U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

Spokane District 

East 4217 Main 

June 1990 Spokane, Washington 99202 

Environmental Assessment 

Proposed Decision 

the Proposed 

Critical Environmental 

Iceberg Point Point Colville 
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned 

public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and 

wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment 

of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their 

development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation 

communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. 

BLM-OR-PT-90-38-1792 
United States Department of the Interior
 Bureau of Land Management
 

Spokane District Office
 

Wenatchee Resource Area
 

June 

Dear Reader: 

The completion of this Final Planning Analysis for BLM managed land on Iceberg Point and Point Colville is the 

culmination of a process that began many years ago with public concern for the protection of natural areas in San 

Juan County. That concern led BLM to retain these lands in public ownership and manage them for the preservation of their natural values. The publication of this Plan officially designates these lands as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern. The lands will be managed pursuant to the specific direction prescribed by this plan. In 

addition, just as this plan was developed with the benefit of full public review and comment, no change to this plan 

may be made and no change to the land’s ACEC status may be made without the benefit of full public review, 

comment, and participation. 

This Plan recognizes the very strong feelings of many people in San Juan County and Washington State for the 

protection of natural areas in San Juan County. The use restrictions will allow public enjoyment of the areas while 

providing protection for their natural values. The Plan emphasizes that although visitor use is allowed, it is controlled and that the areas are to be managed as natural areas and not as public parks. The plan provides measures to monitor the natural condition and visitor use of the areas. The Plan also provides authority for quick action 

to terminate or modify any activity which may adversely affect the natural character of the areas. 

We plan to continue to work closely with residents of San Juan County and representatives of local government to 

ensure the effective implementation of this plan. 

Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by 

the approval of this plan may file a protest. The procedures for filing a protest are described in Appendix B of this 

document. 

Thank you for your interest and participation. 

Sincerely yours, 

Joseph K. Buesing 

Spokane District Manager 

U.S. Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

May 1990
 

Environmental Assessment 

Proposed Decision 

of Critical 

Recommendation 

I recommend adoption of the preferred alternative in the following planning area analysis and designation of 

Iceberg Point and Point Colville as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

District Manager, Spokane District 

Date 

State Director Approval 

decision for Iceberg Point and Point Colville as recommended. This the 

by 40 CFR 1505 and 43 CFR 1610.8 (b). 

State Director, State Office 
Table of Contents
 

Page 

Chapter l-Purpose and Need .............................................................. 1
 

Introduction .............................................................................. .
 

......................................................................... .
 

Location ................................................................................. .
 

.......................................................................... .
 

......................................................................... .
 

Publiclnvolvement.. ....................................................................... .
 

Chapter P-Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative ..................................... 5
 

Introduction .............................................................................. .
 

Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative ................................................. 

Guidance Common to Alternatives One and Two ................................................ 

Chapter Environment ........................................................... 7
 

Introduction .............................................................................. .
 

.......................................................................... .
 

Chapter 4-Environmental Consequences ................................................... 11
 

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

1
 

..............................................................

...................................................................

...................................................................

.............................................................. 2
 

Impacts to Wildlife Habitat Resource ......................................................... 

Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long Term Productivity, and Irreversible and Irretrievable
 

.............................................................. ..12
 

Chapter and Distribution ................................................... 13
 

Introduction ........................................................................... ..13
 

3
 

Spokane District Advisory Council ...........................................................

...................................................... 3
 

Chapter 6-List of Preparers .............................................................. 14
 

Appendices ............................................................................. 15
 

Appendix A-Finding of No Significant Impact for Iceberg Point and Point Colville Planning Analysis
 

and Environmental Assessment ............................................................ 

Appendix B-Protest Procedures ..................................................... 
 
Chapter l--Purpose and

Need 

Introduction 

This document has been developed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires 

an interdisciplinary planning process to apply the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield. It 

provides opportunity for public involvement while 

ensuring that it meets the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requirements for coordination and 

consistency with other land use plans and regulations 

of other Federal and State Agencies and local governments. 

Purpose and Need 

Over ten years ago public lands under the jurisdiction 

of BLM on Lopez Island in San Juan County on 

Iceberg Point and Point Colville were proposed for 

disposal under the Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act. This proposal met with considerable public 

opposition and was subsequently rejected by the 

Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the 

Interior concluded that the public interest would best 

be served by dedication of these lands to scientific 

research. Since then the BLM has managed these 

lands as de-facto Natural Areas. In general, scientific 

research and casual use of the sites have been 

permitted, but activities that would tend to degrade 

ecological values have not been allowed. Although 

managed as “Natural Areas,” and identified as Natural 

Areas in the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan, 

and as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) Natural Areas in the Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) San Juan Islands Trust Land 

Management Plan, these sites have not been formally 

designated by BLM. Therefore, BLM is proposing to 

complete the official designation process. Current 

regulations require the designation be formally 

presented in a brief document known as a Planning 

Analysis to describe and analyze the history, natural 

values, public concerns, and long-term management 

goals of the sites. 

ion 

Lopez island is located in northwestern Washington in 

San Juan County. Iceberg Point and Point Colville are 

both located on the southern end of the Island. 

