Planning Process Primer and Guidebook

for the San Juan Islands National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

San Juan Islands National Monument 

BLM Lopez Island Office 

PO Box 3 

37 Washburn Place

Lopez, WA 98261

Phone: (360) 468-3754

Email: blm_or_sanjuanislandsnm@blm.gov
1

Table of Contents

1. Guidebook’s Purpose .................................................................................................................. 2

2. Introduction to the Draft RMP and EIS ...................................................................................... 2

2.1 What Do You Need to Know Before Commenting?............................................................. 2

2.2 What are Land Use Plans Decisions versus Implementation-Level Decisions?................... 4

2.3 What Resources does the BLM Analyze in the Draft RMP/EIS?......................................... 4

2.4 What is the RMP Planning Process Timeline? ..................................................................... 6

2.5 What Happens Next?............................................................................................................. 7

3. Overview of the Alternatives (Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS) .............................................. 8

3.1 Non-Site Specific Management ............................................................................................ 8

3.2 Site-Specific Management .................................................................................................. 23

4. Glossary .................................................................................................................................... 55

5. References................................................................................................................................. 56

6. Appendices................................................................................................................................ 57

Appendix 1: Presidential Proclamation 8947............................................................................ 57

Appendix 2: Draft RMP/EIS Purpose and Need Statement...................................................... 61

Appendix 3: List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 63

Appendix 4: Substantive Comments......................................................................................... 64

Appendix 5: Next Steps............................................................................................................. 66

Need More Information?............................................................................................................... 67

When is the Comment Deadline? ................................................................................................. 68

Where Do I Submit My Comments? ............................................................................................ 68
2

1. Guidebook’s Purpose

This document serves as a primer, summarizing some of the key management approaches 

described in detail in Chapter 2 of the San Juan Islands National Monument Draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). It is intended to inform as you 

comment on what you believe is the best outcome for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. For the full 

analysis of effects from these management approaches, see Chapter 3 in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

This document also explains the RMP planning process, which creates a legal foundation for 

next steps and what will happen on the ground. It then describes some of the more complex 

concepts, such as land use plan-level decisions versus implementation-level decisions

1

. It ties to 

the Draft RMP/EIS, which is now available on the Monument ePlanning website2. 

Instructions for drafting your comments are in the Instruction Manual for Commenting.

2. Introduction to the Draft RMP and EIS

The Draft RMP/EIS describes and evaluates a range of potential management approaches 

(alternatives) for approximately 1,021 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

administered and co-administered land in the San Juan Islands3. 

The Approved RMP will provide management guidance that will protect the cultural and 

ecological values for which the Monument was designated4, ensure that tribal treaty rights are 

respected, and address the growing demand for human uses of the Monument.

There is currently no land use plan addressing management of the Monument. The BLM 

currently administers these lands primarily through a custodial approach. This approach focuses 

on meeting legal mandates and preventing unnecessary and undue degradation of the Monument. 

Actions currently taken under this approach include: removing hazard trees that pose a threat to 

safety or property, providing basic visitor facilities in some locations (such as vault and 

composting toilets), protecting cultural resources against imminent threats, providing education 

and interpretation related to the area’s values, and rehabilitating aspects of historic structures 

associated with the Monument’s maritime heritage. 

The BLM’s administration of the Monument is consistent with direction in the Monument 

proclamation and the Federal Land Policy Management Act5. Restrictions on uses are currently 

limited only to those: a) established in the 1990 Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

decision,

6

b) stated explicitly in the Monument proclamation, or c) established under existing 

regulations or supplementary rules described on page 8 of the Draft RMP/EIS (Chapter 2). 

2.1 What Do You Need to Know Before Commenting?

 

1 For definitions of terms found in this Guidebook, see the Glossary in Section 4 below.

2 https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=63826

3 See Chapter 1 in the Draft RMP/EIS for full description of the planning area.

4 See Appendix 1 below for Presidential Proclamation 8947.

5 For more on the Federal Land Policy Management Act see https://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/FLPMA.pdf

6 USDOI BLM 1990
3

We developed the management approaches analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS using input from two 

rounds of public meetings, the Monument Advisory Committee, partner agencies, and BLM 

specialists. Please keep in mind that in order for us to come to any given decision, we need to 

demonstrate that we considered the full range of possible approaches that meet the purpose and 

need for the plan7. We must also demonstrate that we have weighed the impacts of all

approaches. 

At this juncture, we would like your feedback on the Draft RMP/EIS. This includes what you 

think should be in the Proposed RMP and why, and whether there are other approaches that 

should be considered. We would also like your feedback on whether there is additional 

information that we should incorporate into the effects analysis in Chapter 3. While there are 

many matters that we would like your feedback on, do not feel that you must comment on 

everything. Focus on the issues that are most important to you.

There are several publications designed to walk you through commenting on the Draft RMP/EIS: 

The Instruction Manual for Commenting: This slim publication offers the basics for 

filling out the comment forms.

Planning Process Primer and Guidebook for the Draft RMP/EIS (this document): The 

Guidebook presents the background information on the planning process. It focuses on key 

approaches to management described in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Unique Comment Forms (available in print and downloadable online): There are many 

ways to comment on the draft. You can submit comments without using a form, such as in 

an email or letter. Alternately, we have generated comment forms intended to help you 

make the most impactful comments, known as substantive comments8. The comment forms 

also give you an idea of many of the management approaches related to human uses (e.g., 

recreation) analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS in one easy location. 

Comment forms available for your use include:

 16 comment forms for human uses: 1 each for 16 potential management zones, called 

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs)9; 

 1 comment form related to cultural resources;

 1 comment form related to habitat and plants; and

 1 general comment form for general comments about the analysis and other topics. 

The comment period will end on January 3, 2019

 

7 See Appendix 2 below for this planning effort’s stated Purpose and Need.

8 Substantive comments are those that reveal new information, missing information, or flawed analysis that would 

substantially change conclusions. Nonsubstantive comments are those that include opinions, assertions, and 

unsubstantiated claims (USDOI BLM 2008, p. 66). See Appendix 4 below for more information.

9 See Section 3.2 below or Appendix O in the Draft RMP/EIS for more information on Recreation Management 

Areas.
4

2.2 What are Land Use Plans Decisions versus Implementation-Level Decisions?

Members of the public often wonder why land use plans (RMPs) do not describe specific actions 

that will take place on the ground. For example, why doesn’t the RMP describe specifically 

where the BLM would build restroom facilities? The answer is simple: an RMP is intended to set 

broad objectives and parameters for what is or is not allowed in the decision area (the Monument 

in this case). For instance, the RMP may state that the BLM will build visitor facilities as needed 

to support human use (i.e., recreation) objectives, but not specify the exact location or type of 

facility. This is because it provides a framework for management rather than a description of 

how, where, or when projects will take place. 

After the plan is completed, the BLM will develop site-specific actions that meet the objectives 

and direction outlined in the RMP. These are called project- or implementation-level decisions. 

For example, if the RMP allowed building visitor facilities, the BLM would conduct further 

analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess site-specific conditions 

and impacts of building an actual facility at a proposed location. The BLM would also allow for 

further public involvement10, as directed by the NEPA.

Examples of process and/or documents that may be required before implementing specific

projects include cultural surveys, categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and 

environmental impact statements where impacts are found to be significant11

.

However, the BLM will be making implementation-level (site-specific) travel and transportation 

management decisions as part of this planning process12. This is because of the limited amount of 

road and trail miles in the Monument (1 mile and 14.9 miles, respectively). It is also because the 

BLM solicited intensive site-specific public feedback on roads and trails during this planning 

process. The BLM has also consulted with the Monument Advisory Committee, Native 

American Tribes, and cooperating agencies on management approaches for roads and trails 

within the Monument. 

Appendix H in the Draft RMP/EIS displays locations of roads and trails that the BLM would 

maintain, develop, or close in order to meet each alternative’s objectives described in Chapter 2

and the RMA objective described in Appendix O. 

2.3 What Resources does the BLM Analyze in the Draft RMP/EIS?

In the Draft RMP/EIS you will find information related to the below list of resources, uses, and 

conditions. Where the BLM has jurisdiction over a particular resource or use and is making

decisions about it through this planning process you will find pertinent sections in both Chapter 2 

(management alternatives) and Chapter 3 (effects analysis). Where the BLM does not have 

jurisdiction over a particular resource or is not making explicit decisions about it through this 

planning process, but decisions could affect the resource, use, or condition (for example 

 

10Public involvement is an important part of the NEPA process. The level of public involvement

varies with the different types of NEPA compliance and decision-making (USDOI BLM 2008). See BLM 

Handbook H-1790-1 Section 6.9 for more information on public involvement (USDOI BLM 2008).

