organization does: devote the time and the resources to tell our readers about the causes and effects of this growing menace,” Times Editor Russ Stanton said in a prepared statement. “Our team of reporters, editors, photographers, graphic artists and Web producers devoted more than a year to this project, including traveling to the other side of the globe, to deliver this terrific series. We remain committed to providing this type of in-depth coverage on topics that are important to our readers.”

BLM Testimony of Elaine Downing: “Employees are fearful of retaliation”

This is the public testimony of Elaine Downing, whose union represents over 600 employees of the US Bureau of Land Management in California. Mike Pool, the director of the BLM in California, has recently been named acting director of the national office of the BLM in Washington, DC. Although this is quite long, the testimony is very informative about the low morale at BLM and why it exists. Ms. Downing does not mention the suicide of Marlene Braun or the problem of bullying in the workplace per se, but the conditions she describes make it understandable how those things happened under Mr. Pool’s watch. What Downing does not mention are the managers at the level below field office supervisor, which is where Marlene Braun was, if I understand her rank correctly. She was management, but had to report to the field office supervisor, Ron Huntsinger. Such people are not represented by the union, but they can be subject to bullying. Being in management doesn’t prevent that.

Testimony of Elaine Downing, Vice President
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2152,
California Bureau of Land Management
Before the House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
Regarding Restoring the Federal Public Lands Workforce
March 19, 2009

Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and distinguished Committee members, for the opportunity to
submit the following testimony.
My name is Elaine Downing. I serve as the Vice President of the National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE), Local 2152, representing approximately 600 Bureau of Land Management
employees throughout the state of California. Additionally, I keep in close contact with
numerous employees from other BLM offices, both represented by NFFE and other unions.
Overall, employee morale within BLM is relatively low, as evidenced in the recent government-
wide employee satisfaction survey. I believe the results of the employee satisfaction survey
actually misrepresent the true level of employee morale. In my estimation, morale is lower than
the survey indicates, because many employees are fearful of retaliation if they answer the survey
honestly. Many rank and file employees do not believe that the survey is actually anonymous,
regardless of the agency’s assurances, and many chose not to even respond to the survey.
It is difficult to point to one or two solitary reasons for low morale, as there are a multitude of
reasons for low morale within the Bureau. What I hope to do is to explain some of the more
often heard complaints that the union hears and witnesses in representing employees, or has
experienced firsthand. Our issues revolve around ethics, labor relations, workforce planning,
resource protection, performance appraisals and awards, and the balance between home- and
work-life. In my testimony, I have also included recommendations for improvements regarding
some of these concerns.

Workforce Planning
There is much concern among rank and file employees at BLM that upper level management
officials do not adequately manage how the work within the department is done. With critical
vacancies in the field for long periods of time, new software implementations that are impacting
all programs, unprecedented wildfire seasons in California, national emergencies like Hurricane
Katrina, and alternative energy development mandates, employees at BLM are constantly trying
to handle too many top priorities at once.

In my opinion, far too high of a percentage of agency resources are allocated toward supporting
higher level managers residing mostly in district and state offices, while the field offices, where
the majority of the agency’s mission is actually accomplished, get too small of a percentage.
Many field offices are severely understaffed and overworked. There is also concern that
management officials build hierarchies to protect their position and grade at the state and district
levels, while leaving protracted vacancies in critical positions at the field level. Having too
many managers and not enough rank and file employees to do the work has several undesirable
consequences; it is a waste of much-needed resources, it causes understaffing of critical
positions, it causes rank and file employees to be overworked, it has a tendency to make rank and
file employees feel micromanaged and pulled in different directions, and it ultimately hurts the
ability of the agency to carry out its mission.
Some people, particularly high level management officials, will point to budget shortfalls as a
primary cause of low employee morale. It is true that most employees are disheartened by
inadequate funding within their programs. However, we hear more complaints about the lack of
integrity in how and which vacancies are filled than complaints of a shortfall of appropriated
funds.
Here is an example of the kind of action that has frustrated BLM workers: Management will
allow for the advertising of a realty specialist position in an office where there is already one or
two, while in the same period, the agency will leave a critical realty specialist job in a field office
vacant for months, even though that field office does not have a single realty specialist on staff.
Failing to fill this critical vacancy tied the hands of the agency so that it could not carry out a key
function. That field office was unable to process alternative energy development applications for
a period of several months. In this critical time of alternative energy development, this should
not have been allowed to occur. We see lots of cases where BLM inappropriately fills non-
critical vacancies ahead of critical ones in this way. It hurts the mission and it frustrates workers.
Additionally, upper level management seems to lack an ability to manage workload. Rank and
file employees at all levels, but particularly in field offices, are bombarded by data requests and
work assignments from many sources including: Washington office, state office, district office,
other field offices, etc.