Iceberg Point is described as follows: Section 23, Lot 

4, Section 24, Lots 6 and 7, T. 34 N., R. 2 W., containing 55.59 acres. The BLM administered parcel on 

Point Colville is described as follows: Section 21, Lot 

6, T. 34 N., R. 1 W., containing 60.0 acres. A total of 

115.59 acres of public land is affected by this planning analysis (see map). 

Planning Criteria 

Legal Guidelines 

Administration of public lands in Spokane District is 

guided primarily by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 274) also known 

as 

FLPMA governs and directs management activities 

for all lands under Bureau of Land Management 

jurisdiction. Among its major provisions are: 

1. Under the principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield, the BLM has broad management responsibility 

over certain federal lands. 

2. The BLM will conduct periodic and systematic 

inventories of the public lands and the resources they 

contain. 

3. Comprehensive land use planning will be accomplished to properly utilize the lands and the resources 

they contain. 

4. Management activities will strive to protect the 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, 

air and atmosphere, water and archaeological values. 

5. In the development and revision of land use plans, 

the Secretary shall to the extent consistent with the 

laws governing the administration of the public lands, 

coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and 

management activities of or for such lands with the 

land use planning and management programs of 

other Federal departments and agencies and of the 

States and local governments within which the lands 

are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide 

outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of 

September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. as amended, and 

of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land 

resource management programs. 

In addition to these overall statutes, a number of state 

and federal laws and policies also direct and constrain 

management of specific resources and activities. 
VANCOUVER 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND 

Spokane District, Washington 

ICEBERG POINT, Spokane 

POINT ACEC 

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

KEY MAP 
Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria were developed during the early 

stages of the planning process. These criteria were 

used to guide the resource inventories, to aid in 

formulating alternatives, and to highlight factors to be 

considered in evaluating alternatives and selecting a 

preferred alternative. These criteria are as follows: 

� Consider habitat of endangered, threatened or 

sensitive species listed by the federal government, 

the State of Washington or those proposed for listing 

in all alternatives. 

. Utilize existing resource inventories for the planning analysis. 

. Design all alternatives to provide for the protection 

of the natural resources. 

� Design all alternatives so they are consistent with 

county planning. 

� Design all alternatives so they are consistent with 

the decision of the Department of the Interior which 

held that the public interest would best be served by 

dedication of these lands to scientific research. 

. Design all alternatives so they comply with Federal 

laws, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies 

relating to land use and resource management. The 

application of these laws automatically determines 

some minimum land use allocations and management 

practices, such as protection or enhancement of 

wetlands. 

Issues Addressed 

Legal Access to Iceberg Point and Point 

Colville 

At the present time there is no legal access to Iceberg 

Point and Point Colville for the general public. This 

situation creates the potential for trespass over the 

adjacent private lands by the public who wish to visit 

the two parcels. Access should be consistent with the 

need to protect the natural values of the two sites, to 

meet the concerns of adjacent landowners regarding 

trespass and privacy, and to allow for public enjoyment of these valuable natural areas. 

Visitor Management 

Visitor use of Iceberg Point and Point Colville has 

included hiking, horseback riding, sight-seeing, and 

occasional off-road vehicle riding and overnight 

camping. If the areas become more widely known it is 

probable that the current use levels would increase. 

use could result in unacceptable impacts 

with long lasting affects. Therefore, this planning 

analysis will address the visitor uses that would be 

consistent with the preservation of the natural values 

of both Iceberg Point and Point Colville. 

Public Involvement 

Scoping Period 

In August of 1987, a notice was published in the 

Federal Register and local news media to announce 

the formal start of planning and the initiation of the 

scoping process. At that time a planning brochure 

was sent to the public to provide additional information regarding the major issues. It also provided an 

opportunity for public comment on the preliminary 

proposal to designate these two parcels as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

During the scoping period more than eighty individuals responded. In general all respondents supported 

the ACEC designation proposal. However, many of 

the respondents clearly stated that although these 

lands should be protected, they should not be closed 

to the general public. This concern and another one 

regarding access were addressed in the three alternatives presented and described in detail in the draft 

plan. 

3 
Comments on Draft Plan 

The draft plan was available for review and comment 

from April 1 June 4, 1988. During that time period, a 

public meeting was held on April 26 at the Islander 

Lopez Marina Resort on Lopez Island to entertain 

comments regarding the plan. 

Nearly one hundred responses were received during 

the comment period. Most of those responding 

commented on specific parts of the alternatives 

presented and some included comments on the 

region in general. Copies of these letters are available 

for review at the District Office in Spokane and the 

Area Office in Wenatchee. 

Summary of Comments 

The proposal to designate the two areas as 

received almost unanimous support. The majority of 

comments also favored Alternative One, the Preferred 

Alternative with some revisions. There was a strong 

belief expressed that the naturalness of the areas 

could be protected without eliminating the enjoyment 

of the areas by the general public. However, the 

proposal to develop trails within the areas was a 

cause for concern by many and did not receive strong 

support. Some concern was expressed about 

ability to enforce the protective measures of the plan. 

