Scoping Report
Eastern Washington and San Juan
Resource Management Plan
September 2010
For More Information Contact:
BLM Spokane District Office
1103 N. Fancher Rd.
Spokane Valley, WA 99212
Phone: 509-536-1200
Email: [email protected]
Or visit the project website: www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Spokane District
1103 N. Fancher
Spokane Valley, WA 99212-1275
1610 (ORW000) P
www.or.blm.gov/spokane
September 30, 2010
http://www.blm.gov
Dear Reader:
Enclosed you will find the Scoping Report for the Eastern Washington and San Juan
Resource Management Plan (RMP). This report summarized the scoping process and our
analysis of the comments received during the scoping period for this planning effort. The
results of this analysis (the revised planning issues and planning criteria) will be used to
guide development of alternatives for the RMP.
We greatly appreciate your time and involvement in the planning process, and hope that
you will continue to participate. Working together we can generate effective and
innovative strategies to guide management of your Public Lands in the future.
Thank you again for your time and support.
Sincerely,
/S/
Robert B. Towne
District Manager
Scoping Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Resource Management Plan Revision .......................................... 1
1.2 Brief Description of the Planning Area .................................................................................. 1
1.3 The Scoping Process .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Notifications and Information Shared with the Public .................................................... 3
1.3.2 Public Open House Meetings .......................................................................................... 4
1.3.3 Cooperating Agency Invitations ...................................................................................... 4
1.3.4 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes .................................................................... 4
2. Issue Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Preliminary List of Planning Issues (March 2010) ................................................................ 6
2.2 Scoping Comments ................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 New Issues to be Addressed in the RMP/EIS.................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Revision of the Preliminary Planning Issues ................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Issues that Are Best Resolved Through Policy or Administrative Action, or
That Are Otherwise Beyond the Scope of the RMP .......................................................... 10
2.2.4 Information for Consideration in Development of Alternatives.................................... 11
2.3 Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council Recommendations ................................. 12
2.4 Revised Planning Issue Statements ...................................................................................... 13
3. Planning Criteria......................................................................................................................... 15
4. References .................................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix A: Notice of Intent
Appendix B: Newsletter
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Planning area acres by county ......................................................................................... 2
Table 2-1. Scoping comments by affiliation/category...................................................................... 8
Table 2-2. Planning issue revisions and associated comments....................................................... 10
Table 2-3. Number of comments providing specific information for alternative development ..... 11
Table 2-4. Summary of the EWRAC recommendations and the BLM’s responses and/or actions taken ................................................................................................................ 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. Eastern Washington and San Juan RMP Planning Area ................................................... 2
i
Scoping Report
1. Introduction
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Spokane District is preparing a resource management
plan (RMP) and associated environmental impact statement (EIS) for 425,000 acres of public
lands in eastern Washington and the San Juan Archipelago in Washington State. The BLM
conducted public scoping for this planning process from April 30 through July 12, 2010. This
report describes the public scoping process and results.
The BLM’s land use plans are called resource management plans (RMPs). The planning
decisions contained in an RMP are the basis for every on-the-ground action the BLM undertakes.
An RMP ensures that the public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as
stated in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), under
the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. As required by FLPMA and BLM policy, the
public lands must be managed in a manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical,
ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that,
where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that
will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; that will provide for
outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and that recognizes the Nation’s need for
domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands by encouraging
collaboration and public participation throughout the planning process. Land use plans are one of
the primary mechanisms for guiding BLM activities to achieve the mission and goals outlined in
the Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan.
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Resource Management Plan Revision
The BLM Spokane District developed and approved a land use plan for eastern Washington in
1987, called the Spokane Resource Management Plan (RMP). In 1992, the District prepared a
major amendment to that plan, that primarily focused on oil and gas leasing, travel management,
and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). There have been many changes to the
lands and resources within the planning area, and new issues have arisen since the previous RMP
was developed and amended. One of the most important of these changes is that, through a series
of land exchanges, the total area of BLM-administered public lands has increased by more than
130,000 acres. The public lands in the San Juan Archipelago are not covered by an RMP. The
new RMP will supersede the 1987 Spokane RMP, address changes that have occurred and new
issues, and will add the San Juan Archipelago to the planning area.
1.2 Brief Description of the Planning Area
The planning area will encompass all of 20 counties, and portions of 3 other counties in eastern
Washington and the San Juan Archipelago in northwest Washington as shown in figure 1. This
includes approximately 425,000 acres of BLM-administered public land. The eastern portion of
the planning area is bounded by the Canadian Border on the north, Idaho and Oregon State
boundaries on the east and south respectively, and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range to the
west. The San Juan portion includes all islands that are part of the San Juan Archipelago. Table
1-1 shows acres of BLM land within each county.