11 See BLM Handbook H-1790-1 for more information on the National Environmental Policy Act (section 7.3 for 

“significance”) (USDOI BLM 2008).

12 The BLM may use a single land use planning/NEPA process to make both land use plan and implementation 

decisions, provided both types of decisions are adequately addressed with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. 

This may be appropriate in RMPs covering relatively small geographic areas (USDOI BLM 2005, p.30).
5

socioeconomics), you will only find a pertinent section in Chapter 3. 

 Air Quality (beginning on page 41 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS)

 Climate Change (beginning on page 45 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS)

 Cultural Resources (beginning on page 12 in Chapter 2 and page 49 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS; alternative management approaches summarized below)

 Education and Interpretation (beginning on page 14 in Chapter 2 and page 70 in Chapter 

3 of the Draft RMP/EIS )

 Habitat and Plants (beginning on page 16 in Chapter 2 and page 73 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS; alternative management approaches summarized below)

 Hazardous Materials (beginning on page 21 in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS)

 Lands and Realty (beginning on page 23 in Chapter 2 and page 137 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS )

 Natural Material Collection (beginning on page 25 in Chapter 2 and page 179 in Chapter 

3 of the Draft RMP/EIS)

 Paleontology (beginning on page 26 in Chapter 2 and page 140 in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

RMP/EIS)

 Recreation and Visitor Services (beginning on page 28 in Chapter 2 and page 145 in 

Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS; alternative management approaches summarized below)

 Science (beginning on page 32 in Chapter 2 and page 191 in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

RMP/EIS)

 Socioeconomics (beginning on page 192 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS )

 Soils (beginning on page 206 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS )

 Special Designations (beginning on page 212 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS )

 Travel and Transportation (beginning on page 16 in Chapter 2 and page 145 in Chapter 3 

of the Draft RMP/EIS; alternative management approaches also summarized below)

 Tribal Interests (beginning on page 14 in Chapter 2 and page 215 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS )

 Visual Resources (beginning on page 14 in Chapter 2 and page 225 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS)

 Wilderness Characteristics (beginning on page 14 in Chapter 2 and page 232 in Chapter 3 

of the Draft RMP/EIS)

 Wildfire Response (beginning on page 14 in Chapter 2 and page 236 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS)

 Wildlife and Fish (beginning on page 14 in Chapter 2 and page 247 in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS)

Refer to Appendix 3 below for a list of resource authors.
6

2.4 What is the RMP Planning Process Timeline13?

Tasks and Milestones ESTIMATE

Kick off the Planning Effort

 Organize planning team.

 Gather and update data.

 Finalize prep plan.

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

(“scoping”)

 Initiate tribal consultation.

 Formalize planning partnerships with other government agencies

 Meet with the Monument Advisory Committee.

 Publish scoping report.

January 2015-

Summer 2015 

(NOI published 

in March 2015)

Develop Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP)/ Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS)

 Develop, revise, and publish Analysis of the Management Situation for 

RMP/EIS.

 Conduct public recreation workshops and publish report on findings.

 Work internally and with partners to identify a range of alternatives. 

Work internally to develop allocations, objectives, and direction for 

range.

 Continue to update GIS data, develop GIS layers, and carry out data 

analysis.

 Develop analytical methods for EIS.

 Develop affected environment sections and analyze the potential 

impacts of the draft alternatives on the planning area.

 Continue formalizing planning partnerships with other government 

agencies.

 Engage with Monument Advisory Committee, Cooperating Agencies, 

and Consulting Tribes at appropriate points in the points in the process.

 Conduct internal review of Draft RMP/EIS.

Summer 2015-

Summer 2018

CURRENT STEP: Publish the Draft RMP/EIS

Provide a 90-day public review and comment period. Fall 2018

Develop the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

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

correct any errors.

 Develop the BLM’s Proposed RMP/Final EIS while considering public 

comments, input from agency partners and the Monument Advisory 

Committee, and BLM priorities.

 Work with regulatory agencies on consultation.

Fall 2018-Winter 

2019

 

13 All documents identified in this timeline will be available on the ePlanning website upon completion.
7

Tasks and Milestones ESTIMATE

Publish the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

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

participated in the process can “protest” aspects of the proposed plan.

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

consistency with state and local plans, policies, and programs. 

Winter 2019

Publish Record of Decision/Approved RMP Spring 2019

2.5 What Happens Next?

1. YOU ARE HERE Fall 2018: 90-day Draft 

RMP/EIS comment period.

2. Winter 2019: BLM comment review and 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS development. 

3. Winter 2019: Proposed RMP/ Final EIS

publication. 

4. Spring 2019: Protest and Governor’s 

consistency review. 

5. Spring 2019: BLM Record of Decision and 

RMP publication. 

See Appendix 5 below for a more detailed description 

of next steps. 

How does the BLM Formulate a 

Proposed RMP?

 Feedback from you

 Feedback from tribes and 

other governmental entities

 Analysis results: The BLM 

considers how each 

management approach would 

affect the Monument, 

adjacent lands and resources, 

and socioeconomic

conditions

 Agency Priorities: The BLM 

considers how the 

management approaches 

relate to agency priorities. 

These priorities may vary 

over time
8

3. Overview of the Alternatives (Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS)

This section summarizes the range of management approaches (i.e., alternatives) we developed 

in the Draft RMP/EIS, specifically focusing on those related to cultural resources, habitat and 

plants, and human use (e.g., recreation) management. We developed this range using input from 

the public, the Monument Advisory Committee, cooperating agencies, consulting tribes, and 

BLM resource specialists. 

We will meet all pertinent legal obligations in managing the Monument. These obligations 

include, but are not limited, to tribal treaties, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the protective mandate of 

Presidential Proclamation 8947.

In Chapter 2, we consider a No Action Alternative (i.e., continuation of current management), 

four action alternatives14 (Alternatives A, B, C, and D), and a sub-alternative15 (Sub-Alternative 

C) for managing Monument resources. The alternatives detail potential objectives, management 

tools, and allowable uses on the Monument. Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail 

are described in Appendix A of the Draft RMP/EIS.

As the samples of prior public comments listed in the resource sections below suggest, there are 

varied perspectives on how to manage Monument resources.

3.1 Non-Site Specific Management

Some overarching management objectives and direction, such as those for cultural and 

vegetative resources, would be applied broadly across the Monument. In other words, objectives

and direction for these resources would not vary by location. For other resources, such as human 

uses (e.g., recreation), management objectives and direction would vary by location (see SiteSpecific Management section below). 

 

14 Action alternatives are the approaches that have been analyzed as alternatives to the no action alternative (current 

management approach).

15 A sub-alternative alters discrete aspects of an alternative to allow the BLM to isolate and analyze the effect of 

making small changes. 
9

Cultural Resources

For a full description of the cultural resource management alternatives, see pages 12-14 in 

Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS. For a full description of the impacts on cultural resources from 

the alternatives, see pages 49-70 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

A comment form for commenting on cultural resource management described in Chapter 2 

of the Draft RMP/EIS is available for your use.

Samples of comments we have received regarding cultural resources up to this point in the 

planning process include the following:

 “Cultural resource interpretation is critical.”

 “Fragile meadows and cultural landscapes need to be protected from trails and 

recreational use...The cultural landscapes and associated plants need active stewardship.” 

 “...build into the RMP opportunities for [tribes]...to conduct meadow restoration and

cultivation to favor cultural food and medicinal species, and support tribal treaty harvest 

of such plants.”

 “Given the increasing potential of marine disasters in the Salish Sea, one would hope that 

we could maximize the ‘operational readiness’ of ‘When All Else Fails’ communications. 

Lighthouses and the adjacent BLM lands may have a role to play.”

Cultural resources addressed in this section include buildings, structures, places, and 

archaeological sites with historical and/or cultural values, as well as sacred sites and traditional 

cultural properties. We developed general, rather than site specific, objectives and direction for 

archaeological values. This is due to the sensitivity of disclosing sites’ locations and the fact that 

the full extent of these values is unknown.

The Monument’s landscapes also have cultural values associated with plant communities and

plant and wildlife populations. The management of these values are described in other sections 

(see Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2 pages 16-22 and 40). In addition, tribal interests are discussed in a 

separate section (see Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2 pages 33-34).
Key Differences between Alternatives (Approaches to Managing Cultural Resources16)

Resources No Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Protecting cultural 

resources from 

shoreline erosion

There would continue 

to be no plan-level 

decisions related to 

cultural resources.

However, we would 

take action on a caseby-case basis to meet 

legal obligations.

Allow soft 

shoreline 

stabilization17.

Prohibit hard 

stabilization 

methods.

Allow both soft and 

hard shoreline 

stabilization. 

Allow soft shoreline 

stabilization. 

Prohibit hard stabilization 

methods. 