Response to Public Comment 

The majority of those who took part in this planning 

process favored the preferred alternative. However, 

there were enough substantive comments and 

concerns expressed about some parts of the preferred alternative that warranted reviewing the initial 

prescriptions. Consequently, the planning team 

believed that the preferred alternative should be 

modified to address these concerns. The modifications or amendments to the Preferred Alternative are 

as follows: 

� Visitor use would be controlled and not allowed to 

degrade the naturalness of the areas. Any type or 

combination of types of visitor use that degrades the 

natural values would be stopped by order of the BLM 

Area Manager. 

� The provisions for trail development on the sites 

would be eliminated. 

� Enter into a Law Enforcement Agreement with the 

San Juan County Sheriff to augment BLM’s enforcement capability of the plan’s protective provisions. 

� Establish patrols by BLM staff and law enforcement 

officers. 

� Enter into a Cooperative Agreement with adjacent 

land owners, interested patties or special interest 

groups to monitor and implement the plan, 

� Establish a monitoring program that would concentrate on preserving the area’s natural qualities. (This 

program would be divided into a two step process. 

First it would require defining the desired natural 

conditions through the assistance of an ad hoc team 

of BLM resource specialists, representatives from 

interested groups, and the general public. Secondly it 

would require designing or developing actions to be 

undertaken when necessary to maintain or achieve 

these conditions.) 

4 
Chapter 2-Alternatives,

Including the Preferred 

Alternative 

Introduction 

Both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

regulations and the BLM resource management 

planning regulations require the formulation of alternatives. Each alternative represents a complete and 

reasonable plan to guide future management of public 

land and resources. One alternative must represent 

no action. This means a continuation of the existing 

situation. The other alternatives are to provide a 

range of reasonable and practical choices in dealing 

with the issues identified during the scoping period. 

Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative 

This chapter presents both the alternatives considered by BLM and a summary of the impacts of these 

alternatives. These alternatives respond to the issues 

listed in Chapter 1. This range of alternatives is 

reasonable, given the existing natural resource 

values, public opinion, and the decision of the Department that these lands should be dedicated to scientific research. Two alternatives were developed for 

discussion and analysis. Both of these alternatives 

were considered reasonable and practical. 

In addition to these a third alternative, the no-action 

alternative, (i.e. continuation of the existing situation) 

was included for analysis as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Refer to Summary of Impacts table for a comparison 

of the three alternatives. 

Guidance Common to Alternatives 

One and Two 

� Designate Iceberg Point and Point Colville as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern to preserve 

their natural values. 

� Prohibit all fires. 

. Prohibit any trail construction. 

� Prohibit overnight camping. 

Allow motorized vehicular travel to continue on the 

road crossing Point Colville. 

Prohibit all other motorized vehicular travel, except 

for emergency vehicles, authorized vehicles, including 

the U. S. Coast Guard vehicles used for maintenance 

of the navigational facility on Iceberg Point, and 

motorized wheelchairs required by the handicapped. 

� Prohibit fuel wood cutting and commercial timber 

sales. 

� Require permits for any vegetation collection. 

� Survey and clearly mark the boundaries of both 

parcels. 

� Acquire public access to both sites: 

preferred access into Point 

Colville would be along the existing private road. BLM 

would negotiate with those private parties owning the 

land between the termination of the county road and 

the public land boundary for access. 

Point-The preferred type of access to this 

parcel is pedestrian access along the existing private 

roads in the area. BLM would negotiate with those 

private parties owning the land between the termination of the county road and the public land boundary 

for a trail easement. 

� Incorporate any additional land adjacent to or in the 

vicinity of Iceberg Point or Point Colville coming under 

BLM administration in the future such as the Coast 

Guard withdrawn lands, donated properties, or land 

acquired through exchange or purchase, into the 

ACEC designation. (At the present time BLM is 

negotiating with Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources for approximately 20 acres of DNR 

land located east of Iceberg Point) 

� Prohibit rights of way for additional roads, 

lines, pipelines or communication facilities. 

� Prohibit mineral material sales. 

� Prohibit grazing of livestock. 

� Design management activities to protect federally 

or state listed threatened, endangered and/or sensitive species. 

Alternative One 

This is the Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative 

the emphasis would be on preserving the natural 

values of Iceberg Point and Point Colville. 

Opportunities for visitor use would be provided to the 

extent they are compatible with the preservation of 

natural values. If a choice must be made between 

preservation of the natural values and allowing visitor 

use, preservation of the natural values will be the 

primary consideration. Specific actions included in this 

alternative are as follows: 

� Place signs to control visitor use as necessary. 

Require special permits for groups containing ten 

or more individuals. 

. Enter into a Law Enforcement Agreement with the 

County Sheriff. 

9 

5 
Table 1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS/COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Affected Resource Alternative 

Alt. (1) (2) (3) 

Preferred Research No Action 

Soil Erosion 

Mineral Resource 

Vegetative 

Resource 

Naturalness 

Recreation Use 

Wildlife Habitat 

Water Resource 

Cultural Resource 

Visual Resource 

Displays relative impacts. For specific information see Chapter 4. 

Deviation above the line indicates an increase. 

Deviation below the line indicates a decrease. 

No deviation from the base line indicates no impact or no change from the current situation. 

� Establish regular patrols by BLM law enforcement 

officers and/or personnel during high use periods. 

� Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with 

adjacent land owners, interested parties and special 

interest groups to implement the plan. 