1
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
Figure 1. Eastern Washington and San Juan RMP Planning Area
Table 1-1. Planning area acres by county
County
BLM Acres
County
BLM Acres
Adams
9,958
Lincoln
79,130
Asotin
946
Okanogan
58,875
Benton
11,012
Pend Oreille
1,732
Chelan
21,406
San Juan
903
Columbia
441
Skagit
0.5
Douglas
54,543
Spokane
2,075
Ferry
9,058
Stevens
25,074
Franklin
23,804
Walla Walla
390
Garfield
165
Whatcom
56
Grant
53,958
Whitman
9,236
Kittitas
15,915
Yakima
28,510
Klickitat
18,286
Total
425,473
2
Scoping Report
1.3 The Scoping Process
The scoping process is the first opportunity for public involvement in the development of an RMP
and EIS. As described in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005), scoping is a
requirement of both the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and the BLM planning regulations
(43 CFR 1610.2 and 43 CFR 1610.4-1). The land use planning (RMP) process is issue driven.
Scoping is a collaborative public involvement process to identify planning issues to be addressed
in the planning process. It also involves the introduction of preliminary planning criteria to the
public for comment. Planning criteria guide development of the plan by helping define the
decision space (or the ―sideboards‖ that define the scope of the planning effort).
Prior to initiating the formal public scoping period, the BLM hired a contractor (James Kent
Associates) to conduct a study to identify BLM management-related interests, issues, and
concerns of the communities within the planning area. The results of this study were
incorporated into the analysis conducted by the BLM RMP interdisciplinary (ID) team to
determine the planning issues to address in the RMP.
For the formal scoping process, the BLM provided information to the public through a number of
means, conducted public open house meetings, and invited comments from the public to identify
planning issues and define the planning criteria. The BLM also notified the Governor of
Washington, county commissioners of the 23 counties within the planning area, and a number of
potentially interested state agencies, inviting them to participate in the planning process. The
BLM also initiated government-to-government consultation with Native American tribes with
interests in the planning area.
The BLM also worked with the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council (EWRAC) to
help identify planning issues. The EWRAC is a council of interested citizens, appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior to advise the BLM on management of lands and resources in eastern
Washington.
The BLM’s analysis or comments received during the scoping period, and resulting planning
issue statements and planning criteria, are described in chapter 2.
1.3.1 Notifications and Information Shared with the Public
The public scoping process for the Eastern Washington and San Juan RMP began with
publication of the notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on April 30, 2010 (see appendix
A). This notice announced that the BLM was initiating the RMP/EIS process, identified the
period (April 30, 2010 through July 12, 2010) during which the BLM would accept scoping
comments, and described how to submit comments to the BLM (online, email, or postal mail). In
addition the NOI listed preliminary issues and preliminary planning criteria proposed by BLM.
The BLM also published a website during that time with information about the RMP, the planning
process, and the scoping process. The website identified ways to submit comments and included
an online form which could be used to submit comments or to request to be added to the BLM’s
RMP mailing list. The BLM has continued to update this site, which can be accessed at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp/index.php. The website also announced
the dates, times, and locations of public open house meetings (these meetings are discussed later
in this section).
Within the first week after the publication of the NOI, the BLM prepared and mailed a newsletter
to over 1,100 interested parties (see appendix B for the newsletter). This newsletter included
3
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
information about the RMP; the planning and scoping processes; the scoping period; how to
submit comments; and the dates, times, and locations of public meetings. The newsletter also
contained a return mailing card to allow recipients to notify the BLM if they wished to receive
future mailings.
The BLM also published legal notices in four regional newspapers, Spokesman Review, Tri-City
Herald, Wenatchee World, and Seattle Times. These notices announced the initiation of the
RMP/EIS process, the scoping comment period, how to submit comments, and the public
comment periods. In addition, the BLM published commercial ads announcing the public
meetings in the Spokesman Review, Tri-City Herald, Wenatchee World, and the San Juan Weekly.