Allow soft shoreline 

stabilization to 

protect cultural 

resources; allow 

hard stabilization 

methods in areas 

without wilderness 

characteristics. 

Maritime Heritage 

Areas (see maps

on page 69 of 

Chapter 3)

There would continue 

to be no plan-level 

decisions related to 

cultural resources. 

However, we would 

take action on a caseby-case basis to meet 

legal obligations.

Monitor and 

protect existing 

historic structures 

from impairment 

or loss. Take 

action when 

required by law or 

policy. Take 

action when 

required by law or 

policy. 

Do not add 

structures.

Restore and/or 

rehabilitate existing 

structures in maritime 

heritage areas to their 

historic appearance. 

Prohibit construction 

of new structures or 

the reconstruction of 

historically present but 

currently absent 

structures.

Restore and/or rehabilitate 

existing structures in maritime 

heritage areas to their historic 

appearance. Allow the 

reconstruction of historically 

present, but currently absent 

structures.

Prohibit modifications to 

existing structures or building 

of new structures that would 

have an adverse effect on the 

area’s historic appearance or 

setting.

Restore and/or 

rehabilitate structures 

in maritime heritage 

areas to their historic 

appearance. 

Allow the 

reconstruction of 

historically present, 

but currently absent 

structures.

Adapt or build 

structures to 

facilitate recreation, 

education, and 

interpretation.

 

16 See Cultural Resources Section in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS (p.12) for full description of management approaches

17 See Glossary for definition of soft and hard shoreline stabilization 
12

Common to All Action Alternatives for Cultural Resources

Under all action alternatives, we would protect cultural resources associated with Native 

American and Euro-American maritime heritage (see Chapter 2 page 12 Common to All Action 

Alternatives). This would require conducting inventories before undertaking ground disturbing 

activities, modifying projects to avoid impacts, and fencing or temporarily closing areas where 

human uses are degrading resources. Under all action alternatives, the BLM would allow soft 

shoreline stabilization to protect cultural resources.

Maritime heritage area management, with specific management objectives and direction, would 

apply to the three lighthouse areas under all action alternatives (see maps on page 69 of Chapter 3). 

This document is using the term maritime heritage area to refer to the aids to navigation (i.e., 

lighthouse) facilities and surrounding lands at Turn Point, Patos Island, and Cattle Point (see 

Map 2 on page 62). These total approximately 28 acres of Monument land.

Cultural Resource Issues Addressed in the Draft RMP/EIS

Issues analyzed in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS (see pages 49-70) include:

 How would the alternatives affect archaeological and other cultural resources within the 

Monument? (Page 50)

 How would the alternatives affect historic properties within the maritime heritage areas? 

(Page 61)

Cultural Resources Key Points 

 We would protect cultural resources associated with Native American and EuroAmerican maritime heritage under all action alternatives. This includes allowing 

soft stabilization of shorelines to protect cultural resources.

 Cultural resources include buildings, structures, places, and archaeological sites 

with historical and/or cultural values, as well as sacred sites and traditional cultural 

properties. 

 Objectives and direction for archaeological values are not site specific.

 Tribal interests and cultural values associated with plant communities and plant 

and wildlife populations are discussed in separate sections of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

 Management approaches for cultural resources vary by alternative. Put a check 

mark next to your preferred management approaches and explain your reasoning in 

the Cultural Resources Comment Form. 
13

Habitat and Plants

For a full description of the habitat and plants management alternatives, see pages 16-21 in 

Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS. For a full description of the impacts on habitat and plants from 

the alternatives, see pages 73-137 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS.

A comment form for commenting on habitat and plant management described in Chapter 

2 of the Draft RMP/EIS is available for your use. 

Samples of comments we have received regarding habitat and plants up to this point in the 

planning process include the following:

 “Ban herbicides and Roundup.”

 “Use the full range of tools available when implementing BLM's Integrated Vegetation

Management plan, including pulling, grubbing, digging, cutting, flaming, mulching, 

and/or the judicious use of the least toxic herbicides.”

 “...conduct meadow restoration and cultivation to favor cultural food and medicinal 

species...Use traditional means, such as burning, as well as more modern management 

techniques that favor plant growth and harvest should be part of such restoration efforts.”

 “Invasive species need to be controlled, as well as including a budget for educating 

neighbors or renting tools out to neighbors...Native species need to be protected.”

The alternatives vary in how intensively we would manage habitat and plant communities within 

the Monument (see table below). During the life of the RMP (~20 years), we would design and 

execute vegetation treatments—requiring additional implementation-level planning and public 

involvement18—to achieve the RMP’s objectives. 

The types of vegetation treatments we could use during implementation vary by alternative. For 

instance, under Alternative A, we would prohibit the use of chemical treatments (e.g., herbicides) 

and prescribed fire during plan implementation. Conversely, under Alternatives B, C, and D, we

would select from the full range of potential options when designing projects. 

 

18 The level of public involvement varies with the different types of NEPA; see BLM Handbook H-1790-1 Section 

6.9 for more information (USDOI BLM 2008).
Key Differences between Alternatives (Approaches to Managing Habitat and Plants19)

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Habitat and Plant 

Community 

Management

There are no current 

plan-level decisions 

directly related to habitat 

and vegetation 

management.

However, we would take 

action on a case-by-case 

basis to meet legal 

obligations.

Minimize management 

intervention and allow 

natural processes to take 

place.

Monitor and intervene to 

protect Monument 

objects and values.

Manage the Monument 

to enhance ecological 

resilience and 

resistance, including 

enhancing the extent of 

relatively scarce 

habitats, i.e., grasslands 

and wetlands.

Restore plant communities to 

the approximate extent and 

condition existing prior to 

European settlement when 

Coast Salish tribes modified 

the landscape using fire as a 

management tool.

Maintain vegetative 

communities at the 

approximate current 

(2016) extent and 

condition.

Invasive Plants 

There are no current 

plan-level decisions 

directly related to 

invasive plants.

However, we would take 

action on a case-by-case 

basis to meet legal 

obligations.

Control or eradicate 

noxious weed species 

designated by 

Washington State for 

mandatory eradication or 

control. 

Otherwise, control 

invasive plants only after 

the specific threshold 

has been crossed.

Control or eradicate noxious weed species designated by Washington State for 

mandatory eradication or control. Apply the BLM’s early detection and rapid 

response approach to invasive plant management.

Tools Available for 

Vegetation 

Management 

There are no current 

plan-level decisions 

directly related tools 

available for vegetation 

management.

However, we would 

take action on a case-bycase basis to meet legal 

obligations.

Prohibit chemical 

treatments (e.g., 

herbicides) and 

prescribed fire as 

methods to achieve 

habitat and plant 

community objectives.

Consider all vegetation 

management methods 

when designing 

projects to achieve 

habitat and plant 

community objectives. 

Consider all vegetation 

management methods when 

designing projects to achieve 

habitat and plant community 

objectives. 

Sub-alternative C: prohibit the 

use of chemical treatments 

(e.g., herbicides) as methods 

to achieve habitat and plant 

community objectives.

Consider all vegetation 

management methods 

when designing 

projects to achieve 

habitat and plant 

community objectives. 

 

19 See Habitat and Plants Section in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS (p.16) for full description of management approaches
22

Common to All Action Alternatives for Habitat and Plants

Under all action alternatives, we would protect the diversity of plant communities described in 

the Monument proclamation. We would also control invasive plant species within the Monument 

(see Chapter 2 pages 16-17 Common to All Action Alternatives).

Habitat and Plant Issues Addressed in the Draft RMP/EIS

Issues analyzed in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS (see pages 73-137) include:

 How would each alternative affect the extent of vegetative communities? (Page 73)

 How would each alternative affect the condition of each plant community? (Page 77)

 How would the alternatives vary in the approximate extent and type of vegetation 

treatments that would be applied during their implementation? (Page 109)

 How would the alternatives affect special status plants and lichen and Washington 

Natural Heritage Program priority ecological communities? (Page 116)

 How would the alternatives affect invasive plant species presence and spread within the 

Monument and the San Juan Islands? (Page 129)

 How would use of chemical treatments (e.g., herbicides) affect non-target resources 

including vegetation, human health and safety, water quality, wildlife, and soils? (Page 

135)

Habitat and Plants Key Points

 We would protect the diversity of plant communities described in the Monument 

proclamation and control invasive plant species under all alternatives.

 Objectives and direction for habitat and plants would apply to the Monument as a 

whole. 

 The alternatives vary in how intensively we would manage habitat and plants

within the Monument. Before implementing actions on the ground, further 

analysis and public involvement would be required. 