� Establish a monitoring program independent of the 

above, focusing on preserving natural qualities of the 

areas. This program would first require defining the 

desired natural conditions and to undertake actions 

when necessary to maintain or achieve these conditions. 

� Close the areas to any use or combination of uses 

that tend to degrade the natural values of the sites. 

Alternative Two 

Under this alternative the primary management 

emphasis would be for research and educational 

purposes. Other visitor uses would not be allowed. 

Authorized use of Iceberg Point and Point Colville 

would be limited to research and educational purposes. Specific actions included in this alternative are 

as follows: 

� Require permits for all uses. 

. Discourage nonscientific uses. 

� Limit all signing to resource protection purposes. � Acquire only administrative access in support of 

management, research and educational purposes. 

. Enter into a Law Enforcement Agreement with the 

County Sheriff. 

� Establish regular patrols by BLM law enforcement 

officers and/or other BLM personnel during high use 

periods. 

� Enter into a of Understanding with 

adjacent land owners, interested parties and special 

interest groups to implement the plan. 

� Establish a monitoring program independent of the 

above, focusing on preserving natural qualities of the 

areas. This program would first require defining the 

desired natural conditions and to undertake actions 

when necessary to maintain or achieve these conditions. 

Alternative Three 

This is the No Action Alternative. It describes the 

continuation of the existing situation. Under this 

alternative no formal protective designations would be 

made. The following activities would be permitted to 

continue. 

� Permit dispersed camping on both parcels. � Permit the use of open camp fires to continue 

subject to local fire district closures. 

� Iceberg Point and Point Colville would be open to 

off-road vehicle use. 

� Permits would be required for the collecting and 

cutting of fuelwood. 

� Do not acquire public access. � Survey and clearly mark the boundaries of both 

6 parcels. 
Chapter

Environment 

Introduction 

This chapter provides a brief description of the 

resources that would be affected by the proposals in 

the Planning Analysis. More detailed information on 

these lands and resources is available upon request 

from the District and Area Offices. 

Existing Situation 

Iceberg Point 

Soil Resource 

The soils on this parcel are moderately well-drained to 

well drained glacial tills on the uplands with rock 

outcrops dominating the shorelines. Approximately 

15 %, or eight acres, of the area consists of rock 

outcrops. The remaining soils consist of a gravelly, 

sandy loam ranging in depth from two to five feet. The 

rock is barren in many places, but in some areas 

lichens and moss are attached to the rock surfaces. 

The topography displays a gently undulating character. The surface layer of the soil is black, gravelly, 

sandy loam with a fine granular structure. Subsoil and 

substratum is mostly dark brown, loamy, coarse sand. 

Erosion by wind and water is at the geologic rate 

except on the areas disturbed by the roads, trails, and 

other human improvements. These areas are quite 

small, totaling less than one-half of an acre. Here the 

erosion rate was greater but has since stabilized and 

is now relatively insignificant. 

Geologic Resource 

The present topography is a result of the glaciation of 

10,000 years ago and wind, rain, and wave action. 

The glaciers carved the terrain scouring the hills and 

depositing the ground moraine of glacial till over the 

lower areas. These tills are easily eroded where they 

are subject to wave and wind action. Generally small 

sand and gravel beaches are formed below the till 

bluffs between rock headlands. These rock headlands 

are generally greenstones, phyllite and greenshists. 

There has been a small landslide in the greenstone 

on the extreme northeast tip of the parcel. 

No commercial mineral values are known to exist on 

Iceberg Point. 

Water Resource 

Fresh water data for the area is not readily available, 

but precipitation data indicates that the average 

annual runoff on Iceberg Point is about five inches. 

The average precipitation of Iceberg Point is approximately sixteen to seventeen inches. Greatest precipitation occurs in the months of October through March 

with most in December. The lowest average amount 

occurs during July. Some snowfall occurs nearly 

every year. Temperatures are usually high enough 

that it does not last. Precipitation does not fall through 

any significant pollutants. No plant damage was noted 

on the point as a result of polluted precipitation. There 

are no live or intermittent streams on the land to carry 

a sediment load. 

Vegetative Resource 

Several terrestrial communities exist on the area 

including forest, meadow, bluffs, and the area between mean high tide and extreme high tide. 

The forest community covers approximately thirty 

acres and is dominated by Douglas fir and white fir in 

the overstory; alder, Pacific yew, Pacific 

and sapling conifers in the immediate understory; wild 

rose, serviceberry, salmonberry, red flowering currant, 

ferns, and associate grasses make up the 

species assemblage on the forest floor. Several large 

snags scattered throughout this area at present are 

still standing. Understory production is heavy in most 

areas of the community, making travel difficult. The 

old growth trees here and at Point Colville are believed to be the last remaining virgin stands on Lopez 

Island. Their age is well over 200 years. 

The meadow community is located on the south half 

of the area. Its total area is approximately twenty 

acres and includes the rock outcrops. It is characterized by open grass interspersed with wild strawberry, 

wild rose, forb, sedges, and lichen, the latter being 

found on the exposed rock outcrops. 

The bluff area is located along the south and north 

shore line of the parcel, between the high-tide area 

and the meadow and/or forested area. The face of 

this relatively steep area contains some lichens, 

grasses, and forbs. These can be found clinging to 

the rocky ledges and bluff faces. This area is approximately two miles long and covers approximately six 

acres. 
The area between mean high tide and high tide is 

relatively free of plant life but does contain a scattering of sedges and forbs at the high tide level. No other 

species were noted. 