1.3.2 Public Open House Meetings
The BLM hosted six public open house meetings during the scoping comment period, as listed
below:
Davenport; May 17 (6–8 p.m.), Davenport Memorial Hall, 511 Park Street
Wenatchee; May 26 (6–8 p.m.), Chelan PUD, 327 N. Wenatchee Ave
Tonasket; May 27 (6–8 p.m.), Tonasket High School, School Commons, 35 Hwy 20
Pasco; June 1 (6–8 p.m.), TRAC Center, 6600 Burden Boulevard, Room 4
Friday Harbor; June 5 (12–4 p.m.), Mullis Senior Center, 589 Nash Street
Ellensburg; June 12 (12–3 p.m.), Quality Inn, 1700 Canyon Road
A total of 125 people attended these meetings, during which the BLM provided information about
BLM-administered lands and resources in the planning area and the RMP process, and answered
questions. The BLM also provided comment cards at the open houses for attendees to complete
and return during the meeting, or mail in later. The BLM informed attendees that it would only
accept written comments for consideration in the scoping analysis.
1.3.3 Cooperating Agency Invitations
On March 19, 2010, the BLM mailed letters to the boards of county commissioners or county
council of the counties within the planning area. The letters notified the counties of the BLM’s
plan to develop a RMP and EIS, and invited them to become cooperating agencies. In addition,
on April 20, 2010, the BLM sent letters to the Washington Departments of Commerce, Ecology,
Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, and the Washington State Parks
Commission, inviting them to participate in the planning process and become cooperating
agencies. The BLM is currently discussing cooperating agency status with a number of counties
and state agencies.
1.3.4 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes
On March 26, 2010, the BLM initiated government-to-government coordination through official
correspondence with the following Native American tribes:
Colville Confederated Tribes
Coeur d’Alene Tribe
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
Kalispel Tribe
4
Scoping Report
Lower Elwha Tribe
Lummi Nation
Nez Perce Tribe
Nooksack Tribe
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Samish Indian Nation
Skokomish Tribe
Snoqualmie Tribe
Spokane Tribe of Indians
Stillaguamish Tribe
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Tulalip Tribe
Upper Skagit Tribe
Wanapum Band of Indians
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation
The BLM will continue to coordinate, formally and informally, with interested tribes to allow for
their involvement in the RMP planning process.
2. Issue Summary
The primary purpose of scoping is to identify the planning issues to address in the RMP. The
BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005) defines planning issues as ―disputes or
controversies about existing and potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use,
production, and related management practices.‖
Issue analysis for the Eastern Washington and San Juan RMP involved the following steps:
1) The BLM RMP ID team developed a list of preliminary issues to be resolved through the
plan. This list was included in the NOI, the newsletter, and other materials to facilitate
public comments.
2) The public and other interested parties (tribes, state and local governments, other Federal
agencies) were invited to submit comments to identify issues and concerns about BLMadministered lands and resources in the planning area.
3) The ID team reviewed the comments received to determine if the preliminary issue
statements were adequate, required modification, or if there were issues missing from the
preliminary list.
4) The EWRAC reviewed the draft revised issue statements and provided recommendations
to the BLM.
5) The ID team considered the EWRAC recommendations and made final revisions to the
issue statements.
5
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
6) The ID team also reviewed comments to determine if they identified issues that should be
addressed through policy or administrative action or were otherwise beyond the scope of
the RMP.
In addition to comments that identified planning issues, the BLM also received a number of
comments that identified interests to be considered during development of alternatives.
2.1 Preliminary List of Planning Issues (March 2010)
Based on their combined years of experience managing BLM lands and resources, and their
professional knowledge of the planning area, the BLM RMP ID team developed the following
preliminary list of planning issues (―P‖ indicates preliminary planning issue number).
[P1] How will shrub-steppe and associated riparian and wetland habitats be managed to
maintain, improve, or restore healthy plant and wildlife communities? Shrub-steppe habitats
support a unique assemblage of plants and wildlife and associated riparian wetland habitats, many
of which are declining, causing its designation as a ―priority habitat‖ for the State of Washington
and triggering national initiatives to conserve and maintain shrub-steppe communities.
Additionally, the shrub-steppe ecosystem supports the livelihood of the ranching community and
provides important hunting and other outdoor recreation for the public. However, one-half of the
area historically occupied by shrub-steppe in Washington has been converted to agriculture with
40 percent of what remains being fragmented and/or degraded. Removal of sagebrush,
introduction of non-native grasses, and historic overgrazing has resulted in altered fire regimes
and proliferation of invasive weeds that threaten ecological processes and the societal values this
ecosystem provides.
[P2] How should the BLM manage public lands with consideration of uses of adjacent lands
given the mixed ownership pattern in the planning area? BLM lands in the planning area
consist of scattered tracts and isolated blocks, varying in size from a few acres to over 19,000
contiguous acres. These tracts and blocks are adjacent to, and intermixed with, private lands,
other state and Federal public lands, and tribal lands. Uses or activities on BLM or adjacent lands
can affect or conflict with uses and activities on the other. It is usually not possible to accomplish
landscape-level management objectives without complementary management across ownerships.