 The types of vegetation treatments we could use during implementation vary by 

alternative. Put a check mark next to your preferred management approaches and 

explain your reasoning in the Habitat and Plants Form. 
23

3.2 Site-Specific Management

For full descriptions of site-specific management alternatives related to human uses (e.g., 

recreation and travel and transportation), see sections beginning on pages 28 and 34 in Chapter 2 

of the Draft RMP/EIS and Appendix H: Draft Travel and Transportation Management Plan and 

Appendix O: Recreation Area Management Frameworks. For a full description of the impacts on 

human uses from the alternatives, see pages 145-190 in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS.

There are 16 site-specific comment forms are available for commenting on the management 

of human uses. If commenting on multiple locations, please staple your site-specific

comment forms together. 

Human Use Management 

The Monument was designated to protect objects of historic and scientific interest20 on BLMadministered lands in the San Juan Islands. Through this planning effort, we are exploring how 

allowing or prohibiting different recreational activities would affect these objects. 

We developed the range of human use management approaches using input received during 

scoping and the human use charrettes. Under all alternatives, we would continue to facilitate 

access to the Monument for research, educational, cultural, and spiritual activities. 

With no RMP currently in place to guide or restrict human uses, Monument lands are generally 

open to recreation, though existing laws and regulations apply. The one exception is in the Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern designations on Lopez Island, where the BLM prohibits 

camping and requires permits for organized groups of 10 or more visitors. See the No Action 

Alternative on page 29 of Chapter 2 for more information on current human use management. 

Human Use Management Approaches Analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS

When developing RMPs, we designate areas to support human uses. These areas are commonly 

known as Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) 21. We develop a framework for each RMA

describing intended visitor activities, experiences, benefits, and allowable uses. Both the visitor 

objectives and allowable uses can vary by alternative. 

Appendix O in the Draft RMP/EIS provides the full set of allowable and prohibited recreation 

uses by RMA. Appendix H provides maps and details of the road and trail networks. 

For purposes of this planning effort, we divided the Monument into 16 potential RMAs. In most 

cases, these areas are specific Monument locations (e.g., Watmough Bay). We also grouped 

smaller islands and rocks into categories based on common management issues (Draft RMP/EIS 

Chapter 2 pages 28-29 and Appendix O). 

Common to All Action Alternatives for Human Use Management

Under all action alternatives, we would enact objectives and direction to protect Monument 

objects and values from degradation due to visitation. We would also facilitate access to the 

 

20 See Monument Proclamation in Appendix 1 below for more information. 

21 Since the purpose and need (see Appendix 2 below) for the planning effort is focused on conserving, protecting, 

and restoring the Monument objectives and values (which do not include recreation), the BLM is only considering 

designating extensive recreation management areas (where recreation is managed commensurate with other 

resources) through this plan. 
24

Monument for research, educational, cultural, and spiritual activities. Additional management

direction can be found in the section beginning on page 28 in Chapter 2 and in Appendix O. 

Human Use Issues Addressed in the Draft RMP/EIS

Issues analyzed in the Recreation and Visitor Services section of Chapter 3 of the Draft 

RMP/EIS (pages 145-190) include:

 How would the alternatives’ approaches to recreation and transportation affect 

recreational opportunities? How would the alternatives affect acres and trails open to 

potentially conflicting recreational uses and vegetation treatments that would disrupt 

recreational opportunities? (Page 146)

 How would the BLM’s designation of recreation opportunity spectrum classes across the 

alternatives affect recreation settings in the Monument? (Page 183)

 How would the alternatives indirectly affect the management of human use activities on

nearby non-BLM-administered lands in the San Juan Islands? (Page 187)

The alternatives for human uses vary by areas we would designate as RMAs. They also vary in 

the uses we would allow or prohibit in each area. For example, under Alternative A, we would

facilitate use of the Monument for authorized research, educational, cultural, and spiritual 

activities, but not for recreation. As a result, we would not designate any of the listed potential 

RMAs. Additionally, we would prohibit recreation on Monument lands. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum (Alternative D) we would designate all RMAs. We would 

also facilitate all recreational use requested by members of the public that are compatible with 

protecting Monument objects and values. For instance, under Alternative D the BLM would 

allow hiking, picnicking, horseback riding, biking, and camping so long as they do not degrade 

Monument object and values (See proclamation in Appendix 1 below for protected values). For a 

summary of key differences between the alternative approaches for managing human uses, see 

the section beginning on page 28 in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Human Use Key Points

 Under all alternatives, we would protect Monument objects and values from 

degradation due to visitation. The BLM would also continue to facilitate research, 

educational, cultural, and spiritual activities.

 Objectives and direction for human use management are site specific.

 There are 16 potential human use management area designations analyzed in the 

Draft RMP/EIS. These areas are commonly known as Recreation Management 

Areas (RMAs). See below for a summary of the management approaches for each 

area.

 The alternatives for human uses vary by area and allowable uses. Put a check mark 

next to your favorite elements from an alternative (or many alternatives) and 

explain your reasoning in the human use site-specific comment forms (16 forms; 

one per RMA). 
25

Potential Human Use (Recreation) Management Areas 

Please see above for a summary of key alternative elements that do not vary by specific location

(i.e., those related to cultural resources and habitat and plants). Refer to the Draft RMP/EIS 

Chapter 2 and to Appendix H: Draft Travel and Transportation Management Plan and Appendix 

O: Recreation Area Management Frameworks for full details of the alternatives related to 

recreation and travel and transportation management. The subsections below provide an 

overview of the various approaches related to human uses we are considering in the Draft 

RMP/EIS.

Potential human use (recreation) management areas described below include: 

 Cape Saint Mary (Lopez Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 610 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 451 in Appendix H). 

 Carter Point (Lummi Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 610 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 454 in Appendix H )

 Category A Rocks22: East Sound Blind Island South, Kanaka Bay Islands, King Islands, 

Massacre Bay Rocks, Richardson Rocks (2 smaller rocks), Trinka Rock, Unnamed Rock 

(WNW Kanaka Bay Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 616 in 

Appendix O; there are no current or potential roads or trails on Category A rocks)

 Category B Rocks23: Barnes Rocks, Blind Bay Island Rock, Carter Point Rocks, 

Chuckanut Rocks, Davis Bay Island and Rocks, East Sound Blind Island North, John’s 

Island Rocks, John's Pass Rocks, Leo Reef, Lovers Cove Rocks, MacKaye Harbor Rocks, 

Mitchell Bay Rocks, Oak Island Rock, Outer Bay Rocks, Picnic Point Rocks, Prevost 

Harbor Rocks, Reid Harbor Rock, Reservation Bay Rocks, Rock Island, Satellite Island 

Rocks, Unnamed Rocks (Grandma's Cove), Unnamed Rocks (Iceberg Point Rocks), 

Unnamed Rocks (Jones Bay Rock), Unnamed Rocks (Pear Point and Danger Rocks), 

Unnamed Rock (Seal Rock), Unnamed Rocks (Shaw Island), Unnamed Rocks (South 

Lopez) (For details, see the section beginning on page 619 in Appendix O; there are no 

current or potential roads or trails on Category B rocks)

 Cattle Point (San Juan Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 622 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 458 in Appendix H)

 Chadwick Hill (Lopez Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 625 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 465 in Appendix H)

 Eliza Point (Eliza Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 628 in Appendix 

O and the section beginning on page 473 in Appendix H)

 

22 Category A rocks have some known recreational use as of 2016 and generally have less sensitive resources than 

Category B rocks. 

23 Category B rocks have limited or no recreational use as of 2016 and generally have more sensitive resources than 

Category A rocks (this includes all rocks formally identified as marine mammal haul-outs). 
26

 Iceberg Point (Lopez Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 631 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 481 in Appendix H)

 Islands: Blind Island, Broken Point Island, Fauntleroy Rock, Freeman Island, Indian 

Island, Little Patos Island, Lummi Rocks, McConnell Rocks, Mud Island, Oak Island, 

Park Bay Island, Posey Island, Reads Bay Island, Richardson Rocks, Skull Island, Twin 

Rocks, Victim Islands (For details, see the section beginning on page 634 in Appendix O 

and the pertinent sections in Appendix H)

 Kellett Bluff (Henry Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 638 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 498 in Appendix H)

 Lopez Pass (Lopez Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 641 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 502 in Appendix H)

 Patos Island (For details, see the section beginning on page 644 in Appendix O and the 

section beginning on page 519 in Appendix H)

 Point Colville (Lopez Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 647 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 526 in Appendix H)

 President Channel (Orcas Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 650 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 541 in Appendix H)

 Turn Point (Stuart Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 653 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 556 in Appendix H)

 Watmough Bay (Lopez Island) (For details, see the section beginning on page 656 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 572 in Appendix H)

We have crafted a separate comment form for each of these areas, with corresponding 

opportunities to comment on each of the alternative elements for each location.
22

Cape Saint Mary

Approximate Size: 2 acres

Location: Cape Saint Mary is located on the eastern edge 

of Lopez Island and is currently accessible only by water. 