Inhabiting this site are no known vegetative species 

listed as threatened or endangered either federally or 

by the State. However, a population of chick lupine, a 

species on the Washington State Natural Heritage 

Plan “monitor” list, has been found on this site. A 

population of Idaho fescue, rare in the Puget Trough, 

has also been identified, however this population is in 

poor condition due to dominance by weedy species. 

Wildlife Habitat Resource 

Aquatic mammals using the area are limited. Species 

include the San Juan otter, mink, and several seals. 

The otter, mink, and seals are reported to use the 

shoreline in the area for sunning, resting, and feeding. 

Total numbers are small but, because of their shyness to man the protected areas are sometimes used 

quite heavily. 

Aquatic birds use the cliff area and the adjoining 

intertidal zone for resting, feeding, and escape. No 

nesting sites have been reported for the area, but 

some may exist. Total numbers are high, with reports 

of over 100 different species using the area during the 

course of a year. These include grebes, cormorants, 

gulls, waterfowl, guillemot, scooters, terns, 

murres, oyster catchers, and other assorted shorebirds. 

Terrestrial mammals identified on the area-either 

through observation, droppings, or tracks-include 

black-tail deer, Nuttal’s cottontail, Townsend’s voles, 

mice, chipmunks, raccoon, and European rabbit. 

Black-tail deer, which are estimated by the Washington State Department of Wildlife at over thirty per 

square mile for this area, use the parcel regularly. The 

brushy areas offer escape and bedding cover while 

the overstory and topography give protection from 

wind, snow, and rain. Browse production is good, but 

heavy use was not noted. 

Terrestrial birds in the area are quite abundant. The 

area affords food, safety from predators, and nesting 

areas for pheasant, woodpeckers, nuthatches, 

creepers, chickadees, voles, hummingbirds, warblers, 

wrens, kingfisher, and sparrows. Rotting and decaying trees offer insects for food and cavities for nests. 

The only listed Threatened or Endangered Species 

observed utilizing the area is the bald eagle. This 

species has been sighted roosting and foraging in the 

area. A number of whales and porpoise use the 

nearshore waters, and the Shaw Island Vole a 

Federal Category II species, is present. 

Large trees also provide roosting and potential 

nesting habitat for bald eagle, red-tail hawks, and 

American kestrel. Although no nesting sites have 

been reported, these species have been seen using 

the area for hunting and resting, and it is assumed to 

be a portion of their asserted territories. 

Human Influence 

Human activity has been limited mainly to local 

residents, so most mammals are afforded a sense of 

security from harassment and hunting. However, 

spent shotgun shells have been found along the road 

and in the meadow area. Human influence, as small 

as it has been on the area, has contributed to soil 

erosion. The main road was reportedly built by a reef 

netter and county commissioner in the 1930’s. The 

county gravelled the road and thereby inhibited some 

of the wind erosion which could have been severe. 

There has been intermittent ORV activity occurring on 

Iceberg Point. This has resulted in the disturbance to 

vegetation and the creation of random trail-like paths 

in the meadow area. 

Cultural Resource Values 

An inventory for cultural resources was conducted 

and none were identified. 

Lands 

The lands adjoining the Iceberg Point parcel fall under 

three different types of ownership: The lands to the 

east in section 24 are under private ownership; to the 

immediate west in lot 5 of section 23 there are nine 

acres of Federal lands which are withdrawn from 

multiple use and are managed by the U.S. Coast 

Guard for navigational purposes; to the south in 

section 25 are twenty acres of land managed by the 

Department of Natural Resources. These lands have 

been identified in the San Juan Islands Trust 

Land Management Plan of May 1986 for protection of 

their natural values. The recommended alternative in 

that plan was to preserve the area for “public educational and scientific use.” This plan discussed the 

possibility of a land exchange between DNR and BLM 

whereby BLM would acquire the DNR parcel and 

8 
manage it in conjunction with the ACEC designation 

of the adjacent BLM parcel. DNR and BLM have an 

existing land exchange proposal in process which 

would accomplish this goal. 

There is no public access to the Iceberg Point parcel. 

A private road extends from the end of the county in 

section 24 and passes through the proposed ACEC 

and ends on the Coast Guard withdrawn lands. This 

road is used basically for maintenance of the navigational beacon (see Map). 

Point Colville 

Soil Resource 

The soils on this parcel are similar in nature to those 

on Iceberg Point, both being heavily influenced by 

glaciation. The major difference between these areas 

are the soils in the depressional areas of Point 

Colville. The soils in these depressional areas, being 

poorly drained, form what is commonly known as 

bogs. There are numerous humps in these bogs 

which consist of decaying logs, stumps, and other 

plant root systems. Like the soils on Iceberg Point, 

erosion by wind and water on the site is at the geologic rate with no evident influence by man except on 

the road area. 