In many areas, BLM lands are the only public lands available; and thus, there is a high demand
for multiple and sometimes conflicting uses within the limited area. Also, due to this limited
availability of public lands, restrictions to protect resources can eliminate opportunities for other
uses. Related concerns include:
Fuels Management – Accomplishing fire management and property protection goals
must cross ownerships to be effective.
Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species – Single ownership does not generally
contain enough area to provide habitats for wildlife requiring larger ranges. For special
status wildlife and plant species, the high demand for multiple uses and limited amount of
public land available make habitat protection crucial and problematic.
Cultural Resources – Due to the limited amount of public lands in some areas,
protection measures for cultural resources can greatly reduce opportunities for other uses.
Livestock Grazing – Many BLM parcels are intermixed with private lands that are used
for grazing livestock. Prohibiting grazing on BLM lands is impractical in such situations.
6
Scoping Report
Public Access and Trespass – Some BLM parcels are surrounded by private lands and
lack public access. This may result in unauthorized use of public lands, trespass on
private land, and interfere with authorized uses of public lands.
Recreation – Due to the limited availability of public lands in some areas, it is difficult to
meet the demands for recreational use. Differing types of recreational use in confined
areas often conflict, such as motorized versus non-motorized and target shooting versus
hiking. Also, other uses and resource protection measures further limit available
opportunities.
Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species – Management of noxious weeds and invasive
species must occur across all ownerships to be effective. Ineffective management by one
landowner can quickly lead to spread of such species to adjacent lands.
Urban Growth – Development from a number of communities in the planning area has
greatly expanded and continues to do so, moving communities closer to, or even
engulfing BLM lands. BLM lands have become the only open-space lands available in
some of these communities. Retaining open space may conflict with other authorized
uses of public lands.
Special Management Areas – Resource values, which may warrant protection by
designation of special management areas, often extend beyond the boundaries of the
BLM.
Visual Resource Management – Management of the visual landscape by the BLM is
often ineffective without coordination with adjacent landowners.
[P3] How should the BLM manage multiple uses and resources that have changed, or that
occur on lands that were either not administered by the BLM or were not within the
planning area when the current RMP was developed? The BLM has acquired more than
130,000 acres of land in the planning area since 1987. Additionally, there is no RMP for public
lands administered by the BLM in the San Juan Archipelago. Therefore, authorized uses
sometimes conflict or result in unintended impacts to other resources (such as wildlife habitat and
cultural resources). Furthermore, over the past 20 years the number of federally listed threatened
and endangered species with habitat in the planning area has increased from 3 to 16, with 7
candidate species. This is compounded by the increase in the number of other BLM and State
special status species of concern. With the tremendous amount of urban growth in the planning
area during the same 20-year period, and the increased interest in motorized recreation, demands
for recreational opportunities on BLM lands often exceed the capacity of these lands and
resources.
[P4] How should the BLM facilitate energy development while still allowing for multiple
uses and appropriate protection of public lands and resources? If the BLM is to provide
opportunities for energy (renewable and non-renewable) development, to include associated
transmission lines and pipelines, it must also provide protection for other resources, such as
visual, cultural, and habitat values. For example, a number of wind energy projects have been
developed in eastern Washington in recent years. Development of renewable energy is also a
DOI priority. However, the current RMP did not consider or identify areas open or closed to wind
energy development, and did not identify constraints to protect other resources. Also, interest in
development of natural gas in eastern Washington has greatly increased recently and the existing
RMP and amendment do not afford appropriate protection of resources and uses such as wildlife
habitat (including special status species and shrub-steppe communities), cultural resources, and
recreation. In addition, the most current reasonable foreseeable development scenario, which the
BLM prepared for a 1992 RMP amendment, did not account for changes in oil and gas
7
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
development technology that have occurred over the past 10 to 15 years. Furthermore, energy
development on BLM lands may result in conflicts with uses, such as residential areas or open
space for recreation and tourism, on adjacent lands.
2.2 Scoping Comments
During the scoping period (April 30, 2010, through July 12, 2010) the BLM received 134
submissions (letters, emails, online submissions, or paper comment forms). The ID team
categorized each submission by author affiliation to determine who the interested parties were
(see table 2-1).
