U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

San Juan Islands National Monument 

Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Scoping Report 
San Juan Islands National Monument Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Scoping Report

August 2015 

Scoping Report 

San Juan Islands National Monument 

Resource Management Plan 

 and Environmental Impact Statement 

For more information, contact: 

San Juan Islands National Monument

BLM Lopez Island Office

PO Box 3

Lopez, WA 98261

Phone: (360) 468-3754

Email: blm_or_sanjuanislandsnm@blm.gov

Or visit the San Juan Islands National Monument Planning Website at 

www.blm.gov/or/plans/sanjuanislandsnm/

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. What is a Scoping Report? ................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Background on the San Juan Islands National Monument .................................................. 1

1.3. Brief Description of the Decision Area and Planning Area .................................................. 1

2. Planning for the San Juan Islands National Monument ...................................................... 4

2.1. Purpose and Need for the San Juan Islands National Monument RMP .............................. 5

2.2 Coordination with Communities and Agencies ................................................................... 6

2.3 The Scoping Process ............................................................................................................. 8

3. Scoping Comments and Planning Issues .............................................................................. 9

3.1. Summarizing the Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 9

3.2. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................... 10

3.3. Issues and Requests Raised during the Scoping Period that are Outside of the Scope of 

the Planning Effort ............................................................................................................. 12

4. Planning Criteria................................................................................................................. 13

APPENDIX A: Presidential Proclamation 8947 ............................................................................ 15

APPENDIX B: NOI for San Juan Islands RMP................................................................................ 19

APPENDIX C: Interested Party Letter........................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX D: Summarized Content of Comments...................................................................... 23
SJINM RMP Scoping Report 1

1. Introduction 

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Spokane District Office is currently in the early stages of 

developing a resource management plan (RMP) for the San Juan Islands National Monument. This RMP 

will provide the overarching objectives and direction for the BLM-administered lands in the San Juan 

Islands. The BLM will work closely with its many partners and the public on the development of this 

plan, but the decisions made through the RMP will only apply to the lands and activities administered by 

the BLM in the San Juan Archipelago. 

1.1. What is a Scoping Report? 

A scoping report summarizes what the BLM has heard during the public comment period that kicks off 

every planning effort. For the San Juan Islands National Monument RMP this comment period, known as 

scoping, ran from March 2 until April 1, 2015. The scoping report identifies the topics covered in the 

submitted comments and lays out the issues that should be explored and resolved through the planning 

effort. It also explains why some issues raised in the comments do not fall within the scope of the 

planning effort. Additionally, the report offers an overview of the planning criteria, which are the 

sideboards, generally based in policy and law, that will guide the planning effort. Readers who want to 

review the full set of comments received by the BLM during the scoping period can find them online in 

the supplement to this document. 

1.2. Background on the San Juan Islands National Monument

On March 25, 2013, President Obama signed Proclamation 

8947 (see Appendix A) designating the San Juan Islands 

National Monument (SJINM). The SJINM consists of 

approximately 1,000 acres of BLM-administered lands 

scattered across the San Juan Islands. 

The President established the SJINM on these lands to 

“maintain their historical and cultural significance and 

enhance their unique and varied natural and scientific 

resources, for the benefit of all Americans.” The 

Proclamation goes on to state that, “For purposes of 

protecting and restoring the objects identified above [...] the BLM, shall prepare and maintain a 

management plan for the Monument...” The BLM manages the SJINM as a component of the Bureau’s 

National Landscape Conservation System which includes, as of the date of this report, 23 National 

Monuments, among other designations. 

1.3. Brief Description of the Decision Area and Planning Area 

Throughout this document, and future documents associated with this planning effort, the BLM will 

refer to the SJINM as the decision area. As noted above, the SJINM, and thus the decision area, includes 

only the BLM-administered lands within the San Juan Islands. 

The term planning area refers to the broader San Juan Islands, which provide context for, and might be 

affected by, the BLM’s potential decisions. Map 1, below, shows both the decision area (the BLMadministered lands) and the planning area (the broader map area). 
SJINM RMP Scoping Report 2

The San Juan Islands lie at the heart of the Salish Sea. The 

planning area is framed by the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the 

south, the Strait of Georgia on the north, the Washington State 

mainland on the east, and Canada’s Vancouver Island on the 

west. While small in acreage, the SJINM is ecologically diverse 

and includes rocks with limited vegetation, used by seabirds and 

marine mammals, in addition to larger areas characterized by 

habitats including forests, wetlands, and fire-dependent 

grasslands and meadows intermixed with rocky balds, bluffs, 

inter-tidal areas, and sandy beaches. 

The San Juan Islands continue to be important to numerous tribes belonging to the Coast Salish 

language group, and have been part of their customary territories for thousands of years. 

Archaeological signs of this ancestral use, including of villages, camps, and processing sites, are found 

throughout the SJINM. The lands also include historic structures associated with settlement by people 

of European ancestry, including light stations and 

associated buildings. 

The San Juan Islands are only accessible via boat or plane. 

Washington State ferries serve the four largest islands, 

which are home to the majority of the archipelago’s 

residents. As of 2014, the population of San Juan County 

was estimated at just over 16,000, though visitation 

during the summer season temporarily swells the 

population to many times this number. The landscape of the islands, including the SJINM lands, is 

important to the culture and economy of the archipelago’s communities. San Juan County contains a 

large percentage of the SJINM, but a small portion of the lands also occur in Skagit and Whatcom 

counties (see Table 1). 

Table 1. Acres of BLM-administered land1

 within each county in the Planning Area 

County BLM Acres

San Juan 902

Skagit <1

Whatcom 58

Total ~960

 

1

 This includes some lands that are co-managed by the Coast Guard and the BLM. 
 3 

SJINM RMP Scoping Report

Map 1: San Juan Islands National Monument Planning Area
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 4

2. Planning for the San Juan Islands National Monument 

These lands were previously included in an ongoing planning effort addressing BLM-administered lands 

in eastern Washington. Upon the designation of the SJINM, the BLM determined that separating the 

SJINM RMP from the broader joint San Juan Island/Eastern Washington RMP would ensure the 

development of a plan focused on the purposes for which the Monument was designated. Developing a 

plan focused on the SJINM also gives the BLM the opportunity to closely coordinate with its partners on 

how its approach fits within the broader landscape of the San Juan Islands. 

Table 2, below, offers an overview of and timeline for the planning process. 