The nearest access launch site is the Hunter Bay county 

ramp and dock on Lopez Island. Landing access is rocky 

and steep with submerged rocks along shoreline. A very 

small rocky beach approached from the north offers 

suitable landing at lower tides for small watercraft (e.g., 

kayaks, canoes, rowboats).24

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Cape Saint Mary include: 

“Cape St. Mary needs to be untouched.”

“Keep closed to recreational users.”

“Protect patch of locally rare perideridia gairdneri (Yampah)”

“Construct trail on RW from Oles Ln to Cape So. Of Cabin”

“Reserve Cape St. Mary for solitude only. Also, see if BLM can gain right-of-way access to this site.”

 

24 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 610 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 451 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
23

Cape Saint Mary

Uses

 RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural and 

ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive and 

educational signs at 

trailheads only

0.09 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational 

without a permit

access Allow development of 

visitor facilities and 

educational and 

interpretive signs 

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones 

without a permit

Uses

RECREATIONAL

BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK

RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational 

landing

boat 

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles-no 

trails designated 

for this use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by 

non-motorized 

watercraft 

Allow access 

for leashed pets

Allow dispersed 

camping (one group per 

night with max of 5 

campers)

Allow access 

for unleashed 

pets
24

Carter Point

Approximate Size: 50 acres

Location and Access: Carter Point is located on 

the southernmost tip of Lummi Island and is 

currently viewable by water only. Several small 

rocky beaches on the east side of the point are 

accessible for landing at lower tide, but do not 

offer easy access to the rest of the area.25

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Carter Point include: 

“Explore options for managed hunting of deer. Including collaborations with Tribes and Tribal youth.”

“I would love to see public access to Carter Point from Lummi Island (not from boat). Is there any way to 

reach Carter Point?”

“This has potential for a trail. Only the rocky south tip--the water access point--has sensitive plants--the 

woods are beautiful but not especially rare or sensitive.”

 

25 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 610 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 454 in Appendix H . Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
25

Carter Point

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit 

hiking- no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Allow recreational access 

by permit only

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

0.03 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities

and educational and 

interpretive signs 

0.4 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones 

without a permit

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT 

LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles-no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding-no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow dispersed 

camping without a

permit

Allow access for 

unleashed pets
26

Category A Rocks

Approximate Size: 4 acres

Location: Category A Rocks is a grouping of many rocks 

throughout the San Juan Islands. This category includes Eastsound 

Blind Island South*, Kanaka Bay Island Rocks, King Islands Rocks, 

Massacre Bay Rocks, Richardson Rocks (two smaller rocks), Trinka 

Rocks, and Unnamed Rock (WNW Kanaka Bay Island).26

* Rocks found to have wilderness characteristics.

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Category A 

Rocks include: 

“Trinka Rock: No fires or camping but define landing area for 

kayak.”

“Any islands or rocks under .5 acres should be observed but no 

access--protected for wildlife only.”

“Our overnight campsite wish list: 1. Turn Point Light Station, 

2. Cattle Point Lighthouse, 3. Iceberg Point, 

4. Point Colville or nearby, 5. Davis Bay Island, 

6. Reads Bay Island, 7. Kanaka Bay Islands, 8. King Islands, 9. Kellet Bluff, 10. Dot Island, 11. Skull Island, 12. Victim Island,

13. Pudding Island, 14. Parks Bay Island”

“Small rocks & smaller islands left TOTALLY for birds.” 

 

26 For more details on the management of recreation at these sites under each alternative see the section beginning on page 616 in Appendix O; there are no 

current or potential roads or trails on Category A rocks. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
27

Category A Rocks

 

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 

INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

 OVERLAND 

HIKING27

DISCHARGE 

OF FIREARMS

 DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms 

Prohibit landing or launching 

of drones

Allow recreational access 

by permit only

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

Allow 

crosscountry 

hiking- no 

trails 

designated for 

this use

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or launching 

of drones with a permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities, 

educational, and 

interpretive signs 

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones without a 

permit

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles-no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed

camping without a 

permit

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow access for 

unleashed pets

27 For Category A Rocks, while no trails would be designated (none currently exist), overland hiking would continue to be allowed under some alternatives
28

Category B Rocks

Approximate Size: 6 acres

Location: Category B Rocks is a grouping of many rocks throughout 

the San Juan Islands. This category includes Barnes Rocks, Blind Bay

Island Rock, Carter Point Rocks*, Chuckanut Rocks, Davis Bay Island 

and Rocks*, East Sound Blind Island North, John’s Island Rocks*, 

John's Pass Rocks, Leo Reef, Lovers Cove Rocks, Mackaye Harbor 

Rocks*, Mitchell Bay Rocks, Oak Island Rock, Outer Bay Rocks, 

Picnic Point Rocks, Prevost Harbor Rocks, Reid Harbor Rock*, 

Reservation Bay Rocks, Rock Island, Satellite Island Rocks*, 

Unnamed Rocks (Cone Island)*, Unnamed Rocks (Grandma's Cove), 

Unnamed Rocks (Iceberg Point Rocks)*, Unnamed Rocks (Jones Bay 

Rock), Unnamed Rocks (Pear Point and Danger Rocks), Unnamed 

Rock (Seal Rock), Unnamed Rocks (Shaw Island)*, and Unnamed 

Rocks (South Lopez).*28

*Indicates rocks found to have wilderness characteristics.

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Category B

Rocks include: 

“No humans on Chuckanut Rocks due to wildlife.”

“Jones Bay Rocks: Access by permit only for seabird habitat.”

“Leave small rocks only wildlife.”

“Outer Bay Rocks: Allow use at low tide.”

“Any islands or rocks under .5 acres should be observed but no access--protected for wildlife only.”

 

28 For more details on the management of recreation at these sites under each alternative see the section beginning on page 619 in Appendix O; there are no 

current or potential roads or trails on Category B rocks. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
29

Category B Rocks

 

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

 OVERLAND 

HIKING29

 DISCHARGE 

OF FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural and 

ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or launching 

of drones

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development of 

visitor facilities and

educational and 

interpretive signs 

Allow cross 

country hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones without a 

permit

Uses

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT 

LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

horseback ridingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit 

Allow access for 

leashed pets

29 For Category B Rocks, while no trails would be designated (none currently exist), overland hiking would continue to be allowed under some alternatives
30

Cattle Point

Approximate size: 23 acres

Location: Access to the site is along Cattle Point Road 

on San Juan Island. Parking along the road is limited. 

Additional parking is available nearby at the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Cattle Point

Interpretive Center. Currently, a Washington State 

Discover Pass is required to park at the DNR site.30

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Cattle Point include: 

“Please do nothing with [Cattle Point]. Leave it as it is: no signs, no trails, no human use opportunities, with no 

advertising. I value land that shows no sign of human intervention so let’s not invite it here. Let’s give this small 

triangle of land the gift of no development or exploitation and leave it natural and wild like it is.”

“Explore options for well managed hunting of deer.”

“Cattle Point, Iceberg Point, and Watmough Bay would all make ideal human-powered watercraft camping 

locations”

“Plan where trails are best: avoiding special areas, encouraging controlled exploration, making great signs, 

saying no to horses and dogs, NO HUNTING!”

" most visited. Manage for heavy use. Develop trails. One bike trail.

 

30 For more details on the management of recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 622 in Appendix O and the section 

beginning on page 458 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
31

Cattle Point

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hiking -

no trails 

designated for this 

use 

Prohibit 

discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

0.4 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or launching 

of drones with a permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities

and educational and 

interpretive signs 

0.9 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms except 

for half of modern 

firearm and 

muzzleloader deer 

hunting season

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones without 

a permit

1 trail mile open 

to hiking

Uses

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT 

LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit bicyclesno trails 

designated to this 

use 

Prohibit 

horseback ridingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit pets

Allow 

recreational boat 

landing

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by 

non-motorized 

watercraft only

0.1 trail miles 

open to bicycles 

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow access for 

unleashed pets
32

Chadwick Hill

Approximate Size: 294 acres

Location: Chadwick Hill and Marsh are on the 

southeastern end of Lopez Island. The BLM maintains 

an access easement to the site from Watmough Head 

Road. Drive south from Lopez Village on Fisherman 

Bay Road. Keep left onto Mud Bay Road, turn right at 

Aleck Bay Road, then left on Watmough Bay Road. 

Watch for a manila rope stretched across a small field 

road and attached to a green t-post. Park along the road 

edge; avoid blocking mailboxes or driveways.31

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding 

Chadwick Hill include: 

“Chadwick: no horse, bike traffic on trails. Passive use only. No camping

anywhere.”

“ Seasonality for bicycles (mt. bikes) and horse-Chadwick.”

“No signage, no camping, no advertisement, no app, at trail.”