Table 2-1. Scoping comments by affiliation/category
Affiliation/Category
Private Individual
Number of
Submissions
91
Federal Government Agency
2
State Government
9
Local Government
8
Interest Group or Business
Total
24
134
Since submissions through email did not always include the mailing address of the commenter, a
geographic analysis of commenter addresses is not practical. However, it is worth noting that 66
(49 percent) of the submissions received specifically mention or apply to the San Juan
Archipelago portion of the planning area. In addition, Juniper Dunes (Franklin County) was
referenced in 17 submissions (13 percent), and the Saddle Mountains were mentioned in 12
submissions (9 percent).
The submissions contained 293 individual comments; the ID team further analyzed each
comment to determine if it identified either:
1) A new planning issue to be addressed in the RMP/EIS
2) A need to revise the preliminary planning issues
3) An issue that would be best resolved through policy or administrative action, or that was
otherwise beyond the scope of the RMP
4) Information for consideration in development of alternatives
2.2.1 New Issues to be Addressed in the RMP/EIS
The comments did not reveal any new or different planning issues that were within the scope of
the RMP. However, they did indicate the need to modify the preliminary list of issues.
2.2.2 Revision of the Preliminary Planning Issues
There were 111 comments which either validated or indicated that the BLM should revise the
preliminary list of planning issues. These were grouped into the needs for three primary revisions
as follows.
8
Scoping Report
1) Split Issue #P2 (Landownership Pattern) into Two Issues. Scoping comments and further
analysis by the ID team revealed that the preliminary issue related to the BLM’s landownership
pattern in the planning area is actually two distinct issues. The first is related to the scattered
nature of the BLM lands and the resulting need to coordinate management of resources across
ownership boundaries. The second issue is related to the fact BLM lands are often the only
public multiple-use lands available, and therefore there is a high demand for uses that often
conflict with or preclude other popular uses.
The following comments are examples of those received indicating that the scattered nature and
need for coordination with adjacent landowners was a distinct issue:
―When new lands are acquired access should be obtained with the new land.
Land that has no current legal access needs to be opened up to the public.‖
―As a property owner I would be interested in a coordinated effort with BLM to
help preserve the site. This may involve removing invasive species from the site
and adjacent properties. The RMP should include plans to involve adjoining
properties in protection of the landscape. Fire management should also be
included in the RMP as many of the BLM sites are not easily accessible.‖
Examples of comments indicating that the limited availability of multiple use public lands was a
distinct issue include:
―Do you (BLM) expect the parameters/regulations of grazing leases and/or
permits to change with this plan? ie: recreational uses on grazing lands?‖
―Close specific areas during nesting periods to alleviate human stress loads on
particular birds like our Oystercatcher.‖
2) Partnerships. Due to the large geographic region across which BLM Spokane District lands
are spread (they are across all of eastern Washington and the San Juan Archipelago), the BLM
recognizes that it does not, and will not likely have in the future, the capacity of employees and
funding needed to effectively manage the lands and resources it is responsible for, without
working closely with partners such as state and local governments, Native American tribes,
interests groups and organizations, and adjacent landowners. The necessity to work with partners
results not only from the geographic extent, but also from the scattered and intermixed ownership
pattern of most BLM lands which are surrounded by private, state, and other landowners. Thus,
the ID team determined that this was not a new and different issue, but a component of the
preliminary issue involving the landownership pattern (preliminary issue #2).
Examples of comments received indicating a discussion of partnerships should be included in the
landownership issues include:
―It's our land; help us to work with you on managing it.‖
―I understand funding is not available for this kind of work But to leave the door
open for those, like our group, to continue volunteer work is critical to fire
prevention.‖
―I would like to see the BLM work more closely with these two non-profit
organizations, as well as other groups within the San Juans and region that might
9
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
want to partner with you to preserve the historic structures and protect the natural
resources that surround them.‖
3) Climate Change. The relevant effect of climate change would be to change the baseline
conditions for vegetation, habitats, and ecosystems in the future. In addition, proposed
alternatives for the RMP may produce or reduce greenhouse gases. Hence the ID team
determined that climate change is a component of several of the preliminary issues.
Examples of comments indicating the need for this modification include:
―The Eastern Washington and San Juan planning area will undoubtedly
experience real effects of climate change during the 20 year period that the RMP
is in effect.‖
―In addition to a genuine analysis of impacts, it is imperative that BLM craft
strategies for addressing the impacts of climate change both in terms of
mitigating management decisions’ contributions to climate change and adapting
to inevitable impacts of climate change.‖
The topic headings of the five planning issues that resulted from this analysis and these
modifications are (―R‖ indicates modified issue):
R1. Shrub-steppe Habitat
R2. Mixed Landownership Pattern
R3. Limited Multiple-Use Public Lands Available
R4. Changes Since the Previous RMP
R5. Energy Development
Table 2-2 shows the number of comments that validated or resulted in the revision of the
associated planning issue.
