Record of Decision 


King Range National Conservation Area 


Resource Management Plan 


Prepared by 


Department of the Interior 


Bureau of Land Management 


Arcata Field Office 


~jrI;da Roush I Date Mike Pool Date 

Approved 

Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management 

Field Manager, Arcata, CA State Director, California 

Recommended 

Bureau of Land Management 

King Range NCA Manager 
RECORD OF DECISION 

I. Decision 

This Record of Decision (ROD) culminates a two and one-half year public planning 

process. After considering public comments, best available scientific and technical 

information, and results of consultation with Federal and state agencies, state and local 

governments, and Indian tribal government, it is the decision of the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to approve the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the King Range 

National Conservation Area (NCA). 

The Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued in November, 

2004 and is available on BLM’s web site at: http://www.ca.blm.gov/arcata/kingrange 

Specific management direction for lands within the planning area is given in Chapter 4 of 

the Proposed RMP. The major decisions are summarized below in this ROD. 

Update King Range NCA 1974 Management Program Management 

Zones & King Range RMP Zones. 

The King Range Act directed development of a plan that identifies primary and secondary 

uses that will be permitted in various portions of the area. To implement this direction, the 

1974 Management Program identified seven management zones. The present planning 

effort consolidated and simplified these original zones into three management zones. The 

zoning of the area allows the BLM to meet the intent of the King Range Act while 

accommodating a broader array of public uses and management goals and minimizing 

conflicts and resource impacts. 

 Table 1 – Management Zones

King Range 1974 

Mgmt. Program 

Primary use King Range RMP 

Management Zone 

1. Punta Gorda Recreation Backcountry 

2. West Slope Recreation/retain wild and scenic qualities Backcountry 

3. Shelter Cove Residential Residential 

4. Point No Pass Recreation/preserve primitive qualities. Backcountry 

5. Whale Gulch Residential Frontcountry 

6. Bear Creek Timber production/sustained yield forestry Frontcountry 

7. Honeydew Creek Wildlife/fish habitat, especially threatened 

species. 

Backcountry/ 

Frontcountry 1

 

1

 The roadless core of the Honeydew Creek watershed was incorporated into the Backcountry Zone with the 

remainder of the watershed in the Frontcountry Zone. 

2
The zones are described as follows: 

Backcountry: The Backcountry Zone is essentially roadless, with a primary management 

goal focused on conserving the wilderness characteristics of the primitive western coastal 

slope and the adjoining undeveloped portions of the Honeydew and Squaw Creek 

Drainages. This zone is the core of the King Range NCA and California’s “Lost Coast”, 

providing a primary use of wildland recreation while protecting resources such as oldgrowth forests, old-growth forest dependent species, and open coastal grasslands. This 

environmental setting offers the greatest opportunity for solitude and challenge to area 

visitors. Management activities will follow the “minimum-tool” concept to maintain and 

restore natural functioning ecosystem components. 

Frontcountry: The Frontcountry Zone forms an interface between the Backcountry Zone 

and surrounding private lands. It represents a broad mix of uses and tools for management. 

This is the zone where the most active resource restoration actions will occur, with key 

goals of developing a more natural vegetation mosaic in previously harvested forest stands, 

and improving watershed and fisheries health. Protection of private lands adjoining the 

King Range NCA from wildfire risk will also be a primary focus. On-the-ground 

management activities will include forest stand improvement, fuels reduction work, fire 

break construction, or use of heavy equipment for watershed restoration. Public uses in the 

Frontcountry Zone will include a broad array of motorized and nonmotorized activities. 

Residential: This zone represents the town of Shelter Cove, which is mostly private land 

except for beachfront lots and coastal greenspace managed by the BLM. The King Range 

NCA’s most highly developed recreation sites are in this zone, and the primary uses and 

management goals focus on recreation and resource protection of the important coastal 

access/greenspace values. 

Many of the RMP management goals, objectives and associated actions and allowable uses 

are zone-specific, while others apply to all zones. 

Resource Program Decisions 

Management decisions in the form of goals, objectives, and associated allowable uses have 

been adopted for all resource programs in the King Range. Following are summaries of 

key elements of the adopted management direction described in Chapter 4 of the Proposed 

RMP for each program area. 

a) Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Apply the BLM Visual Resource Management program to all activities to ensure that visual 

effects of activities are managed according to guidelines for specific VRM classes. The 

Backcountry Zone will be managed as Class I, the Frontcountry Zone divided into Class II 

and III, and the Residential Zone as Class III. 