Table 2. Preliminary Timeline for the SJINM RMP process 

Tasks and Milestones ESTIMATE

Kick off the Planning Effort

 Organize planning team

 Gather and update data

 Ask the public for ideas about what issues should be addressed in the planning 

effort ("scoping")

 Formalize planning partnerships with other government agencies

 Meet with the Monument Advisory Committee

Winter-Spring 

2015

Develop the Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

 Work internally and with partners to identify a range of possible management 

approaches

 Document the current state of resources/uses that would be affected by the plan

 Analyze the potential impacts of the possible management approaches on the 

planning area

 Meet with the Monument Advisory Committee and Cooperating Agencies

Summer 2015-

Summer 2016

Publish the Draft RMP/EIS

 Provide a 90 day public review and comment period Fall 2016

Develop the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

 Use public and partner comments to build on the Draft RMP/EIS and correct any 

errors

 Develop the BLM's proposed plan—generally a refinement of one of the 

management approaches described in the Draft—while considering public 

comments, input from Cooperating Agencies and the Monument Advisory 

Committee, and BLM priorities.

WinterSummer 2017

Publish the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

 Provide 30 days during which members of the public who have participated in the 

planning process can "protest" aspects of the proposed management decisions 

with which they disagree.

 Provide 60 days for the WA Governor's office to review the plan for consistency 

with state and local plans, policies, and programs. The Governor's Office may 

provide recommendations for making the proposed plan more consistent.

Fall 2017

Develop the Record of Decision/Approved RMP Winter 2018

Publish Approved Record of Decision/RMP Spring 2018
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 5

2.1. Purpose and Need for the San Juan Islands National Monument RMP 

The need for this action is established by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and 

Presidential Proclamation 8947. The FLPMA requires the BLM to develop RMPs that provide for the use 

of public lands. Presidential Proclamation 8947 specified that the BLM ‘‘shall prepare and maintain a 

management plan for the monument...” The SJINM is not currently managed under a land use plan. 

The purpose of this RMP is to provide goals, objectives, and management direction for the SJINM in 

order to conserve, protect, and restore the objects and values of historical, cultural, natural, and 

scientific significance identified in the designating proclamation. 

Relative to cultural resources, the purpose is to protect and restore objects and values relating to 

cultural and historic significance, including traditional use areas of the Coast Salish people, and 

archaeological remains of their villages, camps, and processing sites throughout the SJINM. These 

resources include, but are not limited to, shell middens, reef net locations, and burial sites. Additionally, 

the purpose of the plan is to preserve and restore historic resources associated with early European and 

American settlement found on the islands, which 

include lighthouses and other structures. 

The purpose of the plan regarding scientific and 

ecological resources is to protect and restore a 

wide array of habitats, including forests, firedependent grasslands, and wetlands, as well as 

bluffs, rocky balds, and shorelines. The Plan will 

ensure the maintenance of the diversity of 

habitats critical to supporting a varied collection 

of wildlife, including special status species. 

A final purpose of the plan is to manage these 

resources while addressing increasing human 

demand. The Plan will address recreation, education, and scientific uses consistent with the protection 

and restoration of the above objects and values. 

The plan will also ensure the safeguarding of tribal treaty rights reserved to pertinent tribes, and, as 

provided for in the proclamation “in consultation with Indian tribes, ensure the protection of religious 

and cultural sites in the monument and provide access to the sites by members of Indian tribes for 

traditional cultural and customary uses, consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 

U.S.C. 1996) and Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites).”

In determining the suite of management actions necessary to protect and restore the SJINM for present 

and future generations, this plan responds to three important sources of overarching guidance: 

 Presidential Proclamation 8947, March 25, 2013, which created the SJINM and identified the 

objects and values for protection. 

 Section 2002 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which established the 

National Landscape Conservation System, of which the SJINM is a unit, “in order to conserve, 

protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes.” This section also provides that these 

What is a purpose and need statement? 

The “purpose and need” is a formal 

statement developed for each BLM 

planning effort. Any potential 

management approach that does not fill 

the need and achieve all of the purposes 

described in the statement is not 

considered a reasonable approach that 

should be analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS. 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 6

lands be managed “in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the 

system were designated.” 

 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), which provides the basic 

underpinnings for the BLM’s management of public lands. Section 302 of FLPMA states that 

public lands are to be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield “except 

that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other 

provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.” Therefore, as a general rule, 

if a presidential proclamation that designates a Monument conflicts with FLPMA’s multiple use 

mandate, the designating language will apply. 

Recognizing these purposes, an RMP is needed for the San Juan Island National Monument to ensure 

that the long-term management of these lands achieves a level of protection and restoration consistent 

with the guidance described above. 

2.2 Coordination with Communities and Agencies 

In addition to public outreach through the website, periodic public meetings and comment periods, and 

a regular e-newsletter, the BLM is engaging with the interested communities and agencies using several 

methods. 

2.2.1 Coordinating with the Monument Advisory Committee 

The presidential proclamation designating the SJINM required that the BLM “shall prepare and maintain 

a management plan for the monument and shall establish an advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) to provide information and advice regarding the development 

of such plan.” The Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) is composed of twelve members: two 

members representing recreation and tourism interests, two members representing wildlife and 

ecological interests, two members representing cultural and heritage interests, two public-at-large 

members, one member representing tribal interests, one member representing local government, one 

member representing education and interpretation interests, and one member representing private 

landowners. 

MAC meetings are open to the public and include an opportunity for public comments to the Advisory 

Committee. The MAC first met in October of 2014 and has had six meetings as of the date of this 

publication. The MAC was instrumental in providing suggestions to the BLM related to the structure and 

location of public scoping meetings, including the idea of having a meeting on the interisland ferry. They 

also reviewed the scoping comments and provided input on the planning issues (further described 

below). In recent meetings, BLM resource leads engaged with the MAC on objectives and management 

tools that could be considered in the alternatives. 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 7

2.2.2 Initiating Tribal Consultation 

On February 12, 2015, the BLM sent early notification of 

the scoping period to seven tribal governments with a 

potential interest in the SJINM planning process. These 

tribal governments also received interested party letters 

after the notice initiating scoping was published in the 

Federal Register. On April 27, 2015, the BLM formally 

initiated government-to-government consultation through 

official correspondence with the governments of the 

Native American tribes listed below. This correspondence 

also included invitations to participate in the process as 

cooperating agencies (see below). 