Table 2-2. Planning issue revisions and associated comments
Planning Issue
R1. Shrub-steppe
Number of
Associated
Comments
Received
5
R2. Mixed Ownership
49
R3. Limited Public Lands Available
47
R4. Changes Since the Last Plan
2
R5. Energy Development
8
2.2.3 Issues that Are Best Resolved Through Policy or Administrative Action, or
That Are Otherwise Beyond the Scope of the RMP
Thirty seven of the comments received identified issues that were beyond the scope of the RMP;
eight of these comments called for changes in national BLM policies or guidance, or changes in
10
Scoping Report
Federal regulations. The decision space for the RMP is limited by the BLM’s planning
regulations (43 CFR 1610), national BLM policies and guidance regarding land use planning
(primarily the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 2005), and the authority of the decision maker,
which will be the Oregon/Washington State Director for this RMP. This does not include the
authority to change national BLM policies or guidance, or to change Federal regulations.
As previously mentioned, 49 percent of the submissions received contained comments
specifically about the San Juan Archipelago portion of the planning area. These comments were
incorporated into the analysis and helped to derive the overall planning issues for the RMP. Of the
submissions specific to the San Juan Archipelago, 31 mentioned support for designation of BLM
land as a national monument or national conservation area. Such designations can only be made
by the President or Congress, and are therefore beyond the scope of the RMP.
2.2.4 Information for Consideration in Development of Alternatives
Many of the comments received did not identify planning issues, as defined in the BLM Land
Use Planning Handbook (see the previous ―2. Issue Summary‖ section); however, they did
provide specific information to consider during alternative development. Table 2-3 shows a list
of resources, uses, designations, and allocations that will be addressed in the RMP alternatives,
and the number of comments received that provided related information for the BLM to consider.
Table 2-3. Number of comments providing specific information for alternative development
Resource/Use/Allocation
Number of
Comments
Air Quality
4
Soils
1
Water Resources
3
Vegetation
6
Non-Forest
6
Forest
2
Riparian
Weeds
Fisheries
Wildlife
2
16
4
36
Special Status Species Plants
9
Special Status Species Fish
3
Special Status Species Wildlife
16
Fire Ecology and Management
12
Cultural Resources
18
Visual Resources
2
Forest Products
3
Grazing
9
Minerals
6
Recreation
Renewable Energy
Transportation and Access
Utility Corridors and Rights-of-Way
65
5
38
3
11
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
Resource/Use/Allocation
Number of
Comments
Land Tenure
11
ACECs
19
Other Special Designations
31
Tribal Interests
Public Safety
Socio-economic
4
3
15
2.3 Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council
Recommendations
After the ID team analyzed the scoping comments and made revisions to the planning issue
statements, the EWRAC reviewed the scoping comments and revised statements, and made
recommendations for additional changes. Table 2-4 summarizes the EWRAC recommendations
and the BLM’s responses and/or actions taken.
Table 2-4. Summary of the EWRAC recommendations and the BLM’s responses and/or actions taken
EWRAC Recommendation
BLM Response/Action Taken
Specify that “aquatic animals” and “aquatic
habitats” are included in the concerns outlined in
issue R1: Shrub-steppe. Ponds in the eastern
Washington shrub-steppe and channeled
scablands may deserve special consideration as
they contain unique, often as yet described aquatic
animals.
The term “wildlife” is broad and is intended to
include mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and
invertebrates (including aquatic animals).
Associated aquatic habitats are included in the
issue statement for shrub-steppe. Riparian,
wetland, and aquatic habitats are specifically
identified, which by definition includes ponds. No
revision is necessary.
Include forests and forest habitats in issue R1:
Shrub-steppe. Some members of the RAC
wondered why forest systems were not mentioned
in the above narrative.
Issue R1 is specific to the fragile and threatened
shrub-steppe vegetation and ecosystems. The
BLM estimates that approximately 72% of the lands
it manages in the planning area have this
vegetation type. While the BLM also manages
forested lands in the planning area (approximately
13% of the total), these are not related to Issue R1.
All of the other issues apply to forested and nonforested lands. The BLM did not make revisions
related to this recommendation.
Clarify issue R2: Mixed Landownership to more
specifically address partnerships and coordination
with adjacent landowners. The RAC agrees with a
number of the public comments which indicated
that partnerships and collaboration were important
for managing tracts of BLM lands that are
intermixed with non-BLM lands (private, state, etc.).
Recommended revisions are incorporated.