3
b) Cultural and Historic Resources 

Prevent human-caused disturbance to cultural resources through site monitoring and 

educational and interpretive programs. 

Complete cultural resources surveys for all unsurveyed lands within the King Range NCA, 

especially inland areas. 

Nominate the King Range NCA archaeological district and historic ranching district to the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Maintain working relationships with local Native American tribes to protect culturally 

significant resources and reestablish traditional uses of resources. 

c) Lands and Realty 

Acquire lands with high public resource values to meet King Range NCA management 

goals including public recreation and resource conservation. 

Coordinate with local governments and community groups in determining acquisition 

priorities. 

Acquire water rights necessary to ensure conservation of resource values in the planning 

area. 

No utility rights-of-way will be issued in the Backcountry Zone. 

d) Wilderness Study Areas and Areas with Wilderness Characteristics 

Continue management of King Range and Chemise Mountain WSAs to protect wilderness 

values. 

Incorporate five acquired inholding parcels totaling 200 acres into the WSAs. 

Manage 38,833 acres to protect wilderness characteristics (Backcountry Zone management 

unit). 

e) Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The following stream segments were found suitable for designation under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act: 

Wild: Main stem Bear Creek, Big Creek, Big Flat Creek, Honeydew Creek, 

Gitchell Creek. 

Scenic: Mattole River and Estuary, Mill Creek, South Fork Bear Creek (segment 

north of Shelter Cove Road), North Fork Bear Creek. 

Recreational: South Fork Bear Creek (segment south of Shelter Cove Road). 

Manage all suitable stream segments consistent with BLM policy to protect free-flowing 

characteristics, outstandingly remarkable values and to prevent classification impacts. 

f) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)/Research Natural Areas (RNA) 

Continue management of the Mattole ACEC to protect significant archaeological sites, 

dune ecosystems, and riparian/wildlife values. 

4
Establish the Mill Creek Watershed ACEC/RNA to protect the water quality and old 

growth forest values in the watershed. 

Establish supplementary rules to provide special protection to the values of these areas. 

g) Aquatic Ecosystems and Fisheries 

Maintain and restore habitat necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland 

ecosystems. 

This ROD clarifies that watershed restoration activities will be focused on Mattole River 

tributaries containing federally listed species and critical habitat (coho and Chinook salmon 

and steelhead trout). Restoration activities in other watersheds are not precluded by the 

RMP, but will not be the management focus. 

h) Wildlife 

Establish sufficient northern spotted owl habitat to support 20 breeding pairs within the 

King Range NCA. 

Maintain and enhance suitable habitat for bald eagles, western snowy plovers and marbled 

murrelets should they colonize sites in the King Range. 

Minimize disturbance to stellar sea lions and brown pelicans in cooperation with the 

California Coastal National Monument. 

Manage migratory bird, herpetofauna, and game species habitat to host natural population 

levels of these species. 

Support interagency native species reintroduction efforts consistent with management goals 

of this RMP. Non-native species will not be introduced or encouraged. 

i) Terrestrial Ecosystems and Vegetation 

Manage vegetation types to produce a mosaic of plant communities that existed prior to the 

era of mechanized logging and exclusion of fire regimes in the region (approximately 

1945). 

Maintain the occurrence of federally listed Layia carnosa (beach layia) in the Mattole 

Beach dunes in accordance with the species recovery plan. 

Maintain ongoing efforts to map, monitor and eradicate invasive non-native plant species. 

j) Forest Management 

Maintain and develop forest vegetation based on historical conditions prior to 1945 

(approximately 60 percent late successional, 20 percent mid mature, and 20 percent early 

successional stands). 

Maintain undisturbed late-successional forest habitat by keeping those stands intact. 

Silvicultural treatments will be employed in the Frontcountry and Residential zones to 

accelerate development of cutover stands into late successional characteristics. 

Conduct silvicultural treatments to make forests more resistant to stand replacing fire. 

Follow forest management standards and guidelines consistent with those in the Northwest 

Forest Plan, and specific to the forest resources of the King Range NCA. 