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe 

Lummi Nation 

Nooksack Tribe 

Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 

Samish Indian Nation 

Skokomish Tribe 

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 

Tulalip Tribes of Washington 

Lower Elwha Tribe 

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 

Upper Skagit Tribe 

The BLM will continue to coordinate, formally and informally, with tribal governments to promote their 

involvement in the RMP planning process.

2.2.3 Initiating Cooperating Agency Relationships 

In May of 2014, the BLM hosted a training workshop 

for potential cooperating agencies. At the beginning of 

the scoping period the BLM sent notification letters to 

local, state, federal, and tribal governments with a 

potential interest in the SJINM planning process (listed 

above and below). In April of 2015, the BLM followed 

up with formal invitations for these agencies to 

participate as cooperating agencies in the planning 

process. 

City of Anacortes 

San Juan County Council 

Skagit County Board of Commissioners 

Town of Friday Harbor 

Whatcom County Council 

The State of Washington (various state agencies would engage in the process) 

National Park Service, San Juan Island National Historical Park 

NOAA Fisheries 

What is a cooperating agency?

A cooperating agency is an eligible 

governmental entity (local, state, 

tribal, or federal agency with related 

expertise or legal jurisdiction) that 

has entered into a written agreement 

with the BLM to provide input and 

expertise for the planning and 

environmental analysis processes. 

What is tribal consultation?

Tribal consultation is the process by 

which the BLM identifies and 

confers with the appropriate tribal 

officials and/or individuals to ask for 

their views regarding land uses that 

might affect traditional tribal 

activities, practices, or beliefs 

relating to particular locations on 

public land. Information given to the 

BLM through tribal consultation is a 

necessary factor in defining the 

range of acceptable land 

management options. 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 8

U.S. Coast Guard 

U.S. Customs & Border Patrol 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island 

2.3 The Scoping Process 

The public scoping process for the 

SJINM RMP began with publication of 

the Notice of Intent to Prepare a 

Resource Management Plan and 

Associated Environmental Impact 

Statement for the San Juan Islands 

National Monument (NOI) in the 

Federal Register on March 2, 2015 (see 

Appendix B). This notice announced 

that the BLM was initiating the 

RMP/EIS process for the SJINM, 

identified the 30 day period (March 2, 

2015 through April 1, 2015) during which the BLM would accept scoping comments, and described how 

to submit comments (online, email, postal mail, or hand carried). In addition, the NOI described the 

preliminary planning issues and listed the preliminary planning criteria proposed by BLM. 

The BLM sent 191 hard copy letters and 102 emails to potentially interested individuals, organizations, 

and agencies announcing the initiation of the scoping process and describing how to participate (see 

Appendix C). The BLM also established a SJINM RMP website with general information about the 

planning effort and specific information about scoping and how to participate 

(www.blm.gov/or/plans/sanjuanislandsnm/). 

The BLM widely broadcast press releases announcing the initiation of the RMP/EIS process, the scoping 

comment period, and how to submit comments. The press releases were sent to local news outlets 

serving the San Juan Islands and Anacortes (the city from which the ferry to the San Juan Islands 

departs), as well as to over 100 news outlets throughout Washington State. 

2.3.1 Public Meetings 

The BLM held five public meetings during the scoping period, as listed in Table 3. 

Table 3: Dates and Locations of Public Scoping Meetings 

Date Location Time

March 11, 2015 Friday Harbor 5 - 8 p.m.

March 12, 2015 Klahowya Ferry 1 - 3:30 p.m.

March 12, 2015 Lopez Island 5 - 8 p.m.

March 13, 2015 Orcas Island 5 - 8 p.m.

March 14, 2015 Anacortes 12 - 3 p.m.
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 9

The meetings were staffed by the monument manager, the lead planner for the RMP, and several key 

members of the BLM interdisciplinary team. Members of the MAC (described above) were also present 

to support the process at every meeting. During the meetings, the BLM offered an overview of the 

Monument, the planning process, and the scoping period, before providing attendees with the 

opportunity to ask questions and make statements. Meetings concluded with an open house period 

during which attendees could interact with interdisciplinary team members at a variety of resourcefocused stations. 

 

Over 90 people signed in at the meetings, and the BLM estimates that well over 100 were engaged in 

some way. Attendance was particularly difficult to gauge for the ferry meeting, which involved 

passengers moving freely through the meeting space and BLM staff engaging with the public throughout 

the ferry. The meeting in Anacortes also featured team members interacting with patrons at the 

Anacortes Library who did not actually attend the BLM’s presentation. 

2.3.2 Previous Scoping Effort for the Eastern Washington and San Juan Islands RMP 

As described above, the BLM-administered lands in the San Juan Islands were previously included in the 

joint Eastern Washington and San Juan RMP effort. The BLM conducted scoping for this planning effort 

in 2010. During that process, 66 comments pertaining to the San Juan Islands were submitted to the 

BLM. While these comments are not technically scoping comments for the current planning effort, they 

were reviewed and considered by the BLM in its development of the planning issues described below, 

and will be similarly considered during the development of alternatives. The 2010 scoping report for the 

Eastern Washington and San Juan RMP can be found here: 

www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp/files/EWSJ_RMP_Scoping_Report.pdf

3. Scoping Comments and Planning Issues 

3.1. Summarizing the Scoping Comments 

The BLM received 88 scoping comments from 79 individuals and entities. In some cases members of the 

public submitted multiple comments; each email or letter was counted as an individual comment. Table 

4, below, offers a breakdown of the various commenter affiliations. Comments were only considered to 

be from organizations or agencies where the comment was clearly intended to represent the 

perspective of the organization or agency as a whole rather than that of the individual commenter. Due 

to email submissions, and the submission of comments at public meetings without the inclusion of an 

address, the BLM could not determine the geographic diversity of the commenters. However, the 

majority of commenters identified themselves as residents of the San Juan Islands either explicitly or 

through the addresses provided. 

Table 4: Affiliation of those who sent in scoping comments 

Affiliation Number of Comments

Private Individual 80

Non-Governmental 

Organization 

4

Local Government 1

State Government 1

Tribal Government 1

Federal Government 1
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 10

While the primary purpose of the scoping period is to aid in the identification of planning issues, the 

BLM is also using the scoping comments as it develops the management alternatives for the draft 

RMP/EIS. For example, in many cases commenters identified a specific approach they would like to see 

the BLM take in managing a particular area, resource, or activity. Where these suggestions are within 

the scope of the planning effort, and meet the purpose and need (see above), the BLM will incorporate 

them into one or more of the alternatives developed for the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Table 5 lists the general topics that were addressed in the comments. Appendix D provides a much more 

detailed summary of the input received. Readers who would like to review the full set of comments can 

find them online in the supplement to this report. 