Carbon sequestration activities, to reduce or offset
greenhouse gasses, should be included in the list
of activities that affect greenhouse gas emissions.
Recommended revisions are incorporated into
issue R2: Mixed Landownership.
Clarify issue R3: Limited Multiple-Use Public Lands
Available. The preliminary issue statement
outlined two resources requiring protection and one
resource use, which seems inconsistent. The
statement can be shortened and made clearer by
The BLM deleted the specific resources and uses
from this statement. This revision clarifies the
issue and removes the inconsistencies.
12
Scoping Report
using some additional language which identifies
other use and protection conflicts.
Issue R5: Energy Development does not reflect
current BLM policy regarding energy development.
This issue statement should be revised to indicate
that BLM is, and will continue to identify and allow
as appropriate, opportunities for energy
development.
Recommended revisions are incorporated.
2.4 Revised Planning Issue Statements
Incorporating all of the changes identified above resulted in the following revised planning issue
statements:
[R1] Shrub-steppe Habitat: How will shrub-steppe, and its associated riparian and wetland
habitats be managed to maintain, improve, or restore healthy plant and wildlife
communities? The natural communities that make up the shrub-steppe and associated riparian,
wetland, and aquatic habitats support unique assemblages of native plants, fish, and wildlife,
many of which are declining, causing its designation as a ―priority habitat‖ for the State of
Washington (WDFW 2008) and triggering national initiatives to conserve and maintain shrubsteppe communities. The shrub-steppe ecosystems support the livelihood of the ranching-related
communities and provide important hunting and other outdoor recreation for the public. One-half
of the area historically occupied by shrub-steppe in Washington has been converted to agriculture
(Jacobson and Snyder 2000) with much of what remains being fragmented and/or degraded.
Removal of sagebrush, introduction of non-native grasses, and historic overgrazing has resulted
in altered fire regimes and proliferation of invasive weeds that threaten ecological processes and
the societal values this ecosystem provides. These ecosystems may also be further affected and
altered by climate change in the future.
[R2] Mixed Landownership Pattern: Given the mixed ownership pattern in the planning
area, how should the BLM manage public lands, while considering uses on adjacent lands?
Given the current and likely future ownership pattern with many areas of interspersed
ownerships, and limited resources, how will the BLM resolve the most pressing adjoining land
use conflicts? BLM lands in the planning area consist of scattered tracts and isolated blocks,
varying in size from a few acres to over 19,000 contiguous acres. These tracts and blocks are
adjacent to, and intermixed with private lands, other state and Federal public lands, and tribal
lands. Uses or activities on BLM or adjacent lands can affect or conflict with uses and activities
on the other. It is usually not possible to accomplish landscape-level management objectives
without complementary management across ownerships. To be affective BLM must reach across
those ownership boundaries and develop working partnerships with a broad array of state and
local government agencies, Native American tribes, other interest groups and organizations,
communities, and individual landowners. Related concerns include:
Fuels Management – Accomplishing fire management and property protection goals
must cross ownerships to be effective.
Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species – Single ownership does not generally
contain enough area to provide habitats for wildlife requiring larger ranges.
Livestock Grazing – When BLM parcels are intermixed with private lands, grazing on
one parcel, especially in unfenced situations, often impacts use of adjacent lands. BLM
13
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
must, therefore, consider impacts to adjacent properties when managing grazing use on
BLM lands. Prohibiting grazing may prove impractical in some such situations.
Public Access and Trespass – Some BLM parcels are surrounded by private lands and
lack public access. This may result in unauthorized use of public lands, trespass on
private land, and interference with authorized uses of public lands.
Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species – Management of noxious weeds and invasive
species must occur across all ownerships to be effective. Ineffective management by one
landowner can quickly lead to spread of noxious weeds and invasive species to adjacent
lands.
Urban Growth – Development from a number of communities in the planning area has
greatly expanded and continues to do so, moving communities closer to, or even
engulfing BLM lands. Proximity to urban areas means BLM lands sometimes become
the only open space lands available in some communities. Retaining open space may
conflict with other authorized uses of public lands.
Special Management Areas – Resource values, which may warrant protection by
designation of special management areas, often extend beyond the boundaries of the
BLM.
Visual Resource Management – Management of the visual landscape by the BLM is
often ineffective without coordination with adjacent landowners.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Changes in greenhouse gas levels may affect global and
regional climate. Many of the authorized activities and allocations on BLM lands (such
as livestock grazing, carbon sequestration activities, prescribed burning, and timber
harvest), as well as activities on adjacent lands, may affect greenhouse gas levels.