In my experience, management places very little if any emphasis on
BLM employees following a chain of command when requesting work to get done. There is also
little to no guidance for employees to make decisions on how to prioritize their work. In
addition, there is a considerable volume of work that comes through the door that BLM
employees are forced to perform, but the time it takes employees to handle these duties is often
overlooked by management. BLM employees often feel they are getting pulled in too many
directions at once, and they are unsure of how to prioritize their assignments. This common
problem has hurt morale at BLM.

Law Enforcement Officers
For law enforcement Rangers at the California BLM, morale is particularly low. These Rangers
are responsible for protecting resources and public safety across 15.2 million acres in California
and 1.6 million acres in northwestern Nevada. The Law Enforcement Ranger program started in
the California Desert District with the passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act
(FLPMA) of 1976, which specifically mandated the focus toward protection of natural resources
within the California Desert Conservation Area. There is strong pride in California for that
reason.
Prior to 9/11, the ranger corps of BLM was dedicated to resource protection as prescribed under
FLPMA. After 9/11, and with the formation of Homeland Security, several high level BLM law
enforcement officials were hired into the Bureau from outside the agency.
Generally speaking, these new managers were less oriented toward natural resources and more
focused on homeland security. These new law enforcement managers also brought a stricter,
more militaristic style of management to the Ranger force. This shift in focus has caused a lot of
distress for many BLM law enforcement rangers and field office managers. Confusion as to who
these law enforcement officers answer to and who can delegate the work to them, is beginning to
cause friction within the offices, and it is affecting morale for all. Recent funding earmarked for
the California Desert Ranger program has not found its way to California, and there is a growing
concern that it was sent elsewhere.
A common concern we have heard from BLM law enforcement Rangers is that upper level
management does not value law enforcement officers with natural resource backgrounds. Many
law enforcement Rangers have speculated that they were passed up for promotion because
management was promoting from outside the agency for higher level positions. In addition, our
union has had to defend several Rangers against what I would consider to be questionable
disciplinary actions. These suspect disciplinary measures have had a strong tendency to be taken
against Rangers with natural resource orientations, hired before the creation of DHS. Regardless
of whether there is any validity to the concern some law enforcement Rangers have that they are
being treated unfairly, there can be little doubt that morale has fallen due to the perception that
they are not being given equal treatment.