Table 5: Topics Covered by Scoping Comments 

Resource/Activity

Air Quality

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Climate Change

Coordination with other Agencies

Cultural Resources

Education and Interpretation

Fire Ecology and Management

Habitat and Vegetation

HazMat (including Oil Spills)

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Lands and Realty

Marine Environment Below Mean High Tide

Public Safety (including issues related to hunting)

Recreation 

Research and Science

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Rights-of-Way Administration

Soils

Soundscape

Wildlife

3.2. Planning Issues 

Initial planning issues were identified in the NOI (March 2015) and were based on objects and resources 

identified in the proclamation. After the scoping period, the BLM planning team developed more 

specific planning issues for the SJINM RMP effort. Each member of the BLM planning team reviewed the 

scoping comments pertinent to their resource area and drew on them to identify additional issues. The 

planning issues described below are preliminary and may be refined or added to over time. 

3.2.1 Input from the MAC

On May 28, the MAC met with BLM staff to review and provide input on the preliminary planning issues 

developed by the BLM interdisciplinary team. In preparation for the meeting, the BLM had provided the 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 11

MAC members with the scoping comments pertinent to their areas of expertise. The MAC offered 

several refinements to the preliminary planning issues but generally believed they covered the right 

range of issues. The one exception was an issue addressing how BLM would manage the gathering of 

natural materials by non-tribal members of the public, which was added to the list as planning issue 3. 

3.3.2 Planning Issues for the SJINM RMP 

Overarching Planning Issues: 

 How will the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) protect and/or restore the SJINM’s historical 

and cultural resources, as identified in the designating proclamation? 

 How will the BLM protect and/or restore the SJINM’s unique and varied natural and scientific 

resources, as identified in the designating proclamation? 

More specific planning issues: 

1. How will the BLM maintain or improve conditions across the diversity of habitats, including 

traditionally culturally maintained (anthropogenic) habitats, within the San Juan Islands National 

Monument (SJINM) for the benefit of native wildlife and plant species? To what extent and with 

what methods will the BLM maintain and enhance these habitats? 

2. How will BLM manage the SJINM to contribute to the conservation and recovery of special 

status species? 

3. How will the BLM manage the gathering of natural materials on SJINM lands (e.g., for 

wildcrafting, citizen science, education)? 

4. How will the BLM manage the SJINM to mitigate and adapt to climate change? 

5. How will the BLM manage non-native, noxious, and invasive species? What objectives will it 

identify for its approach to such species, including what species will be targeted, and what 

methods will be permitted in addressing them? 

6. How will the BLM undertake treatments or management actions to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire? 

7. How should BLM approach the protection, rehabilitation, and restoration of historic and cultural 

resources (e.g., should they be maintained as they are, restored back to a particular time, 

and/or otherwise modified)? 

8. How will the BLM manage visitor opportunities (including physical access and areas managed for 

recreation) while protecting ecological, cultural, and historic objects and values identified in the 

proclamation? What types of experiences and activities should be emphasized and where? 

What should be excluded and where? How would BLM manage for visitor sensory experiences 

(such as sound and lights)? 

9. How will the BLM apply closed and limited designations for motorized use within the SJINM? 

10. How will the BLM designate authorized routes (including roads and trails, motorized and 

otherwise) within the SJINM and for what purposes? 

11. Where will BLM manage to retain natural settings and wilderness characteristics? 

12. How will the BLM apply Visual Resource Management classes within the SJINM? 

13. How will BLM manage scientific research in the SJINM? 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 12

14. What, if any, activities should be restricted through the land use plan to protect public health 

and safety? 

15. What criteria will the BLM use to evaluate land acquisitions and exchanges? 

16. How should the BLM apply right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas and set criteria for other 

land use authorizations? 

17. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Should the existing Iceberg Point and Point 

Colville ACECs continue to be designated as ACECs? Should other areas within the planning area 

be designated as an ACEC? 

3.3. Issues and Requests Raised during the Scoping Period that are Outside of the Scope of the 

Planning Effort 

A number of comments addressed issues or topics that are, for one reason or another, outside the 

scope of this planning process. The BLM reviewed and considered these comments but will not develop 

management alternatives incorporating issues outside the scope of the planning effort as described in 

the purpose and need statement. 

While the BLM will consider how its management actions could affect lands and resources outside of its 

jurisdiction, the objectives and direction provided in the plan will exclusively apply to BLM-administered 

lands, resources, and activities. For example, the BLM will consider whether plan decisions, such as 

those that might cause erosion or would allow motorized craft landing on beaches, might have an effect 

on the coastal environment below mean high-tide, but the plan will not provide direction for the 

management of the coastal environment below mean high tide since this area is outside of the BLM’s 

jurisdiction. 

3.3.1 Restrict Non-BLM Administered Activities that Affect the SJINM’s Soundscape

The BLM received comments requesting that the Bureau restrict loud activities that take place outside 

of the SJINM and are not under the jurisdiction of the BLM. The BLM does not have jurisdiction to 

manage these activities, but can consider objectives and direction to limit the impacts to soundscapes 

from activities that take place within the SJINM or are administered by the BLM. 

3.3.2 Manage and/or Restrict Marine Fishing and/or Interactions with Orcas in the Waters around the 

SJINM 

The BLM received comments requesting that it implement no fishing zones in the waters outside of the 

SJINM or that it provide restrictions on the interactions between humans and orcas in these waters. 

While the BLM may consider the impact of its management on marine species, SJINM boundaries are at 

mean high tide of the waterline. The BLM does not have jurisdiction over the waters surrounding the 

SJINM. 

3.3.3 Prohibit Hunting within the SJINM 

The BLM received comments requesting that it restrict or eliminate hunting on the SJINM’s Lopez Island 

lands due to safety concerns around conflicts between hunters and other visitors. The BLM does not 

regulate hunting; hunting in Washington State is regulated by the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. The BLM does, however, have the authority to restrict the discharge of firearms on lands that it 

administers and this may be explored within the range of alternatives in response to the planning issue: 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 13

“What, if any, activities should be restricted through the land use plan to protect public health and 

safety?”