5
k) Special Forest Products 

Provide special forest product permits for collection of mushrooms, floral trade species and 

other forest products at a sustainable level. 

Firewood permits will not be issued for the Backcountry Zone, Riparian Reserves, Mattole 

Estuary or Mill Creek ACEC. 

Establish a Native American beargrass collecting area and prohibit commercial collecting 

in this area. 

l) Grazing Management 

Maintain the existing four active grazing leases and associated allotments representing a 

total of 2,050 Animal Unit Months (AUM) of forage. 

Change the boundary of the Spanish Flat Allotment to protect cultural resources. (This will 

not affect allocated AUM’s of the allotment). 

Change land use allocation to make four expired leases unavailable for livestock grazing. 

m) Fire Management 

Backcountry Zone: Manage fuels to allow various intensity wildfires and to create a 

landscape resistant to damages associated with large high intensity wildfires. 

Frontcountry and Residential Zones: Use prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction to 

reduce potential for high intensity fires. 

Develop a shaded fuel break system to provide a defensible perimeter around the 

Backcountry Zone and minimize the need for construction of bulldozer lines during fire 

events. 

n) Transportation and Access 

Provide a transportation network for public and administrative access to the Frontcountry 

and Residential Zones. Manage the Backcountry Zone as a non-mechanized use area. The 

following use requirements apply to these specific areas: 

• Open year-round to all vehicle types: Prosper Ridge, Nooning Creek, King Range 

Roads. 

• Open year-round to 4-wheel drive vehicles: Paradise Ridge, Finley Ridge, Saddle 

Mountain Roads. 

• Open seasonally (closed in winter): Smith-Etter, Windy Point, Etter Roads. 

• Motorized boating use is not allowed in the Mattole Estuary and motorized boat 

landings are not allowed along the Backcountry Zone coastline. 

o) Recreation Management 

Backcountry Zone: Provide high quality non-mechanized recreation opportunities 

consistent with managing the Backcountry Zone to protect wilderness characteristics. 

• Provide minimal facilities for visitor safety and resource protection 

6
• Provide a network of non-mechanized trails. Improve trail access for equestrians. 

• Establish a use allocation system within five years of plan implementation to ensure 

that experience/resource quality is maintained. 

• Allow mountain biking under special permit on four trails totaling 23 miles (Buck 

Creek, Spanish Ridge, Kinsey Ridge and Cooskie Creek). This will be a temporary 

use permitted until a trail system is developed in the Frontcountry Zone. 

Frontcountry Zone: Provide high quality motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities that complement the adventurous nature and rustic character of the “Lost 

Coast”. 

• Emphasize uses such as mountain biking, car camping and scenic driving that are 

not available in the Backcountry Zone. 

• Establish a non-motorized loop trail system designed for mountain bikes in the 

Paradise Ridge area. 

• Develop trails of lower gradient/difficulty to complement existing trail system. 

• Limit dispersed camping around the Mattole Campground to areas specified in the 

RMP and associated supplemental rules (to be published). This ROD clarifies and 

specifies that dispersed camping is also not permitted at the “Mattole Ranch 

Complex” and adjoining lands. This site is on a bluff immediately south of the 

developed Mattole Campground. Camping at the Mattole Ranch Complex will be 

limited to groups authorized under BLM permit. 

Residential Zone: Provide coastal access and greenspace in the community of Shelter 

Cove, and offer environmental education/coastal access and interpretive opportunities. 

• Provide group use facilities at Mal Coombs Park. 

p) Interpretation and Education. 

Provide current, accurate and descriptive information to visitors to facilitate positive, safe 

experiences with minimal impacts. 

Engage visitors to learn about the cultural and natural resources of the “Lost Coast”, and 

stewardship opportunities. 

Supplemental Rules 

This ROD carries forward all supplemental rules currently in effect for the King Range 

NCA. Supplemental rules apply to vehicle use, camping limitations, bear canister 

requirements, off-highway vehicle designations and other activities. In addition, several 

new supplemental rules are proposed and will become effective upon final publication in 

the Federal Register. These proposed rules can be found in Appendix B of the Proposed 

RMP. 