Geologic Resource 

The present topographic features were formed by the 

glaciation of Puget Sound 10,000 years ago. The 

glaciers scoured the area and laid down an unstratified till deposit. Melting of buried ice in these deposits 

probably caused the small depressions where the bog 

areas now occur. These bogs or wet depressions are 

the final eutrophication of the glacial pond. Glacial till 

overlain by soil covers most of the area. At one site 

near the southeast corner of the lot the soil cover is 

thirty feet high where it forms a bluff along the shoreline. The material is subject to constant erosion by 

wave action of the waters of Strait. As a 

result, the bluff is receding. Adjacent lands to the 

north, up to Watmough Head, are also subject to this 

same geologic erosion. From the appearance of the 

beach and topography the ground moraine of glacial 

till probably extended several hundred yards east 

shortly after the glaciers receded. Outcrops of metamorphosed igneous rocks comprise most of the 

remaining coast line. These rocks are predominantly 

greenstones, greenshists, and phyllite. The hill on the 

extreme northeast edge of the lot is a greenstone. 

No commercial mineral values are known to exist on 

Point Colville. 

Water Resource 

Fresh water data for the area is not readily available, 

but precipitation data indicates that the average 

annual runoff on Point Colville is about five inches. 

Average precipitation is approximately sixteen to 

seventeen inches. The greatest precipitation occurs 

from October through March with the most falling 

during the month of December. The least average 

amount falling in July. Two small depressions collect 

water and hold it most of the year near the west and 

south boundaries of the BLM parcel. A small deposit 

of Pleistocene glacial sediments is near the northeast 

boundary. There are no live or intermittent streams on 

the land to carry a sediment load. 

Vegetative Resource 

Several terrestrial communities exist on the area 

including forest, meadow, brush, bog, bluffs, and the 

area between mean high tide and extreme high tide. 

The forest community covers approximately thirty-six 

acres and is dominated by old growth Douglas fir, and 

white fir in the overstory; alder, Pacific yew, Pacific 

and sapling conifers in the immediate 

understory; wild rose, serviceberry, salmonberry, red 

flowering currant, ferns, and associate grasses make 

up the species assemblage on the forest floor. 

Several large snags are scattered throughout this 

area. Understory production is limited because of the 

old-growth canopy, but several shade-tolerant species 

have managed to become established. Five trees 

along the county road were cut many years ago, as 

evidenced by the remaining stumps and springboard 

notches. Evidence of wildfire was also seen on trees, 

but its effect apparently was small. The overstory 

trees exhibit considerable defect from storm breakage 

and disease. 

The meadow community is located on the south end 

of the parcel. Its total area is approximately thirteen 

acres. It is characterized by open grass interspersed 

with wild strawberry, wild rose, forbs, and lichen, the 

latter being found on the exposed rock outcrops. 

The brushy area, located on the west line and north of 

the meadow community, comprises approximately five 

acres. Species here are primarily alder, with rose, 

currant, serviceberry, conifer seedlings, forbs, and 

some grasses. 

9 
The two bog areas cover approximately two acres. 

The smaller area, located on the west line, is approximately two acres in size with only one-half acre on 

public lands. The other area, totaling one and one-half 

acres, is located in the south central portion of the 

unit. The western bog area is surrounded by willow, 

alder, currant, wet meadow grasses, snowberry, and 

conifer seedlings. The area is quite thick with spruce 

and fir for several feet along the edge but opens up 

quickly and gives way to old-growth 

central bog area is larger and contains several 

species not found in the western area. Species here 

include Sitka spruce, trailing blackberry, alder, 

Douglas fir, and Oregon grape around the perimeter 

with small Sitka spruce and grape fern growing on 

hillocks within the bog. The grape fern is reportedly 

rare in this region. Some of the Douglas fir saplings 

around the bog were showing symptoms of chlorosis. 

Old aerial photos and species invasion reveal that 

both bog areas are aging toward a terrestrial ecosystem condition. Photos taken in 1963 show the bogs 

were approximately twice as large as they are now. 

Most of the tree species adjacent to the bogs are 

relatively small except for some large spruce near the 

central bog area. Two of these Sitka spruce have 

grown together, making one very large tree. 

The bluff area is similar in composition to that described for Iceberg Point. It occupies approximately 

three acres along the south boundary of the area 

between the high tide area and the southern meadow 

and forest area. 

The area between mean high tide and high tide area 

contains approximately one acre. This area is relatively free of plant life but contains a scattering of 

sedges and forbs at the high tide level. No other 

species were noted. 

Wildlife Habitat Resource 

The species on this parcel are very similar to those 

described inhabiting Iceberg Point. 

Human influence 

Human activity on this area has been very limited. A 

private road was built in the across the north 

portion of the parcel. This road affords access to the 

original homesteader’s residence and private properties to the east of the area. There is evidence of 

logging activities south of this road. These activities 

were confined to an area from one to two hundred 

feet of the road. A youth camp located on the island 

has used Point Colville for outdoor activities including 

hiking, bird watching, and outdoor education. There is 

evidence of fire wood cutting on areas adjacent to the 

road. 

Cultural Resource Values 

An inventory for cultural resources was conducted 

and none were identified. 

Lands 

The lands adjoining Point Colville are all under private 

ownership and are managed for agricultural or 

residential purposes. 

There is no public access to this parcel. A road 

crosses the north end and provides private access for 

local residents to their properties east of the proposed 

ACEC. 