[R3] Limited Multiple-Use Public Lands Available: How should the BLM manage uses on
public lands and protect sensitive resources given the limited amount of public lands in the
planning area? As described under the previous issue, BLM lands in the planning area consist
of scattered tracts and isolated blocks, varying in size from a few acres to over 19,000 contiguous
acres. In many areas, BLM lands are the only public lands available; and thus, there is a high
demand for multiple and sometimes conflicting uses within the limited area. Also, to protect
sensitive resources, BLM must often apply restrictions and constraints which eliminate or reduce
opportunities for other uses.
[R4] Changes Since the Previous RMP: How should the BLM manage multiple uses and
resources that have changed, or that occur on lands that were either not administered by the
BLM or were not within the planning area when the current RMP was developed? The
BLM has acquired more than 130,000 acres of land in the planning area since 1987. Additionally,
there is no RMP for public lands administered by the BLM in the San Juan Archipelago.
Therefore, authorized uses sometimes conflict or result in unintended impacts to other resources
(such as wildlife habitat and cultural resources). Furthermore, over the past 20 years the number
of federally listed threatened and endangered species with habitat in the planning area has
increased from 3 to 16, with 7 candidate species. This is compounded by the increase in the
number of other BLM and State special status species of concern. With the tremendous amount
of urban growth in the planning area during the same 20-year period, and the increased interest in
motorized recreation, demands for recreational opportunities on BLM lands often exceed the
capacity of these lands and resources.
14
Scoping Report
[R5] Energy Development: How should the BLM facilitate energy development while still
allowing for multiple uses and appropriate protection of public lands and resources? As the
BLM provides opportunities for energy (renewable and non-renewable) development, to include
associated transmission lines and pipelines, it must also provide protection for other resources,
such as visual, cultural, and habitat values. For example, a number of wind energy projects have
been developed in eastern Washington in recent years. Development of renewable energy is also
a DOI priority. However, the current RMP did not consider or identify areas open or closed to
wind energy development, and did not identify constraints to protect other resources. Also,
interest in development of natural gas in eastern Washington has greatly increased recently and
the existing RMP and amendment do not afford appropriate protection of resources and uses such
as wildlife habitat (including special status species and shrub-steppe communities) cultural
resources, and recreation. In addition, the most current reasonable foreseeable development
scenario, which the BLM prepared for a 1992 RMP amendment, did not account for changes in
oil and gas development technology that have occurred over the past 10 to 15 years.
Furthermore, energy development on BLM lands may result in conflicts with uses such as
residential areas or open space for recreation and tourism on adjacent lands.
3. Planning Criteria
In addition to the preliminary planning issues, the BLM RMP ID team also developed preliminary
planning criteria, which were initially published in the NOI. Planning criteria guide development
of the plan by helping define the decision space (or the ―sideboards‖ that define the scope of the
planning effort); they are generally based upon applicable laws, national and BLM state director
guidance, and the results of public and governmental participation (43 CFR 1610.4-2). During
scoping, the BLM received no comments indicating that the preliminary list of planning criteria
should be revised or supplemented. Hence, the BLM will use the following list of planning
criteria, unchanged from those published in the NOI, for development of the Eastern Washington
and San Juan RMP:
1) The BLM will protect resources in accordance with FLPMA, as amended (43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.), and other applicable laws and regulations;
2) The BLM will strive to make land use plan decisions compatible with existing plans and
policies of adjacent local, state, Federal, and tribal agencies, and consistent with other
applicable laws and regulations governing the administration of public land;
3) The plan will recognize valid existing rights within the planning area;
4) Land use plan decisions will apply to BLM lands and split-estate minerals administered
by the BLM;
5) The BLM will use a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, when practical, to
jointly determine the desired future conditions of public lands;
6) The plan will recognize the state’s authority to manage wildlife; and
7) The plan will incorporate the BLM Oregon and Washington Rangeland Health Standards
and Guidelines.
15
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
4. References
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Handbook
H-1601-1—Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, DC.
James Kent Associates (JKA). 2010. Community Field Reports in Support of Upcoming Land
Use Planning for the Spokane District Office of the Bureau of Land Management. Ashland,
OR.
Jacobson, J.E.; Snyder, M.C. 2000. Shrub-steppe Mapping of Eastern Washington Using Landsat
Thematic Mapper. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 34 p.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority Habitats and Species List.
Olympia, WA. [http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/]
16
Scoping Report
Appendix A: Notice of Intent
A-1
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
A-2
Scoping Report
Appendix B: Newsletter
B-1
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
B-2
Scoping Report
B-3
Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan
B-4