7
II. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

 Alternatives Analyzed in the RMP 

Four management alternatives were analyzed for the Proposed RMP and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. The alternatives were developed by the BLM on the 

basis of, and in response to, substantive public input on the existing environment, existing 

uses, desired future uses, and desired environmental conditions of the King Range National 

Conservation Area. The alternatives considered in the EIS are summarized below: 

Alternative A: No Action Alternative A is a continuation of current management as the 

“no action” alternative, and was developed from available inventory data, existing planning 

decisions and policies, and existing land use allocations and programs as contained in the 

1974 King Range Management Program and amendments.

Alternative B: Of the action alternatives, Alternative B represents the most “hands off” 

approach, emphasizing the utilization of natural processes wherever possible and 

minimizing human impacts. This will result in low levels of active involvement in resource 

restoration and management, and limited recreation use focused on providing maximum 

opportunities for solitude and wilderness-type experiences. 

Alternative C: Alternative C provides a greater diversity of uses and approaches to 

management, with a broad mix of tools and moderate levels of use allowed.

Alternative D: Alternative D takes a more active approach, allowing maximum use while 

still maintaining and enhancing resource conditions. It includes the widest application of 

management tools and actions including restoration, and provides higher levels of 

recreation use with fewer opportunities for solitude than the other alternatives. 

 Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative was selected from this range of reasonable options, and 

represents an effort to provide balance in managing both resources and uses of the King 

Range. Issues considered during this development process include: environmental impacts 

of the alternatives; issues raised throughout the planning process; specific environmental 

values, resources, and resource uses; conflict resolution; public input; and laws and 

regulations.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Federal regulations (40 CFR 1505.2 (b)) require that an agency identify the 

“environmentally preferable” alternative or alternatives in the ROD. Table 2 below 

compares the RMP preferred/selected alternative and environmentally preferable 

alternative for each of the major resource programs contained in the Proposed RMP. 

8
 

Table 2 – RMP Selected Alternative/Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Resource Program RMP 

Preferred/Selected 

Alternative 

Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative 

Visual Resource Management Alternative C Alternative B 

Cultural and Historic Resources Alternative D Alternative D 

Lands and Realty 

 a) Acquisition 

 

 Alternative C Alternative C 

 b) Water Rights/rights of way Alternative B/C2 Alternative B 

Wilderness Characteristic 

Inventory Units 

 Alternative C/D Alternative B 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Alternative C/D Alternative B 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

 Alternative C Alternative C 

Acquatic Ecosystems and 

Fisheries 

 Alternative C Alternative D 

Wildlife Alternative C Alternative D 

Terrestrial Ecosystems and 

Vegetation 

 Alternative C Alternative C 

Forest Management Alternative D Alternative D 

Special Forest Products Alternative C Alternative B 

Grazing Management Alternative C Alternative B 

Fire Management Alternative C Alternative C 

Transportation and Access Alternative C Alternative B 

Recreation Management Alternative C Alternative B 

Interpretation and Education Alternative A Alternative A 

The preferred package of alternatives was chosen to balance public needs with 

environmental protection, and a major focus of the RMP is to restore and improve 

environmental conditions within the planning area. None of the selected alternatives will 

result in significant environmental impacts, or irreversible-irretrievable impacts. 

 

2

 Where more than one alternative is listed (e. g. B/C) the selected alternative incorporated components of 

two alternatives from the Draft RMP. These changes are described in the section below titled “Changes 

incorporated into the Proposed RMP.” 

9
III. Management Considerations/Decision Rationale 

The King Range NCA’s 35-mile coastline conserves one of America’s most dramatic 

landscapes. Miles of trails offer opportunities for visitors to recreate in a unique coastal 

backcountry setting. Only two other locations on the Continental U. S. coastline offer 

comparable backcountry recreation opportunities. The King Range provides critical habitat 

for the late successional forest dependent species, and offers an opportunity to support the 

southernmost viable population of northern spotted owls on the Pacific Coast. The area is 

also a refuge for federally listed salmonids and is the focus of extensive community-led 

fishery restoration efforts. As California’s “Lost Coast” region is increasingly discovered 

by a growing population, finding a balance between use and protection of the area’s 

significant values is the BLM’s goal in reaching a decision on the RMP. 

This RMP decision was based on the following factors: 

• Provides management zones that allow for a diversity of uses of the King Range 

including non-motorized and motorized recreation, special forest product gathering, 

grazing, and commercial uses. 