10 
Chapter 4-Environmental 

Consequences 

Introduction 

This chapter describes the environmental consequences (impacts) that would result from implementing each of the alternatives. These environmental 

consequences are compared to the existing Situation. 

Knowledge of the area and professional judgement, 

based on observation and analysis of conditions and 

responses in similar areas, have been used to infer 

environmental impacts where data is limited. 

There would be virtually no impact to the livestock 

grazing, water, minerals, cultural, or visual resource 

programs. 

Impacts to Soil 

Under Alternative because of casual use the existing trails would essentially remain in existing condition. Under Alternative 2, because of the reduction in 

visitor use due to limited access, the trails would 

become less apparent as the vegetative cover increases. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a continual 

decrease in soil productivity as known campsites 

become established. Random trail development 

would result in an increase in soil erosion and an 

associated decrease in soil productivity. 

None of the actions affecting the soil resource under 

any of the alternatives would result in significant 

impacts to the human environment. 

Impacts to Mineral Resource 

These lands are withdrawn from mining and mineral 

leasing. Consequently, none of the alternatives would 

have any impact on mineral resources. 

Impacts to Vegetation 

Under Alternative restricting motorized vehicles 

would result in an increase in vegetative cover, since 

indiscriminate trail development from motorized 

vehicles would be discouraged. Prohibiting 

cutting would result in a build-up of vegetative litter on 

both Iceberg Point and Point Colville. Vegetative 

cover on the existing trails would essentially remain in 

the current condition. Under Alternative 2 the 

would be similar in intensity and effect to those 

described for Alternative except that vegetative 

cover would gradually obliterate the existing trails 

since visitor use would be essentially eliminated. 

Under Alternative 3, greater impacts would occur to 

the vegetative resource than under either Alternative 

1 or 2. Overnight camping would be permitted to 

continue. This would cause a decrease in vegetative 

cover around the immediate campsite areas. There 

would be a decrease in surface litter due to fuel wood 

collection for campfires. There would be a decrease in 

vegetation on trails developed 

None of the above would significantly affect the 

human environment. 

Impacts to Visitor Use 

Under Alternative 1 legal access to the two sites could 

result in an increase in day use activities. This impact 

is not expected to be significant. Restrictions on 

vehicle use would eliminate, off-road vehicle riding on 

the areas. Prohibiting overnight camping is not 

expected to result in any significant impact to visitor 

use activities. Prohibiting cutting would allow 

surface litter to build up, thus increasing or enhancing 

the naturalness of these areas. Under Alternative 2, 

the exclusive natural area restriction would result in a 

decrease in visitor use of the areas. This would 

increase or enhance the natural values since the 

disturbance associated with visitation would be 

significantly reduced. Under Alternative 3 naturalness 

would decrease due to increased recreation use. The 

most notable impact would be from off road vehicle 

use, overnight camping and the associated activities, 

such as camp fire ring development, increase in trails 

and so forth. The level of recreation use is anticipated 

to increase slightly. However, due to the lack of legal 

public access this increase should not be significant. 

11 
Impacts to Lands and Realty 

Public access to both sites would reduce trespass 

over private lands for individuals utilizing both parcels. 

Impacts to Wildlife Habitat 

Resource 

Under Alternative 1 the increase in visitor use would 

cause an increase in disturbance to wildlife which 

utilize both areas. Those that may be affected are 

passerine birds which utilize the upland areas and 

including river otters which utilize the tidal 

pools of both sites. As visitor use increases, the 

disturbance may cause the more mobile species to 

move and utilize other areas. Those that are less 

mobile may decline in number. The impacts associated for Alternative 3 would be similar in nature to 

those caused by Alternative However there could 

be a slight increase in the intensity of the impacts due 

to unrestricted use of the area such as camping or 

picnicking. None of these impacts would be significant. Under Alternative 2 the change would be 

negligible. 

Relationship Between Short-Term

Use and Long Term Productivity,

and Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources 

There would not be any measurable short-term losses 

in productivity resulting from these actions. Nor would 

there be any irreversible commitments of resources. 

The cumulative impacts associated with adopting any 

of the alternatives would be negligible when compared to the existing conditions of Iceberg 

Point and Point Colville. 

12 
Chapter 

and Distribution 

Introduction 

This Planning Analysis was prepared by an Interdisciplinary team of specialists from the Spokane District 

Office and the Wenatchee Resource Area Office. 

Although this planning analysis began in August of 

1987, it is the culmination of a complex process that 

had its beginning more than ten years ago. This 

process included resource inventory, public participation, and interagency and governmental coordination. 

Consultation and coordination with organizations and 

individuals occurred in a variety of ways throughout 

the planning process. 

Consistency Review 

Prior to approval of the Final Planning Analysis, the 

State Director will submit the plan to the Governor of 

Washington to provide the opportunity to identify any 

known inconsistencies with State or local plans, 

policies, or programs. The consistency of the plan 

with the resource-related plans, programs, and 

policies of other federal agencies, state and local 

government, and Indian tribes will be reevaluated in 

the future as part of the formal monitoring and periodic evaluation of the plan. 

Spokane District Advisory Council 

The Bureau’s Spokane District Advisory Council has 

been consulted regarding this proposal. Their concerns have been considered in the development of 

this planning analysis. 