Consolidation of Functions
There are two specific groups of employees at BLM that have recently been targeted for
consolidation, the Information Technology (IT) and Human Resources (HR) personnel. Even
though we as a union do not represent the HR staff (BLM considers them “confidential
employees,” and therefore outside the bargaining unit), they are our coworkers and are a critical
part of our mission. I will use this venue to share some of their major concerns.
In 2005, BLM’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) started discussing a new initiative called
“Managing for Excellence.” This initiative was supposedly developed with the aim of improving
effectiveness and cost efficiency within BLM. Our union believes there were areas that needed
to be improved, but the agency has not demonstrated that the changes they have implemented,
nor the changes they are planning for in the future, have saved or will save any funds or improve
efficiency.
In fact, one of the primary decisions the team made—to put the three tier system (as opposed to
the two tier system) back in place—will most likely hurt efficiency within BLM. The three tier
system adds another layer of bureaucratic supervision to the field offices, which are actually
accomplishing the work right now, and could accomplish much more if they had adequate
staffing.
According to the ELT’s frequently asked questions document about the restructuring, the
rationale for moving to a three tier system read as follows “We’ve learned that being closer to
the ground with a three-tiered organization allows us to provide better service to the public and
better quality control. It also gives us the opportunity to reduce duplication and overhead
services.”
I respectfully disagree with this conclusion, and have seen no evidence to substantiate it. Adding
a third tier does not accomplish what they have claimed it does. Having worked in an office that
continued to have a district office (three tiers), while others went to two tiers, I have found that
the district does not bring consistency to the field offices. Rather, it adds a layer of management
that is costly and unnecessary. It also seems to justify additional grades to those employees who
often have the same knowledge, skills, abilities, and responsibilities as our field office staffers. I
do not believe that adding this layer of management eliminated any meaningful duplication of
effort or overhead. The three tier system has actually created more overhead and duplication of
effort.
Another one of the Managing for Excellence decisions was to transfer the functions of IT and
HR to a central location in Denver, Colorado. This decision alone is responsible for a drastic
decrease in employee morale. Not only has it impacted the IT and HR employees, but it has
affected all of the employees throughout the BLM.
Our most experienced IT and HR employees have begun looking for jobs elsewhere in their
same communities. Those who are mobile have started looking for jobs outside of BLM.
Promises of assistance regarding career counseling have yet to be fulfilled. Shortages in HR
have been very difficult to overcome, creating a backlog of work, especially during fire season.
In my estimation, it is taking several months longer on average to fill vacancies. Most
employees at or near retirement age feel as though they are being forced into retirement, while
others are taking voluntary downgrades, sometimes 3 or 4 grades below their current level, in
order to end the uncertainty of their future.
The initiative came with promises of union involvement, but we have only been engaged in an ad
hoc fashion. A Washington Office management official said it is the responsibility of the state
offices to negotiate with their local unions. However, local labor relations employees in the
state office cannot engage in meaningful discussions on topics when they do not know what is
going on themselves and they have not been included in the initiative planning. In fact, there has
not been as much as a conference call to collaborate and discuss the impacts of these changes on
BLM employees. A labor-management partnership council would be extremely helpful in
addressing employees concerns with regard to this reorganization.
Although, I have stated our union would like to bargain the impact and implementation of this
reorganization, I would like to make clear that we are adamantly opposed to this reorganization.
We are confident that this change will hurt BLM’s ability to perform HR and IT functions. This
initiative is very similar to the changes the U.S. Forest Service made a few years ago to
centralize IT and HR functions to Albuquerque, New Mexico. By many accounts, Forest
Service’s reorganization has been a disaster, yet BLM is intent on going down that same road. A
reorganization of the IT and HR functions at BLM will be damaging to the agency and promises
to be a tremendous waste of tax-payers’ dollars. BLM is going to lose immeasurable
institutional knowledge and talent as a result of this reorganization.
In addition to the problems I have already discussed, the process that has been developed using
USAjobs.gov has become a tremendous source of frustration for supervisors and HR specialists,
as well as applicants who want to work for the Bureau. Most non-federal applicants, as well as
current BLM employees, have found this system to be overly burdensome and give up after
being aggravated by the software system. In a recent job application for a realty specialist, there
were over 80 questions that had to be answered in addition to submitting a comprehensive
resume within the structure of this system. This is hurting the agency’s ability to recruit the
talent it needs to carry out its mission.