• Addresses community concerns regarding retention of the area’s undeveloped “Lost 

Coast” character, provision of opportunities for community involvement in area 

management, and sets goals for reduction of wildfire threats/fuel loading. 

• Maintains or improves conditions of special status species and other unique natural 

and cultural resources. 

• Improves late-successional forest habitat as called for under the Northwest Forest 

Plan, and is otherwise consistent with this plan. 

• Provides an extensive monitoring and habitat enhancement program for various 

listed species. Also is consistent with and incorporates any conservation 

recommendations requested by Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service Biological Opinions. 

• Consistent with all legislation and policies guiding management of the King Range 

NCA. 

BLM’s approval of the RMP responds to the multiple use requirements as stated in the 

King Range Act of 1970 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The 

King Range Act directs the BLM to complete a “comprehensive, balanced, and coordinated 

plan of land use, development, and management of the area . . . that the plan will indicate 

the primary or dominant uses that will be permitted on various portions of the area . . . and 

that secondary uses may be permitted to the extent that they are compatible with and do not 

unduly impair the primary or dominant uses. . .” (Public Law 91-476). 

 Changes incorporated into Proposed RMP 

The primary concern expressed by the public throughout the RMP process was the 

importance of retaining the area’s primitive character. The RMP goals, objectives, actions 

and allowable uses focus on meeting this central theme, while accommodating a variety of 

public needs for use of area resources. The BLM received 862 comments on the draft RMP 

10
and Environmental Impact Statement. After considering all of the submitted comments, 

the BLM determined that the selection of the preferred alternative in the Draft RMP was 

still appropriate with the following exceptions: 

• Added North Fork and Main Stem of Bear Creek as suitable for Wild and Scenic 

River designation. 

• Expanded the Backcountry Zone boundary to include the Squaw Creek Drainage. 

• Changed zoning of BLM land adjoining northern part of Shelter Cove Subdivision 

from Residential to Frontcountry Zone. 

• Excluded commercial mushroom and all fuelwood permits from Mill Creek 

ACEC/RNA. 

• Increased the permitted number of stock animals (horses, llamas, goats etc.) to 

allow a maximum group size of 25 (people/stock combined count) . 

• Changed northern part of Frontcountry Zone from Visual Resource Management 

Class III to II. 

• Mountain bike use will not be not permitted on Backcountry Zone trails. A 

provision is included to allow temporary bike use under permit on several trails 

while a trail system is developed in the Frontcountry Zone. 

• Take a more active role in BLM assertion of water-rights, and requiring stipulations 

of water rights-of-way to minimize in-stream flow reductions and impacts to 

salmonids. 

• Clarified language to emphasize that all forest management treatments will be 

completed only when they provide a demonstrated benefit (as determined through 

site specific environmental assessments) to improvement of late successional 

habitat. 

 Protests 

Four protests were received on the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

In response to the protests, BLM has corrected errors in the Proposed RMP and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and has provided further clarification for the related 

decisions. These corrections and clarifications are described below. The protest responses 

represent the final decision of the Department of the Interior.

• Errors in Appendix D are acknowledged. One protest stated that 13 west slope 

streams including both Oat and Buck Creek contain populations of steelhead trout. 

BLM agrees with the protestor. These values were omitted on the tables in the 

eligibility determination in Appendix D of the Proposed RMP. However, the 

eligibility determinations for designation as wild and scenic are not affected by this 

omission. 

• This ROD clarifies the rationale for a proposed phase-out of mountain biking in the 

King Range and Chemise Mountain Wilderness Study Areas and Backcountry 

Zone. One protest questioned BLM’s basis for this action. In reviewing the RMP 

and related documents, BLM concluded that the phase-out of mountain biking 

appropriately reflects the specific management goals for the area and is consistent 

11
with applicable national policy. The recreation management goal in the proposed 

RMP is to “Provide high quality non-mechanized recreational opportunities 

consistent with managing the Backcountry Zone to protect wilderness 

characteristics.” The RMP goals were developed to be consistent with the King 

Range Act and BLM management policies including the Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. The beaches, west slope and coastal 

peaks of the King Range (which encompass the existing trail system) are a 

nationally significant resource as one of the only areas on the continental U. S. 

coastline retaining wilderness character. It was this primitive quality of California’s 

“Lost Coast” that led to the area’s designation as a NCA in 1970. Beginning with 

the initial King Range Management Program development in 1974, the BLM has 

consistently carried forward the management vision for this part of the King Range 

to protect its wilderness characteristics. In other parts of the King Range, including 

the proposed Frontcountry and Residential Zones, the BLM has made a 

commitment to provide for additional recreation uses including mountain biking. 