Agencies and Organizations

Consulted 

The Planning Analysis team consulted with and/or 

received input from the following organizations during 

the development of this plan: 

State and Local Governments 

Washington State Department of Wildlife 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

San Juan County Commissioners 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 

Natural Heritage Program 

Federal Agencies 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Coast Guard 

State Agencies and Elected Officials 

Office of the Governor 

Office of the Secretary of State Washington 

Washington State Library 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

Washington State Department of Wildlife 

Washington State Department of Fisheries 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 

Natural Heritage Program 

County 

San Juan County Commissioners 

San Juan County Planning Department 

San Juan County Library 

San Juan County Sheriffs Department 

State Legislature 

Senator Patrick R. McMullen 

Senator Lowell Peterson 

Representative Harriet Spanel 

Representative Jim Youngsman 

Congressional 

U.S. Senator Slade Got-ton 

U.S. Senator Adams 

U.S. Representative Al Swift 

Organizations 

Audubon Society 

Sierra Club 

Washington Environmental Council 

Washington State Sportsmen Council 

University of Washington, Friday Harbor Laboratory 

In addition to those listed above, the draft was sent to 

the local news media and individuals who expressed 

their interest to in the future management of the 

public lands on Lopez Island. 

13 
Chapter 6-List of 

Preparers 

While individuals have primary responsibility for 

preparing sections of the document it is essentially an 

interdisciplinary team effort. In addition, internal 

review of the document occurred throughout 

tion. Specialists at the Area, District and State Office 

levels of the BLM both reviewed the analysis and 

supplied information. Contributions by individual 

preparers were subject to review and possible revision by other BLM specialists and by management 

during the internal review process, 

James Fisher, Area Manager 

Neal Hedges, Wildlife Biologist 

Mark St. John, Public Affairs 

Ron Vanbianchi, Contract Botanist 

Gary Yeager, Planning Environmental Coordinator 

Judy Thompson, Archaeologist 

14 
Appendices 

Appendix A-Finding of No Impact for

Iceberg Point and Point Colville Planning Analysis and

Environmental Assessment 

The Bureau of land Management Spokane District analyzed alternatives for managing the public lands on Iceberg 

Point and Point Colville. The alternatives described and analyzed in this planning analysis and environmental 

assessment were made available for public review on April 1, 1988. The environmental assessment did not reveal 

any significant environmental affects. 

Based on the following considerations no significant impacts to the quality of the human environment are anticipated. 

1. The analysis of Alternatives did not reveal any actions that would permanently affect the natural values or 

constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources on Iceberg Point or Point 

2. The analysis did not reveal any significant adverse impacts to society as a whole, the affected region, the 

affected interests, or the locality. 

3. Public health or safety would not be affected. 

4. The proposed action does not violate Federal, State, or local law requirements regarding flood plain, wild and 

scenic river, prime or unique farmlands, or known paleontological resources within the area. 

5. The proposed action would not result in cumulative significant adverse impacts to the important and relevant 

resource values of the areas involved. 

6. There are no cultural resources present that would be affected by the proposal. 

7. The proposed action would not significantly affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat that has 

been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

8. Designating the areas as an ACEC to preserve their natural values would not result in any significant change in 

land use. 

9. The ACEC designation would be in conformance with San Juan County’s recommendation to manage Iceberg 

Point and Point Colville as Natural Areas. 

There are no known inconsistencies with officially approved or adopted Federal, State or local natural resource related plans, policies or programs. 

Determination 

On the basis of the information contained in the Environmental Assessment and all other information available to 

me as summarized above, it is my determination that this proposed decision does not constitute a major Federal 

Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (a finding of no significant impact). Therefore, 

an environmental impact statement is unnecessary and will not be prepared. 

. 

Date 

District Manager, Spokane District 

15 
Appendix B-Protest Procedures 

A protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process should 

be filed with the Director Bureau of Land Management, 1800 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240 

within the official 30-day protest period 30 days from the publication of this document. Protests must contain the 

following information: 

The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. 

� A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 

� A statement of the part or parts being protested. 

A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process by the 

party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record. 

� A concise statement explaining why the Spokane District Manager’s decision is wrong. 

Inclusion of this information will enable BLM to accurately respond to the protest in a timely and efficient manner. 

Thank you. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 16 
The Bureau off ~awagswnenD @II&I) is responsible for the management of about 300 million acres of public land, about one-eighth of our 

Nation’s land area. These lands are managed pursuant to the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 under the principles of multiple-use 

and sustained yield for the benefit of all Americans. 

the BLM manages several hundred thousand acres of 

public land resources out of a District Office in Spokane and a Resource 

Area Office in Wenatchee. Areas of management emphasis include twelve 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, The Juniper Dunes Wilderness 

Area, the Chopaka Mountain Wilderness Study Area, several areas popular 

for outdoor recreation, and several thousand acres cooperatively managed 

with the Department of Wildlife for wildlife habitat. Other lands managed by 

the Spokane District are valuable for grazing, timber production, mineral 

exploration, and for a variety of renewable and nonrenewable resource 

activities. 

please contact the District Manager, Spokane 

District Office, East 4217 Main Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99202, (509) 

or the Area Manager, Wenatchee Resource Area Office, 1133 

North Western Avenue, Wenatchee, Washington 98801, (509) 662-4223. 
I