3.3.4 Designate the Area as a National Conservation Area 

The BLM received one comment requesting that the plan consider the designation of the decision area 

as a National Conservation Area. Such designations can only be made by Congress and so are outside the 

scope of this planning effort. The designation of the area as a National Monument in 2013 also provided 

the area with a status that is very similar to that of a National Conservation Area. 

3.3.5 Requests for the BLM to take a Position on Political Issues or Activities not under the Jurisdiction 

of the BLM 

The BLM received comments requesting that it take a position on or advocate for a change in law or in 

the policies or activities of other federal, state, and local agencies. While the agency as a whole may 

provide comments on activities proposed by other entities, this is not undertaken through RMPs. 

3.3.6 Plan Level vs Implementation Level Decisions 

The BLM received comments requesting that it undertake site-specific projects or decisions that are 

appropriately made during the implementation of the plan rather than in the plan itself. Decisions in 

RMPs are foundational, providing overarching guidance for future site-specific and resource-specific 

implementation decisions. Implementation decisions, which take place after the completion of the RMP, 

generally constitute the BLM’s final approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. These types of 

decisions will require additional appropriate site-specific planning, which will provide additional 

opportunities for public input. 

The exception to this is with regard to roads and trails within the SJINM. Because the designating 

language was directive on this topic, and the landscape is so small, the RMP will include 

implementation-level decisions on the designation of roads and trails within the SJINM. 

Some commenters suggested specific structures they would like to see on the ground, such as signs, 

bathroom facilities, or bike racks at particular locations. As long as these projects are consistent with the 

approved plan, they can be undertaken through implementation level planning and analysis after the 

RMP process is completed. After the RMP is completed the BLM will develop implementation-level plans 

that address specific issues, resources, or projects in detail. Examples of such plans include science plans 

(which would set forth the BLM’s research priorities), interpretive plans (which would develop specific 

interpretive messages and strategies), and cultural resource management plans (which would direct the 

site-specific management of a particular cultural resource). 

4. Planning Criteria 

In addition to the preliminary planning issues, the NOI (March 2015) identified preliminary planning 

criteria for the SJINM RMP. Planning criteria help define the sideboards for the planning process and 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). The BLM has identified the following planning 

criteria for the SJINM RMP effort. 

 Decisions made in the RMP will apply exclusively to BLM-administered public lands within the 

boundary of the SJINM. 

 The RMP will provide for the management of the SJINM to protect objects and values in 

accordance with the designating Proclamation, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 14

2009, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

 The RMP will be consistent with other applicable laws, regulations, and BLM policies. 

 The RMP will recognize valid existing rights within the Decision Area. 

 The BLM will use a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, when practical, to determine 

the desired future condition of the SJINM. 

 As practicable, the BLM will strive to make land use plan decisions compatible with existing 

plans and policies of adjacent local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies. 

 The BLM will continue to solicit and consider public input throughout the planning process. 

 The RMP will address transportation and access, and will identify where access should be 

improved, where it should remain as is, and where reduced access is appropriate to protect 

resources. 

 The BLM will ensure ongoing and meaningful dialog with Native American Tribes through 

consultation and collaboration regarding natural and cultural resources of value and importance 

to the Tribes. 

 The BLM will honor trust responsibilities as they apply to the public lands in the SJINM. 

 The BLM will consider the effects of management on greenhouse gas emissions as well as 

opportunities for mitigating any such contributions. 

 The BLM will consider the uncertainty created by climate change around the results of its 

effects analysis and the extent to which its management actions might help or hinder the ability 

of the Monument objects and values to adapt to climate change. 

 Areas potentially suitable for ACECs and other special management designations will be 

identified and brought forward for consideration in the RMP. The BLM will determine if 

potential and existing ACECs have relevant and important values and if additional special 

management, beyond what is already included in a given alternative, is needed to maintain 

these values. 

 The public may provide nominations for areas potentially suitable for ACECs and other special 

management designations and input on the reevaluation of the existing ACECs will be 

requested. 

 In identifying its preferred and, eventually, proposed and approved plans the BLM will consider 

the effect of its proposed actions on ecological and cultural values and existing uses of the land. 

Legal obligations under the designating proclamation, along with other applicable laws, will be 

met by the RMP.
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 15

APPENDIX A: Presidential Proclamation 8947 

Presidential Proclamation -- San Juan Islands National Monument 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE San Juan Islands NATIONAL MONUMENT 

- - - - - - - 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

Within Washington State's Puget Sound lies an archipelago of over 450 islands, rocks, and 

pinnacles known as the San Juan Islands. These islands form an unmatched landscape of contrasts, 

where forests seem to spring from gray rock and distant, snow-capped peaks provide the backdrop 

for sandy beaches. Numerous wildlife species can be found here, thriving in the diverse habitats 

supported by the islands. The presence of archeological sites, historic lighthouses, and a few tightknit communities testifies that humans have navigated this rugged landscape for thousands of 

years. These lands are a refuge of scientific and historic treasures and a classroom for generations 

of Americans. 

The islands are part of the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people. Native people first used 

the area near the end of the last glacial period, about 12,000 years ago. However, permanent 

settlements were relatively uncommon until the last several hundred years. The Coast Salish 

people often lived in villages of wooden-plank houses and used numerous smaller sites for fishing 

and harvesting shellfish. In addition to collecting edible plants, and hunting various birds and 

mammals, native people used fire to maintain meadows of the nutritionally rich great camas. 

Archaeological remains of the villages, camps, and processing sites are located throughout these 

lands, including shell middens, reef net locations, and burial sites. Wood-working tools, such as 

antler wedges, along with bone barbs used for fishing hooks and projectile points, are also found 

on the islands. Scientists working in the San Juan Islands have uncovered a unique array of fossils 

and other evidence of long-vanished species. Ancient bison skeletons (10,000-12,000 years old) 

have been found in several areas, indicating that these islands were an historic mammal dispersal 

corridor. Butcher marks on some of these bones suggest that the earliest human inhabitants 

hunted these large animals. 

The first Europeans explored the narrows of the San Juan Islands in the late 18th century, and 

many of their names for the islands are still in use. These early explorers led the way for 19th 

century European and American traders and trappers. By 1852, American settlers had established 

homesteads on the San Juan Islands, some of which remain today. In the late 19th century, the 

Federal Government built several structures to aid in maritime navigation. Two light stations and 

their associated buildings are located on lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Patos Island Light Station (National Register of Historic Places, 

1977) and Turn Point Light Station (Washington State Register of Historic Places, 1978). 