IV. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Approved mitigation measures were presented in Chapter 4 of the final EIS and in the 

Management Actions section of the Proposed RMP. All practicable means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm while still meeting the goals, purpose and need requirements 

for the proposed plan have been adopted. No significant environmental impacts were 

identified in the final EIS. 

The ROD approves a comprehensive monitoring program. Monitoring will focus on 

evaluating the effectiveness of the RMP in managing and protecting the resource values of 

the area. Monitoring of biological resources will addresses species needs and will ensure 

BLM complies with the terms and conditions of the April 2005 Biological Opinions by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. The Biological Opinions 

are incorporated by reference in this ROD. The monitoring program for biological 

resources is a dynamic program. Based on periodic reviews of the quality of the data 

collected and the usefulness of the data, it will be amended as necessary. 

V. Agency and Public Participation 

 Public Involvement 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and BLM planning 

regulations (43 CFR 1610) require an early and open process (scoping) for determining the 

planning issues. The regulations also require that agencies provide opportunity for public 

involvement in the planning process, including review of the draft Plan and draft EIS. 

Extensive efforts have been made to make the public aware of the planning process and of 

opportunities for involvement. 

12
• Public Scoping: Public involvement in the RMP effort began with publication of a 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on October 11, 2002. The scoping process 

for the project was designed to solicit input from stakeholders, the public, and other 

interested parties on the issues related to the development of an RMP. 

The BLM conducted five public scoping meetings in November 2002. The 

meetings were held at the locations and dates described below: 

 

Table 3 –Scoping Meetings 

Location/Number of 

Participants 

Date 

Garberville, CA – 24 people November 6, 2002 

San Francisco, CA – 2 people November 7, 2002 

Eureka, CA – 42 people November 13, 2002 

Shelter Cove, CA – 24 people November 14, 2002 

Petrolia, CA – 33 people November 16, 2002 

The BLM also issued a press release announcing the scoping period and meetings to 

all media in northern California. An informational website was established which 

was maintained throughout the effort to provide background on the planning 

process, announcing opportunities for public involvement, and highlighting 

progress on the plan. Other tools used to communicate with interested parties 

included a “King Range Planning Update,” mailer, sent to all members of the King 

Range mailing list, and fliers posted on community bulletin boards in the rural 

region surrounding the King Range. 

• Public Review of the Draft EIS: The draft EIS and RMP were released to the 

public for a 90-day comment period, ending April 16, 2004. During this review 

period five public meetings were held to explain the EIS and RMP to the public and 

to allow comment. The meetings were held in the same communities as the scoping 

meetings and are listed in the table below: 

Table 4 – Draft RMP Public Meetings 

13
Location Date 

Petrolia, CA 

(20 participants) 

February 23, 2004 

Eureka, CA 

(28 participants) 

February 24, 2004 

San Francisco, CA 

(9 participants) 

February 26, 2004 

Garberville, CA 

(7 participants) 

March 3, 2004 

Shelter Cove, CA 

(13 participants) 

March 4, 2004 

Participants were given the opportunity to provide oral comments at the meetings, 

or to record their input on public comment forms provided by the BLM. 

 

BLM received 862 comments on the draft RMP and EIS from the public through 

public meetings, electronic letters and paper letters. Over 350 issues or “public 

concerns” were identified from these comments. A BLM interdisciplinary team 

reviewed these public concerns and developed written responses that were included 

in Chapter 5 of the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS were revised 

as needed. A summary of the issues identified in the public comment letters and 

BLM’s response to these issues is included in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS. Also, 

letters from organizations and public agencies are reprinted in the document. 

Copies of letters from individuals are available for review at the BLM Arcata Field 

Office. 

 Endangered Species Act Consultation 

Federal regulation (CFR, Volume 50, Part 402) implementing the provisions of Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), requires the BLM and other Federal agencies to 

consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)(for terrestrial and freshwater species), 

and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (for marine species) on projects, plans and 

actions that may negatively affect a threatened or endangered species. The FWS/NMFS 

then issue Biological Opinions relative to jeopardy and adverse modification. 