“I value the opportunity to take this historic trail on horseback as Lopez

settlers did!”

“Hunting here only ok.”

“I would like this area to have the possibility of a new multi-use trail system developed--especially for 

equestrian use.”

“Manage for individual use for non-fire overnight visioning retreat or coming of age ritual fasting.”

 

31 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 625 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 465 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
33

Chadwick Hill

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE 

OF FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit 

hiking - no 

trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit 

discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

2.9 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones 

with a permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

5 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms except 

for half of modern 

firearm and 

muzzleloader deer 

hunting season

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones 

without a permit 5.6 trail miles 

open to hiking

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING

 

BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles - no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

horseback ridingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

3.4 trail miles 

open to 

bicycles 

2.4 trail miles 

open to 

horseback riding 

Allow access 

for leashed 

pets

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

4.1 trail miles 

open to 

horseback riding 

Allow access 

for unleashed 

pets
34

Eliza Point

Approximate Size: 4 acres

Location: Eliza Island is a small island approximately 

1.5 miles by boat from the southwest tip of Lummi 

Island. Adjacent land is private; therefore, BLMadministered land is accessible only by water.32

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Eliza Point include: 

“Allow [boat] landing.”

“Maintain existing trail in partnership with the local community.”

“Work with Eliza community to maintain benefits they receive but consider ways to extend benefits to outsiders.”

 

32 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 628 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 473 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
35

Eliza Point

Uses

 RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural and 

ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for this 

use 

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive and 

educational signs at 

trailheads only

0.06 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with a 

permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development of 

visitor facilities and 

educational and 

interpretive signs

0.3 trail miles 

open to hiking

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones 

without a permit

Uses

 RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

boat landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit bicyclesno trails 

designated for this 

use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational boat 

landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

Allow access for 

unleashed pets
36

Iceberg Point

Approximate Size: 97 acres

Location: Iceberg Point is located on the 

southwest tip of Lopez Island. Park at Agate 

Beach County Park’s day-use area. Hike south 

along the Mackaye Harbor road past where the 

"End of County Road" sign is posted. Turn right at 

Bat and Ball Lane, onto the driveway with a green 

metal gate (go around the gate). Follow this 

private road and stay to the left at the fork for 

about 0.5 miles to access BLM-administered 

lands.33

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Iceberg Point include: 

“Limit people to the well-marked main trails. No bikes. No horses. No camping. No fires.”

“Cattle Point, Iceberg Point, and Watmough Bay would all make ideal human-powered watercraft 

camping locations”

“Please restore the meadow. Get rid of all of the new growth Douglas fir, snow berries, blackberries, wild 

rose, and all of the other brush! Get some sheep or goats to "mow" the meadow.”

“Close remaining wildflower and lichen meadows to recreational use.”

“Continue the hidden trailhead kiosk. No direct advertisement helps stop human traffic.” 

“Given the number of visitors [at] Iceberg--should there be an outhouse facility provided there?”

“I'd like a trail on the entire north side of Iceberg, especially along cove in front of Johnsons. I want this 

to be a single track trail without any social trails. Preferably hiking only.”

“Iceberg, Watmough, and Chadwick: Allow bikes on trails. Good idea to close in wet season.”

 

33 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 631 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 481 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS. 
37

Iceberg Point

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 

INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE 

OF FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

2.5 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones 

with a permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

3.9 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms except 

for half of modern 

firearm and 

muzzleloader deer 

hunting season

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones 

without a permit

4.9 trail miles 

open to hiking

Uses

RECREATIONAL 

BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails designated 

for this use 

Prohibit 

horseback ridingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit 

pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

2.4 trail miles 

open to bicycles 

2.4 miles open to 

horseback riding 

Allow 

access for 

leashed pets

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by 

non-motorized 

watercraft only

Allow 

access for 

unleashed 

pets
38

Islands

Approximate Size: 43 acres

Location: Blind Island, Broken Point Island, Fauntleroy Rock*, Freeman 

Island*, Indian Island, Little Patos Island*, Lummi Rocks*, McConnell 

Rocks*, Mud Island, Oak Island*, Park Bay Island*, Posey Island, Reads 

Bay Island*, Richardson Rocks (larger rock/island), Skull Island*, Twin 

Rocks, Victim Island*34

*Islands found to have wilderness characteristics

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding islands in the 

Monument include: 

“Indian Island-seasonal closure or permanent closure of human access.”

“Indian Island-Dirt bikes should be allowed w/access from the spit.”

“Fauntleroy Rock: Access by permit only--allow access by Decatur 

Residents and research by students at Decatur school.”

“Reads Bay Island- Develop no trails, restore existing areas impacted by 

trails.”

“Little Patos should be observed but no human access. Similar to NWR 

would protect the beauty of the archipelago and safe haven for wildlife.”

“Our overnight campsite wish list: 1. Turn Point Light Station, 2. Cattle Point Lighthouse, 3. Iceberg Point, 4. Point Colville or nearby, 

5. Davis Bay Island, 6. Reads Bay Island, 7. Kanaka Bay Islands, 8. King Islands, 9. Kellet Bluff, 10. Dot Island, 11. Skull Island, 

12. Victim Island, 13. Pudding Island, 14. Parks Bay Island

 

34 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 634 in 

Appendix O and the pertinent sections in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
39

Islands

 

UsesUses

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING35 DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural and 

ecological values

Prohibit hiking- no 

trails designated for 

this use 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Allow recreational access 

by permit only

Install interpretive and 

educational signs at 

trailheads only

1 trail mile open to 

hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without a permit

Allow development of 

visitor facilities and 

educational and 

interpretive signs

1.4 trail miles open to 

hiking 

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones 

without a permit 2 trail miles open to 

hiking

Uses

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT 

LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

boat landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit bicycles- no 

trails designated for 

this use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed camping 

without a permit

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow dispersed camping 

with a permit (one group 

per night, max 5 campers)

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by nonmotorized watercraft only

Allow access for 

unleashed pets

35 Trail miles open to hiking are the total trail miles across all islands in this potential RMA. See the Blind Island, Broken Point Island, Freeman Island, Indian 

Island, Lummi Rocks, McConnell Rocks, Oak Island, Posey Island, Reads Bay Island, Skull Island, and Victim Island sections in Appendix O: Draft Travel and 

Transportation Management for information on specific potential trail segments. The remaining islands do not have existing or potential trails. 
40

Kellett Bluff

Approximate Size: 63 acres

Location: Kellett Bluff is located on the southern end 

of Henry Island. Access to Kellett Bluff is limited to a 

rocky and steep shoreline.36

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Kellett Bluff include: 

“I would not like to see any more trails on Kellett Bluff. There is currently a primitive trail.”

“No camping, day use only, encourage oak habitat, one single trail, buy neighboring parcel.”

“Add trails and picnic facilities at Kellett Bluff.”

“Allow for permitted, non-fire visioning and coming of age retreats.”

“Badly degraded meadows. Weed control and trails would be OK, but needs a legal access point!”

“Our overnight campsite wish list: 1. Turn Point Light Station, 2. Cattle Point Lighthouse, 

3. Iceberg Point, 4. Point Colville or nearby, 5. Davis Bay Island, 6. Reads Bay Island, 

7. Kanaka Bay Islands, 8. King Islands, 9. Kellet Bluff, 10. Dot Island, 11. Skull Island, 

12. Victim Island, 13. Pudding Island, 14. Parks Bay Island

 

36 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 638 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 498 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
41

Kellett Bluff

Uses

 RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hiking -

no trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Allow recreational access 

by permit only

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

0.2 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

1 trail mile open 

to hiking

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

Uses

 RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails designated 

for this use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

Allow access for 

unleashed pets
42

Lopez Pass (Sperry Point)

Approximate Size: 1 acre

Location: Lopez Pass is located on the northern 

point of Lopez Island’s Sperry Peninsula and is 

currently accessible only by water.37

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Lopez Pass include: 

“Sperry Point--Kayak Landing--Camping.”

“Like to see Sperry open to camping and maintained trails. Bird blinds.”

“make sure this stays open and available to kayaks and available for permitted, overnight non-fire 

visioning and coming of age retreats.”

“Sperry Point--what are kayaker visitation options on Sperry Pt? I value public landing and camping sites 

throughout the islands.”

 

37 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 641 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 502 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
43

Lopez Pass (Sperry Point)

Uses

 RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 

INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hiking 

- no trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Allow recreational access 

by permit only

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

0.06 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

0.09 trail miles 

open to hiking

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

Uses

RECREATIONAL 

BOAT LANDING CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by 

non-motorized 

watercraft

Allow access for 

unleashed pets
44

Patos Island

Approximate Size: 211 acres

Location: Patos Island is located approximately 

five miles northwest of Orcas Island. Patos is 

accessible only by boat. No commercial ferry 

service available.38

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Patos Island include: 

“Meadow land leading to Patos lighthouse is a prime candidate for restoration. The use of chemical in 

addition to hand pulling would reduce weeds and help an already impressive camas community.”