The lands on Patos Island, Stuart Island, Lopez Island, and neighboring islands constitute some of 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 16

the most scientifically interesting lands in the San Juan Islands. These lands contain a dramatic and 

unusual diversity of habitats, with forests, woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands intermixed with 

rocky balds, bluffs, inter-tidal areas, and sandy beaches. The stands of forests and open 

woodlands, some of which are several hundred years old, include a majestic assemblage of trees, 

such as Douglas fir, red cedar, western hemlock, Oregon maple, Garry oak, and Pacific madrone. 

The fire-dependent grasslands, which are also susceptible to invasive species, are home to chick 

lupine, historically significant great camas, brittle cactus, and the threatened golden paintbrush. 

Rocky balds and bluffs are home to over 200 species of moss that are extremely sensitive to 

disturbance and trampling. In an area with limited fresh water, two wetlands on Lopez Island and 

one on Patos Island are the most significant freshwater habitats in the San Juan Islands. 

The diversity of habitats in the San Juan Islands is critical to supporting an equally varied collection 

of wildlife. Marine mammals, including orcas, seals, and porpoises, attract a regular stream of 

wildlife watchers. Native, terrestrial mammals include black-tail deer, river otter, mink, several 

bats, and the Shaw Island vole. Raptors, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons, are commonly 

observed soaring above the islands. Varied seabirds and terrestrial birds can also be found here, 

including the threatened marbled murrelet and the recently reintroduced western bluebird. The 

island marble butterfly, once thought to be extinct, is currently limited to a small population in the 

San Juan Islands. 

The protection of these lands in the San Juan Islands will maintain their historical and cultural 

significance and enhance their unique and varied natural and scientific resources, for the benefit of 

all Americans. 

WHEREAS section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431) (the "Antiquities Act"), 

authorizes the President, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, 

historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are 

situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be 

national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all 

cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of 

the objects to be protected; 

WHEREAS it is in the public interest to preserve the objects of scientific and historic interest on the 

lands of the San Juan Islands; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority 

vested in me by section 2 of the Antiquities Act, hereby proclaim the objects identified above that 

are situated upon lands and interests in 

lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be the San Juan Islands 

National Monument (monument), and, for the purpose of protecting those objects, reserve as a 

part thereof all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United 

States and administered by the Department of the Interior through the BLM, including all 

unappropriated or unreserved islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles above mean high tide, 

within the boundaries described on the accompanying map, which is attached to and forms a part 

of this proclamation. These reserved Federal lands and interests in lands encompass approximately 

970 acres, which is the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 17

objects to be protected. 

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of the monument administered by 

the Department of the Interior through the BLM are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from all 

forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, 

including withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition 

under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the 

protective purposes of this proclamation. 

The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights. Lands and interests in lands 

within the monument boundaries not owned or controlled by the Government of the United 

States shall be reserved as a part of the monument upon acquisition of ownership or control by 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) on behalf of the United States. 

The Secretary shall manage the monument through the BLM as a unit of the National Landscape 

Conservation System, pursuant to applicable legal authorities, to implement the purposes of this 

proclamation, except that if the Secretary hereafter acquires on behalf of the United States 

ownership or control of any lands or interests in lands within the monument boundaries not 

owned or controlled by the United States, the Secretary shall determine whether such lands and 

interests in lands will be administered by the BLM as a unit of the National Landscape 

Conservation System or by another component of the Department of the Interior, consistent with 

applicable legal authorities. 

For purposes of protecting and restoring the objects identified above, the Secretary, through the 

BLM, shall prepare and maintain a management plan for the monument and shall establish an 

advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) to provide 

information and advice regarding the development of such plan. 

Except for emergency, Federal law enforcement, or authorized administrative purposes, motorized 

vehicle use in the monument shall be permitted only on designated roads, and non-motorized 

mechanized vehicle use in the monument shall be permitted only on designated roads and trails. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the rights of any Indian tribe. 

The Secretary shall, in consultation with Indian tribes, ensure the protection of religious and 

cultural sites in the monument and provide access to the sites by members of Indian tribes for 

traditional cultural and customary uses, consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1996) and Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites). 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction or authority of 

the State of Washington or the United States over submerged or other lands within the territorial 

waters off the coast of Washington. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of 

Washington with respect to fish and wildlife management. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to engage in search and rescue operations, or to use Patos Island Light Station, Turn Point 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 18

Light Station, or other aids to navigation for navigational or national security purposes. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or 

appropriation; however, the monument shall be the dominant reservation. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to restrict safe and efficient aircraft operations, 

including activities and exercises of the Armed Forces and the United States Coast Guard, in the 

vicinity of the monument. 

Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove 

any feature of the monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of March, in the year of 

our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two 

hundred and thirty-seventh. 

BARACK OBAMA 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 19

APPENDIX B: NOI for San Juan Islands RMP 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 20

APPENDIX C: Interested Party Letter 

 

 

 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 21
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 22
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 23

APPENDIX D: Summarized Content of Comments 

The table below summarizes the content of the comments, as categorized into: 

 Planning issues: questions about how the BLM should manage the land that could be 

explored through the alternatives (note: these were used to develop the generally higher 

level planning issues described on page 11 of the report). For example, “how will the BLM 

manage recreation while protecting the SJINM objects and values?” would be categorized as 

a planning issue. 

 Management approaches: approaches that the BLM will consider incorporating into one or 

more alternatives where they are within the scope of the planning effort. Management 

approaches are potential answers to the planning issues. For example, “restricting 

recreational access to sensitive rocks and islands” would be categorized as a management 

approach that addresses the planning issue example above. 

 Analytical issues: questions that the BLM will consider addressing through its analysis. For 

example, “how would the BLM’s management affect the marine environment adjacent to the 

SJINM?” would be categorized as an analytical issue. 

The appearance of a management approach on this list does not indicate that it is within the 

scope of the planning effort. The statements and questions below are summaries of input 

provided in the comments rather than direct quotes from the comments; they often capture 

similar input from multiple commenters. See page 12 of the report above for an explanation as to 

why some approaches are not within the scope of the planning effort. 

Resource/Use Type of comment Summarized Comment

Access and Parking Planning Issue

How would BLM address access and parking for 

its Lopez Island properties? (Iceberg Point and 

Chadwick called out specifically in some 

comments)

Access and Parking

Management 

Approach

Improve parking for Watmough and Point 

Colville.