The BLM began the consultation process by requesting a list of federally listed species 

known to occur in the region affected by the RMP effort from the FWS in September, 

2002. The BLM in conjunction with FWS and the NMFS determined that the following 

species could be affected by the RMP and so would be addressed in a biological 

assessment: 

Vascular Plants

Beach Layia (Layia carnosa) 

Western Lily (Lilium occidentale) 

14
Wildlife Species

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexendrinus nivosus) 

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) 

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti pacificus) 

Steller’s (Northern) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Fish Species

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Northern California Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Critical Habitat

Northern Spotted Owl, designated January 15, 1992 

Marbled Murrelet, designated May 24, 1996 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon, designated 1997 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon, currently proponed for designation 

Northern California Steelhead, currently proponed for designation 

BLM’s request for formal consultation on the proposed RMP regarding fish species was 

submitted to NMFS on November 10, 2004. BLMs request for formal consultation on 

wildlife/plant species was submitted to the FWS on January 24, 2005. Biological 

Opinions were received from FWS and NMFS for the proposed RMP on April 7, 2005 and 

April 27, 2005 respectively. 

 State of California Consistency Requirements 

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Public Law 89-665). Under Section 

106 of this law, consultation between BLM and the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) was initiated during the RMP scoping process in 

2002. The SHPO was provided with copies of the Draft and Proposed RMPs, and 

submitted a comment letter supporting the RMP provisions related to cultural 

resources management. 

• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)(Public Law 92-583). The Federal 

Consistency Unit of the California Coastal Commission implements the federal 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 as it applies to federal activities, 

development projects, permits and licenses. Under the CZMA, Congress created a 

federal and state partnership for management of coastal resources. Upon 

certification of a state’s coastal management program, a federal agency must 

15
conduct its activities in a manner consistent with the state’s certified program. The 

processes established to implement this requirement is called a consistency 

determination. The federal government certified the California Coastal 

Management Program (CCMP) in 1978. The Federal Consistency Unit of the 

California Coastal Commission prepared a Consistency Determination (CD-085-04) 

finding that the proposed RMP was consistent with the California Coastal 

Management Program. On January 12, 2005, the California Coastal Commission 

unanimously concurred with the consistency determination. 

• Governor’s Consistency Review -- In accordance with the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (Public Law 94-579), and with BLM planning regulations in 

43 CFR 1610.3-2, BLM must identify any known inconsistencies with State or local 

plans, policies, or programs. BLM must also provide the Governor with up to 60 

days in which to identify any inconsistencies and submit recommendations. The 

BLM submitted the Draft RMP to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 

State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (Document # 2004014002). No state 

agencies commented to the Clearinghouse, and the BLM received a letter of 

confirmation that the RMP complied with state review requirements on April 16, 

2004. No known inconsistencies have been identified, either by the BLM or the 

Governor, for the RMP decisions. 

 Consultation with Native Americans 

To comply with Executive Orders regarding government-to-government relations with 

Native Americans, formal and informal contacts were made with the Bear River Band of 

the Rohnerville Reservation, the Federally recognized tribal entity for consultation 

purposes. Tribal members participated in an RMP training session conducted for BLM and 

partner agencies/organizations in 2002. The tribe was provided with a copy of the draft 

RMP, and contacted directly by the BLM requesting comments/assessing the need for a 

tribal briefing. The tribe expressed no concerns about the RMP. 

 Other Consultations 

A number of agencies and interests, including local, state and federal have been involved in 

the development of this plan. BLM coordinated with and included any agency that 

expressed an interest in the plan. The BLM briefed/coordinated with the Humboldt County 

Planning Division to ensure consistency with local planning efforts and land use goals. In 

addition, Humboldt County Supervisors attended scoping meetings for the RMP. The 

California Department of Fish and Game, State Parks, and Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection all participated in the RMP effort and were consulted on matters relating to their 

respective jurisdictions. The BLM Northwest California Resource Advisory Council was 

briefed at all major stages of the RMP effort and concurred with the plan. A copy of the 

Draft RMP was reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and received a rating of 

LO – “Lack of Objections”. 

16