“Maintain current level of access. No additional trails or campsite development.”

“Build a loop trail to E side of island.”

“Assess putting a trail around east perimeter/north side of island w/ possible shifting of some primitive 

campsites to north side.”

“Patos--more tribal awareness.”

“Love docent opportunities and restoration of lighthouse.” 

 

38 For more details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 644 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 519 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
45

Patos Island

Uses

 RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE 

OF FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hiking 

- no trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive and 

educational signs at 

trailheads only

2.1 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or launching 

of drones with a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development of 

visitor facilities and 

educational and 

interpretive signs

3 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

4 trail miles 

open to hiking

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING

 

\ HORSEBACK

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches 

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

horseback ridingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by 

non-motorized 

watercraft only

Allow access for 

unleashed pets
46

Point Colville

Approximate Size: 75 acres

Location: Point Colville is located on the southeast 

corner of Lopez Island. Park in the Watmough Bay 

trailhead parking area and hike westerly along the 

access road and turn left. Head easterly approximately 

.4 miles until you see the two large Douglas-firs crossed 

high above the road. The Point Colville trailhead is on 

the right.39

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Point Colville include:

“Designate and improve a single looping route. Close all dead-end trails and all trails on lichen covered 

rocks.”

“Please do not create overt signage on roads to publicize this part of the monument. I appreciate that this 

is more of a private, local hike.” 

“No camping, no advertising, no bikes, no app, no horses.” 

“Leave trail maintained and open as equestrian trail.”

“No parking there at trail entrance--make new parking lot for Pt. Colville at Watmough at Beck edge 

boundary and dirt road.”

“Expand trail system to make use of west side of Colville.”

“Ban hunting Point Colville.”

“Allow continued, well-managed hunting of deer.”

 

39 More details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each see the section beginning on page 647 in Appendix O and 

the section beginning on page 526 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
47

Point Colville

Uses

 RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

1.2 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

2.4 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms except for 

half of modern firearm 

and muzzleloader deer 

hunting season

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

Uses

 RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails designated 

for this use40 

Prohibit horseback 

riding-no trails 

designated for this 

use40

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

1.5 trail miles 

open to bicycles

1.3 trail miles open to

horseback riding

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

Allow access for 

unleashed pets

 

40 If an area is open to recreational access, the BLM would allow bicycle and horseback riding use on roads it administers, e.g., if Point Colville is open to 

recreational access, bicycles and horses would be allowed on the BLM-administered segment of Watmough Head Road. 
48

President Channel (also known as Government Lot 2)

Approximate Size: 32 acres

Location: President Channel is located on Orcas 

Island and is currently only accessible by water. 

Access from the water is steep and rocky.41

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding President Channel include:

“Manage as wilderness, allow camping for those who arrive via human power via water in a limited 

number of marked campsites by permit only.”

“Provide kayak landing area and trail connecting to land bank trail system on turtle back. Restrict use 

seasonally if applicable for nesting or other animal conservation needs, or fragile landscape conservation. 

But please don't implement another deforestation/clearcut for single "species restoration"

(i.e., Garry oaks!)”

“Valued for potential kayak haul-out, picnicking, and link to Turtle Back trail system.”

 

41 More details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 650 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 541 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
49

President Channel

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 

INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE 

OF FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hiking 

- no trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Allow recreational access 

by permit only

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

Allow cross 

country hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones 

with a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

0.5 miles open 

to hiking

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

Uses

RECREATIONAL

BOAT LANDING

CAMPING BICYCLING HORSEBACK

RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit 

horseback ridingno trails 

designated for 

this use

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

Allow access 

for leashed 

pets

Allow dispersed 

camping without a 

permit

Allow access 

for unleashed 

pets
50

Turn Point

Approximate Size: 86 acres

Location: Turn Point is located on Stuart Island, 

which is not accessible via ferry service. A small 

graveled beach with submerged rocks on the 

western edge and south of Turn Point provides 

access for small non-motorized watercraft.42

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Turn Point include:

“Existing trails are good, promote ‘respect private properties.’”

“Explore options for managed hunting including collaborations with tribes and tribal youth.” 

“Light station—living quarters made to appear as it did during early operation-to be toured as a walkthru ‘museum’. Charge fee or donation.”

“Cute new toilet but very overused—need more adequate toilet facilities.” 

“Turn Point should have more signage about steep cliffs and dangerous areas.”

“No fires, no hunting.”

“Our overnight campsite wish list: 1. Turn Point Light Station, 2. Cattle Point Lighthouse, 

3. Iceberg Point, 4. Point Colville or nearby, 5. Davis Bay Island, 6. Reads Bay Island, 

7. Kanaka Bay Islands, 8. King Islands, 9. Kellet Bluff, 10. Dot Island, 11. Skull Island, 12. Victim Island, 13. Pudding Island, 

14. Parks Bay Island”

 

42 More details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 653 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 556 in Appendix H. Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31 of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
51

Turn Point

 

Uses

RECREATIONAL

ACCESS

INTERPRETATION

AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational access Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hiking -

no trails 

designated for this 

use

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

1 trail mile open 

to hiking 

Allow discharge 

of firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

1.2 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Prohibit discharge 

of firearms except 

for half of modern 

firearm and 

muzzleloader deer 

hunting season

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

1.4 miles open to 

hiking

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL 

 BOAT LANDING

CAMPING

 

BICYCLING

 

HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit bicyclesno trails designated 

for this use43 

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use43

Prohibit pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

Allow dispersed 

camping with a permit 

(one group per night, 

max 5 campers)

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow designated site 

camping accessed by 

non-motorized 

watercraft only

Allow access for 

unleashed pets

43 If an area is open to recreational access, the BLM would allow bicycle and horseback riding use on BLM-administered roads, e.g., if Turn Point is open to 

recreational access, bicycles and horses would be allowed on the BLM-administered access road to the light station.
52

Watmough Bay

Approximate Size: 37 acres

Location: Watmough Bay is on the southeastern 

end of Lopez Island.44

Examples of comments the BLM received regarding Watmough Bay include:

Iceberg Point, Watmough Bay, Chadwick Hill: Favor modest trail networks open for hike/bike with 

adequate signage and monitoring to flag/restrict when overuse threatens delicate areas. Bikes should be 

restricted to major trails, and prohibited in wet conditions or when over use tears up the base.”

“How about improving the swell outhouse. Could you have water available?”

“Add trails at Watmough and Chadwick Hill.”

“I prefer people use only. Bike, horses--no. Find other places for them.”

“ I would like for there to be seasonal restrictions for tourists in this area. This beach is a spiritual haven 

for me and to have it full of people all summer long is sad.”

“Protect the beach and shallows from disturbance--no fires, digging, camping--no motorized watercraft 

on beach--this is a critical Puget Sound Chinook nursery.”

I would like to ride the out and back trail to Watmough Beach off season, off hours for equestrian use.”

 

44 More details on the management of travel and transportation and recreation at this site under each alternative see the section beginning on page 656 in 

Appendix O and the section beginning on page 572 in Appendix H). Information on potential shooting closures is on page 31of Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.
53

Watmough Bay

 

Uses

 

RECREATIONAL

 ACCESS

 INTERPRETATION 

 AND FACILITIES

HIKING DISCHARGE OF 

FIREARMS

DRONES

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit recreational 

access

Install signs only as 

needed to protect the 

public and cultural 

and ecological values

Prohibit hikingno trails 

designated for 

this use 

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms 

Prohibit landing or 

launching of drones

Install interpretive 

and educational signs 

at trailheads only

0.6 trail miles 

open to hiking 

Allow discharge of 

firearms

Allow landing or 

launching of drones with 

a permit

Allow recreational access 

without permit

Allow development 

of visitor facilities 

and educational and 

interpretive signs

1 trail miles 

open to hiking

Prohibit discharge of 

firearms except for 

half of modern firearm 

and muzzleloader deer 

hunting season

Allow the landing or 

launching of drones

Uses

RECREATIONAL 

BOAT LANDING

CAMPING

 

BICYCLING HORSEBACK 

 RIDING

PETS

Alternative Approaches

Prohibit 

recreational boat 

landing

Prohibit camping Prohibit 

bicycles- no 

trails designated 

for this use45

Prohibit horseback 

riding- no trails 

designated for this 

use45

Prohibit pets

1 trail mile open 

to bicycles 

0.2 trail miles open to 

Allow non- horseback riding 

motorized 

recreational boat 

landing only

Allow access for 

leashed pets

Allow recreational 

boat landing

0.6 miles open to 

horseback riding 

Allow access for 

unleashed pets

45 If an area is open to recreational access, the BLM would allow bicycle and horseback riding use on roads it administers, e.g., if Watmough Bay is open to 

recreational access, bicycles and horses would be allowed on the BLM-administered segment of the road accessing the parking area. 
55

4. Glossary

Alternatives: The range of management approaches found in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS 

are called “alternatives.” Alternatives help organize the analysis and compare impacts between 

different approaches and current management (the No Action Alternative). The Proposed RMP 

may be a modification of the design of the preferred alternative, a modification of the design of a 

different alternative analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, a new alternative from within the spectrum 

of alternatives considered in the Draft RMP/EIS, or an alternative analyzed in the Draft 

RMP/EIS as written. For instance, the BLM could choose recreation elements from one 

alternative, and cultural resource and vegetation treatment elements from another alternative to 

develop the Proposed RMP. 