ACEC

Management 

Approach Maintain current status and management.

Climate Change Analytical Issue

How would BLM's management contribute to 

greenhouse gas emissions?

Climate Change Planning Issue

How would the BLM manage to mitigate the 

impacts of climate change affects (including sea 

level rise, potential wildfire, potential increases in 

disease)?

Climate Change

Management 

Approach

Use adaptive management to address climate 

change.

Climate Change Analytical Issue

How would climate change influence the 

monument?

Cultural/Historical 

values

Management 

Approach

Enhance facilities at light stations to allow for 

visiting light keepers program. 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 24

Cultural/historical 

values Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect cultural 

resources?

Cultural/Historical 

values

Management 

Approach Address HazMat issues at historic properties.

Cultural/Historical 

values Planning Issue

How will the BLM protect cultural landscapes and 

structures?

Cultural/Historical 

values

Management 

Approach

Have an ongoing process to identify and evaluate 

cultural and historic resources. 

Cultural/Historical 

values

Management 

Approach

Conduct a class III Cultural resource inventory for 

whole monument.

Dark night skies

Management 

Approach Protect dark night skies.

Dark night skies Analytical Issue How would BLM management affect night skies?

Ed/Interp

Management 

Approach

Provide onsite educational information about 

ecological sensitivity, among other things.

Ed/Interp

Management 

Approach Emphasize cultural interpretation.

Ed/Interp Planning Issue

To what extent should the BLM allow on-site 

interpretive signage in the Monument? 

Ed/Interp

Management 

Approach Have onsite interpretive guides and or monitors.

Ed/Interp

Management 

Approach Create an interpretive plan.

Ed/Interp

Management 

Approach

Have interpretive kiosk or other visitor contact at 

the ferry terminal.

Ed/Interp

Management 

Approach Provide information and resources online.

Ed/Interp/Research

Management 

Approach

Designate areas to prioritize research and 

education over recreational use.

Fire

Management 

Approach

Create firebreaks along trails and as otherwise 

needed.

Fire Planning Issue

How should the BLM manage the SJINM to 

address fire risk?

Fire--prescribed burning

Management 

Approach

Consider prescribed burning as a way to address 

fuel loads,

Fisheries

Management 

Approach

Restrict fisheries harvest around monument/ 

create marine protected area.

Friends Group

Management 

Approach Support creation of a friends group.

HazMat

Management 

Approach

Include strategy for prevention, mitigation, cleanup, and restoration related to oil spills.

HazMat Analytical Issue Consider threat from potential oil spill.
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 25

HazMat

Management 

Approach

Describe how the BLM would address dispersant 

use. 

Hunting

Management 

Approach Restrict hunting/shooting due to safety concerns.

Hunting Planning Issue

How would the BLM address hunting/shooting on 

its lands?

Invasive Species

Management 

Approach

Use integrated weed management with mix of 

controls (cultural, biological, mechanical, and 

chemical)

Invasive Species

Management 

Approach

Include best practices to reduce risk of 

introducing species.

Invasive Species

Management 

Approach Do not use herbicides/pesticides 

Invasive Species

Management 

Approach

Objective: control invasive species to the greatest 

extent possible. 

Invasive Species Analytical Issue

How would invasive plant management affect 

habitat, water quality, and soils?

Invasive Species Planning Issue How would the BLM address invasive species? 

Invasive Species

Management 

Approach

Objective: do not have a broad objective to 

remove invasive species, but consider on a 

species by species basis and where degrading 

fragile habitats or sensitive species

Invasive Species

Management 

Approach

Take a position on making SJI County pesticide 

free.

Monitoring

Management 

Approach

Continue to engage local residents and 

organizations in conducting monitoring. 

Monitoring

Management 

Approach

Describe and establish monitoring program to 

ensure management objectives are being met. 

NCA

Management 

Approach

Provide management for a possible National 

Conservation Area.

Process Analytical Issue Analyze cumulative effects from other properties.

Public Safety Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect public 

safety?

Realty

Management 

Approach

Work to secure or develop access to properties 

that currently only have access through private 

land (or undeveloped easements). 

Realty

Management 

Approach

Prioritize acquisition of lands that are currently in 

conservation status but that may end up being 

sold (land bank, nature conservancy).

Realty

Management 

Approach Do not sell or trade SJINM lands.

Realty

Management 

Approach

Prioritize acquisitions to compensate for sea level 

rise. 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 26

Realty

Management 

Approach

Provide information to landowners about how to 

donate land.

Realty and Access Planning Issue

How should the BLM address access to sites the 

public is currently accessing through private 

property? 

Recreation planning issue

How should the BLM address camping 

throughout the monument? (dispersed allowed 

everywhere? camping only in designated sites? 

no camping?)

Recreation

Management 

Approach

Enhance/increase kayak use opportunities on 

non-ferry served islands (specifically camping).

Recreation

Management 

Approach

Provide for mountain biking opportunities at 

appropriate locations and times. 

Recreation Planning Issue

How would the BLM manage recreation to 

protect ROVs? (including what kinds and where)

Recreation

Management 

Approach Require dogs to be on leashes.

Recreation

Management 

Approach Prohibit dispersed camping.

Recreation

Management 

Approach

Require permits for parties of 8+ on non-ferry 

served islands and 12 or more on ferry-served 

islands.

Recreation

Management 

Approach Allow for equestrian use in appropriate areas.

Recreation

Management 

Approach Develop/restore new trails in appropriate areas.

Recreation

Management 

Approach

Minimize restrictions on public enjoyment of 

monument lands.

Recreation

Management 

Approach Limit group tours to one time per day.

recreation Planning issue

What sort of signage should the BLM provide 

within the monument? (trail, boat, interpretive, 

private property)

Recreation Planning issue

How should the BLM balance the desire of many 

islanders for a tranquil and unchanged 

experience with the interests of tourists and 

visitors? 

recreation

Management 

Approach

Identify specific kayak landing spots on non-ferry 

served islands. 

Recreation

Management 

Approach

Reach out to amateur radio operators who might 

be able to use light station facilities for 

emergency preparedness.

Recreation

Management 

Approach Institute a no smoking policy to protect from fire.
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 27

recreation

Management 

Approach

Provide maps to visitors showing recreational 

access.

Recreation 

Management 

Approach Do not permit bicycles or horses.

Recreation 

Management 

Approach

Manage to protect the local community's 

spiritual connection to the Lopez properties. 