Employee Performance Appraisal Plans and Awards
In 2005, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) required BLM to switch back to a five
level performance appraisal system from a pass/fail system. The handbook is clear and concise,
describing a comprehensive system to develop critical elements, how to measure or quantify the
level of performance, and the proper procedures for rating employees. However, implementation
of this system has been very problematic.
Our union has reviewed a myriad of performance appraisals throughout the state of California.
When reviewing these appraisals we have discovered that typically everything that is listed in the
position description is listed in either one or two critical elements, while the quantifiable
measurements are ambiguous and subjective. Favored employees of course, get glowing reviews
and non-favored employees are saddled with having to defend themselves against vague,
subjective, and indefensible measurements. BLM needs to do a better job of creating appraisals
that accurately describe the critical elements and performance standards of employees’ duties.
Until these performance appraisals are done properly, BLM employees will continue to
experience great frustration in the performance appraisal process and eventually become
disengaged.
The system would work well if the agency would implement a structure for annual oversight and
make a commitment to adequately train all BLM employees. I believe this change would lead to
tremendous improvements in morale, performance and accountability. All too often, we find
government agencies are blaming the inadequacies of a system on the structure of the system,
when the real problem is the lack of training, oversight, and accountability.
There is no oversight on appraisals within each state or within the agency. There is no
consistency from employee to employee, office to office, or state to state, in both how they are
written and how employees are rated. I recently had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a
realty specialist from New Mexico BLM. This realty specialist had only one critical element on
which to be rated, and that was “safety.” It stands to reason that a GS-11 realty specialist would
5
Page 6
have at least one critical element having to do with something other than safety. This example
shows that BLM is not following OPM guidance in determining critical elements.
Likewise, the awards system at BLM is highly flawed. There is little attempt by BLM to
conduct oversight to ensure consistency. Management officials in the state offices do not review
performance appraisals and ratings for quality or consistency and awards may or may not be tied
to them. Some offices give token awards to everyone. The only person that we know of that
reviews the appraisals and awards in the state of California office is a human resource specialist
whose only objective is to make sure the documents were received. There needs to be more
fairness and accountability in the distribution of awards and it should have a nexus to
performance.
Alternative Pay Systems
We have been closely monitoring so-called pay-for-performance systems that have been
developed and implemented at other agencies. We think it would be a very bad idea for the
Department of Interior to attempt a move to a subjective pay system like ones that have been
developed at the Department of Defense and elsewhere. These alternative pay systems have had
a poor record of success in the federal sector, and in my opinion, the BLM lacks many of the
prerequisites for a fair, transparent, and effective merit pay system. The only way a pay-for-
performance system would work in the federal sector is if there was a fair, objective, and
consistent appraisal system; real accountability demanded from managers; a true 360-degree
performance review of each and every employee, including top management officials; and a
significant increase in funding to support the pay system. All of these requirements are a tall
order to achieve in BLM. Increased funding is particularly difficult with constant pressure to
contain the expense of government services.
New Technology
The effects of the newly implemented software for government travel (GovTrip) and the new
Financial Business Management System (FBMS) system, has been problematic. BLM is unable
to pull reports, pay vendors, reconcile accounts, transfer funds, or process travel authorizations
and vouchers in a timely manner. Travel vouchers that once took approximately one hour, now
take several hours or even days, depending on the availability of the software system. The
software is not user friendly and we have heard many complaints from users at all levels,
including management officials. This is affecting all BLM employees across the agency.
Practically everyone at BLM has been negatively affected by the transition to these software
programs. The acronyms used in the new FBMS are not user friendly and very little guidance
and training has been provided. Employees have been forced to learn the software by soliciting
help from someone else who has had training. It is inconvenient for an office to rely on just one
person for this kind of expertise, which is often the case. Any one person could be out of the
office for an extended period of time. BLM employees are in need of more training on the new
software. This is not just a matter of employees not liking change. It has been extremely
aggravating to all employees because they are unable to perform their duties.

Labor Relations
Under the previous administration, California BLM management became almost completely
unresponsive to union concerns. Under President Bush, a lot of the Clinton era Federal Labor
Relations Authority (FLRA) guidance used to facilitate labor-management relations was
disregarded, and it caused a lot of confusion about how to resolve labor-management disputes
and how to handle unfair labor practices (ULPs). Not only was this action antagonistic toward
labor unions, I believe the confusion caused by this move cost taxpayers millions of dollars in
lost time and efficiency, as labor and management struggled to establish new terms for their
relationship. This is particularly true within BLM where labor-management relations became
extremely difficult and burdensome.
Management officials do not come to the table to negotiate collective bargaining agreements in
California BLM. They delegate the task to labor relations specialists. They do this because the
State Director and the Associate State Director do not seem to care about employees’ concerns
relating to working conditions and morale. Our current contract calls for quarterly meetings
between the union and our State Director or his Associate to discuss problems. During the last
eight years we have yet to meet with the State Director or his Associate.
Our union is hopeful that Congress and the new Administration will re-establish basic labor-
management relations at BLM. We believe that a labor-management partnership council, like
the one in place at the Forest Service, would be an effective way of bringing employee concerns
to the attention of management and addressing them.
Some agencies have elected to retain their labor-management partnerships when both labor and
management found it to be an effective avenue to address issues impacting labor relations. In
contrast, BLM was very quick to terminate their state and national partnership councils when the
opportunity arose. Employees within BLM have seen the lack of follow up on numerous issues
that have been brought to the attention of management. There is serious disconnect between
management and the employees of BLM that we would like to see resolved by reestablishing
partnership councils.

Disparate Treatment between Managers and Rank and File Employees
Our union has witnessed disparate treatment between managers and rank and file in many
different areas. This disparity exists in the awards program, performance appraisals, training,
accountability, discipline, and in the addressing of unethical behavior.
For example, a management official who was caught with inappropriate material on a BLM-
issued computer was disciplined with a suspension, while rank and file employees would be, and
have been, fired for virtually identical offenses. This unfairness has caused a lot of frustration
among BLM employees.
Management officials and management-favored employees have often been allowed to violate
agency policy regarding such things as: internet use and security; use of government vehicles;
use of government equipment for personal use; improper reimbursement during official travel for
personal business; agency policy on pets; and fiscal accountability. Morale would be better at
BLM if the same rules were applied to and enforced on everyone.
Management team meetings during lean times of budget are often held at resort locations, which
are not well received by employees who have been told there is not enough money for their
project, training, awards, office, field supplies, or to implement safety committees as per our
collective bargaining agreement and the law. Disparate treatment between management and rank
and file workers, at many different levels, is hurting morale at BLM.

Whistleblower Protection

Our union believes that current whistle blower protections, as they have been enforced by the
Office of Special Counsel, are inadequate to protect federal workers. Whether it is through
stricter enforcement of existing whistleblower protections, or through legislation, we strongly
support strengthening these key protections, which are such a critical element of government
accountability. BLM employees are in desperate need of a Special Counsel that will protect
employees who open themselves up to reprisal when coming forward with information on waste,
frauds, and abuse. Until a better system is put in place to ensure accountability and protection
from retaliation and adverse actions against whistleblowers, BLM workers will be reluctant to
come forward. Inadequate whistleblower protection at BLM has hurt morale within the
department.

Going Forward With Optimism

Going forward, I and many other employees at BLM have a strong sense of optimism that our
work environment will begin to see marked improvement. We strongly support the efforts of
President Obama and Secretary Salazar to bring integrity and accountability back into the
Department of Interior workforce. The agency will be well served by reevaluating the ethics
regulations and removing politics and ideology from Bureau decision making. There are
hundreds of talented and dedicated employees working throughout BLM who love their job and
love their country. To most of us, working for the American people at an agency that allows us
manage our country’s natural resources, is very rewarding. I consider it a dream come true. We
are surrounded by beautiful scenery and are charged with its protection. It is an honor of mine to
come to work each day.

Conclusion

In closing, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony. Employees
at BLM have had a lot to say about morale but have lacked the venue to say it. It is a great relief
to finally voice some of these concerns before such a distinguished panel. We commend this
Subcommittee for asking BLM employees for their concerns and evaluation of employee morale
at the department. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. I can be reached at
Elaine_Downing@ca.blm.gov.