Recreation 

Management 

Approach

Consider potential trespass on (and impacts to 

the enjoyment of) private land when addressing 

recreation. 

Recreation 

Management 

Approach

Close smaller/currently undisturbed islands and 

rocks to recreational access. 

Recreation 

Management 

Approach Use low visual impact signage.

Recreation 

Management 

Approach

Manage to minimize increased recreation/visitor 

use of Point Colville and Chadwick Hill while still 

allowing existing use. 

Recreation 

Management 

Approach Minimize promotion of SJINM.

Recreation 

Management 

Approach

Allow for the development of necessary 

structures for recreation management such as 

bike racks at trailheads, bathroom facilities (as 

needed), and informational kiosks. 

Recreation 

Management 

Approach Allow 24 hour access to Lopez Island lands.

Recreation 

Management 

Approach

Manage Lopez lands for an undeveloped, quiet 

visitor experience.

Recreation Analytical Issue

How would recreation affect the Monument 

objects and values and the general monument

landscape?

Recreation/Access Planning Issue

How will the BLM expand or restrict access to the 

SJINM lands? 

Research

Management 

Approach Prioritize research of unique island values. 

Research

Management 

Approach

Require public online registration for all research 

activities. 

Research

Management 

Approach Emphasize community involvement in research. 

Research

Management 

Approach

Prioritize research that supports stewardship and 

engages local communities.

Rights of Way

Management 

Approach

Do not provide ROW that would allow activities in 

conflict with the monument designation. 

Soc-econ Analytical Issue

Would BLM management have a 

disproportionate adverse impact on minority 

and/or low in-come populations? 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 28

Soc-econ Analytical Issue

What would be the economic impact of BLM's 

management?

Soil/Water/Air Analytical Issue

How will the BLM's management of invasive 

plants affect soils?

Soil/Water/Air Analytical Issue How would BLM management affect erosion?

Soil/Water/Air Analytical Issue

How would the BLM's management affect source 

water protection areas and water bodies, 

including Section 303(d) bodies? 

Soil/Water/Air Analytical Issue How would BLM management affect air quality?

Soil/Water/Air--Riparian Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect riparian 

areas? 

Soundscape

Management 

Approach

Manage activities on BLM lands to minimize 

disruptions to soundscape.

Soundscape Analytical Issue

Analyze impacts from vessels and navy planes on 

the monument.

Soundscape Analytical Issue Analyze soundscape.

Soundscape--Navy 

Airplanes

Management 

Approach Restrict noise from naval activities.

Soundscape--noises 

outside of Monument 

land

Management 

Approach Restrict amplified noise from boats.

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach

Require/request that visitors stay on designated 

trails.

Travel/Transportation planning issue

How would the BLM establish recreational 

management areas and designated trails?

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach

Consider designating more trails to spread out 

visitor use.

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach Designate, clearly identify, and minimize trails.

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach Designate the minimum road network.

Travel/Transportation Analytical Issue

How would BLM any changes in road and route 

miles implied, or designated, under the RMP 

affect water quality?

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach

Establish trail creating a loop at Point Colville 

connecting current trails to new parking area. 

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach

Do not designate trails in fragile meadows and 

cultural landscapes. 

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach Develop only single file width trails.

Travel/Transportation

Management 

Approach

Designate trails, with timing and seasonal 

restrictions as necessary, for mountain biking 

Tribal planning issue

How will the plan ensure the treaty rights of 

pertinent tribes? 
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 29

Tribal planning issue

Add protection of treaty rights to the purpose 

and need.

Tribal

Management 

Approach

Include opportunities for tribes to work on 

meadow restoration and enhancement of 

culturally important plants. 

Tribal/Cultural/Historical 

values Planning Issue

How would the BLM protect the integrity of 

Native American sacred sites?

Visual Resources Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect visual 

resources?

Visual Resources

Management 

Approach

Manage to visual resource management class 1 

where possible

Wilderness 

characteristics Analytical Issue

How will BLM management affect wilderness 

characteristics? 

Wilderness 

characteristics

Management 

Approach Protect wilderness characteristics.

Wildlife/habitat

Management 

Approach

Restrict access to areas (specifically Indian Island) 

when oystercatchers are nesting.

wildlife/habitat

Management 

Approach

Preserve landscape as it is now, rather than 

restoring to a past condition. 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach

Prohibit future shoreline modification and 

remove existing shoreline modifications in nearshore areas that are priority salmon habitat or 

forage fish spawning habitat. 

Wildlife/Habitat Planning Issue

Should the BLM provide for the reintroduction of 

listed species? What if the habitat would support 

them but there isn't concrete evidence that it 

existed in the site?

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach Use selective clearing to maintain meadows. 

Wildlife/Habitat Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect listed and 

special status species?

Wildlife/habitat

Management 

Approach

Use hand clearing to restore meadows (rather 

than heavy machinery, fires, or herbicides)

Wildlife/habitat Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect the 

Monument's diverse habitats and the species 

that depend on them?

wildlife/habitat Planning Issue

What requirements should be in place around 

the sourcing of seed for reseeding after ground 

disturbance? 

Wildlife/Habitat Planning Issue

How would the BLM protect habitats and rare 

plants, including specific management for 

different ecotypes? 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach Maintain and restore old growth forest stands.
 SJINM RMP Scoping Report 30

Wildlife/Habitat Planning Issue

How would the BLM manage herbaceous balds 

and Garry oak habitat? 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach Protect lichen crusts and moss meadows. 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach

Enhance the Garry oak ecosystem by removing 

overtopping conifers. 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach

Protect native prickly pear cacti on Jones Island 

through better trail signage and replanting 

broken pieces. 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach

Focus on herbaceous plants rather than grasses 

when restoring meadows. 

wildlife/Habitat Planning Issue

What types of vegetation gathering should be 

allowed within the monument?

Wildlife/Habitat Analytical Issue

How would BLM management affect coastal and 

marine habitats (including intertidal)?

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach

Use prescribed burning for vegetative 

management. 

Wildlife/Habitat 

(cultural values) Planning Issue

How and to what extent would the BLM maintain 

open meadows?

Wildlife/Habitat 

(cultural values)

Management 

Approach

Actively manage for culturally important native 

plants

Wildlife/Habitat 

(cultural values)

Management 

Approach

Protect and restore culturally influenced 

meadows. 

Wildlife/Habitat

Management 

Approach

Establish whale watching "no go" zones and ban 

on certain days of the week.