Effects Analysis: The BLM NEPA Handbook (USDOI BLM 2008) states that effects analysis 

“predicts the degree to which the resource would be affected upon implementation of an action” 

(p.54). Effects analysis describes effects to the natural and physical environment, as well as the 

relationship of people with that environment. Effects may be both beneficial and/or detrimental. 

They can occur both directly (same time and place) or indirectly (later time or farther removed in 

distance from the action) (USDOI BLM 2008). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A NEPA document prepared by a federal agency to 

analyze the impacts of a proposed action (and alternatives to that action) on the human 

environment. The 40 CFR 1502.1 states: “An EIS informs decision makers and the public of the 

reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality 

of the human environment. An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure 

document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan 

actions and make decisions.”

Implementation-Level Decisions: Whereas land use plan-level decisions establish objectives 

and allowable (including restricted or prohibited) uses and actions anticipated to achieve desired 

outcomes, implementation-level decisions determine how, where or when on-the-ground actions 

to carry out a land use plan will take place. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (USDOI

BLM 2005) states, “implementation decisions generally constitute BLM’s final approval 

allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. These types of decisions require appropriate sitespecific planning and NEPA analysis” (pp.29-30). 

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs): Recreation management areas are units of BLMadministered land that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, 

demand, or facilities. Through an RMP, the BLM identifies visitor use objectives and management 

actions and allowable use decisions to achieve these objectives. There are two types of recreation 

management areas, extensive and special.

46

 

46 Since the purpose and need (see Appendix 2 below) for the planning effort is focused on conserving, protecting, 

and restoring the Monument objectives and values (which do not include recreation), the BLM is only considering 

designating extensive recreation management areas (where recreation is managed commensurate with other 

resources) through this plan.
56

Shoreline stabilization--Soft: Soft shoreline stabilization generally uses natural materials such 

as logs, native plants, and rocks that are found on or near the site, though artificial materials may 

be used to anchor the natural materials. Soft stabilization measures generally reduce the 

magnitude and severity of erosion without entirely preventing it; natural processes such as 

movement of water, fauna, flora, and sediment along the shoreline margins are allowed to 

continue. Soft stabilization measures include, but are not limited to, anchoring logs to eroding 

shoreline and sand replenishment followed by the planting of native vegetation. 

Shoreline stabilization—Hard: Hard shoreline stabilization uses primarily artificial elements to 

entirely harden and stabilize the shoreline to which the measures are applied. Hard shoreline 

stabilization prevents the movement of sediment along the shoreline margins. Hard stabilization 

measures include, but are not limited to, rip rap, gabions, and bulkheads. 

Travel and Transportation Management: The on-the-ground management and administration 

of travel and transportation networks (both motorized and non-motorized) to ensure that public 

and administrative access are met, resources are protected, and regulatory needs are considered. 

It consists of implementation, education, enforcement, monitoring, easement acquisition, 

mapping and signing, and other measures necessary for providing access to public lands for a 

wide variety of uses (including those for administrative, recreational, traditional, authorized, 

commercial, and educational), as well as all forms of motorized and non-motorized access or 

use, such as foot, equestrian, mountain bike, and off-highway vehicle.

5. References

USDOI BLM 2018. San Juan Islands National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tP

ageId=63826

USDOI BLM 2016. BLM Travel and Transportation Management Manual 1626. Available at: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/Media%20Center%20BLM%20

Policy%20Manual%20MS%201626.pdf

USDOI BLM 2008. H-1790-1 National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. National 

Environmental Policy Act Program. Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable 

Resources and Planning (WO-200), Washington, DC. Available at 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_Handboo

k_h1790-1.pdf

USDOI BLM 2005. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1. Available at: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_Handboo

k_h1601-1.pdf

USDOI BLM 1990. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Decision Available at:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual1613.pdf
57

6. Appendices

Appendix 1: Presidential Proclamation 8947

Establishment of the San Juan Islands National Monument

by the President of the United States of America

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

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

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

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

diverse habitats supported by the islands. The presence of archeological sites, historic 

lighthouses, and a few tight-knit communities testifies that humans have navigated this rugged 

landscape for thousands of years. These lands are a refuge of scientific and historic treasures and 

a classroom for generations of Americans. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

years old) have been found in several areas, indicating that these islands were an historic 

mammal dispersal corridor. Butcher marks on some of these bones suggest that the earliest 

human inhabitants hunted these large animals. 

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

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

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

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

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

their associated buildings are located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM): Patos Island Light Station (National Register of Historic Places, 1977) and Turn Point 

Light Station (Washington State Register of Historic Places, 1978). 

The lands on Patos Island, Stuart Island, Lopez Island, and neighboring islands constitute some 

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

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

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

and open woodlands, some of which are several hundred years old, include a majestic 

assemblage of trees, such as Douglas fir, red cedar, western hemlock, Oregon maple, Garry oak, 

and Pacific madrone. The fire-dependent grasslands, which are also susceptible to invasive 
58

species, are home to chick lupine, historically significant great camas, brittle cactus, and the 

threatened golden paintbrush. Rocky balds and bluffs are home to over 200 species of moss that 

are extremely sensitive to disturbance and trampling. In an area with limited fresh water, two 

wetlands on Lopez Island and one on Patos Island are the most significant freshwater habitats in 

the San Juan Islands. 

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

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

stream of wildlife watchers. Native, terrestrial mammals include black-tail deer, river otter, 

mink, several bats, and the Shaw Island vole. Raptors, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons, 

are commonly observed soaring above the islands. Varied seabirds and terrestrial birds can also 

be found here, including the threatened marbled murrelet and the recently reintroduced western 

bluebird. The island marble butterfly, once thought to be extinct, is currently limited to a small 

population in the San Juan Islands. 

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

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

of all Americans. 

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

Act"), authorizes the President, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic 

landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest 

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

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

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

the objects to be protected; 

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

lands of the San Juan Islands; 

Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, by the authority 

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

that are situated upon lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Government of the 

United States to be the San Juan Islands National Monument (monument), and, for the purpose 

of protecting those objects, reserve as a part thereof all lands and interests in lands owned or 

controlled by the Government of the United States and administered by the Department of the 

Interior through the BLM, including all unappropriated or unreserved islands, rocks, exposed 

reefs, and pinnacles above mean high tide, within the boundaries described on the accompanying 

map, which is attached to and forms a part of this proclamation. These reserved Federal lands 

and interests in lands encompass approximately 970 acres, which is the smallest area compatible 

with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. 

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

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

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

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

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

furthers the protective purposes of this proclamation. 
59

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applicable legal authorities. 

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

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

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

information and advice regarding the development of such plan. 

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

motorized vehicle use in the monument shall be permitted only on designated roads, and nonmotorized mechanized vehicle use in the monument shall be permitted only on designated roads 

and trails. 

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

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

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

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

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

Sites). 

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

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

territorial waters off the coast of Washington. 

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

of Washington with respect to fish and wildlife management. 

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

Security to engage in search and rescue operations, or to use Patos Island Light Station, Turn 

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

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

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

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

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

vicinity of the monument. 
60

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

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

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of March, in the year of 

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

hundred and thirty-seventh.
61

Appendix 2: Draft RMP/EIS Purpose and Need Statement

The “purpose and need” is a formal statement developed for each BLM planning effort. Any 

potential management approach that does not fill the need and achieve all of the purposes 

described in the statement is not considered a reasonable approach that should be analyzed in 

the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Proclamation 8947 establish the 

need for this action. The FLPMA requires the BLM to develop RMPs that provide for the use of 

public lands. The proclamation specifies that the BLM ‘‘shall prepare and maintain a 

management plan for the monument...” The BLM does not currently manage the Monument 

under an RMP.

The purpose of this RMP is to provide goals, objectives, and management direction to guide the 

BLM’s management of the Monument. These goals, objectives, and management direction must 

conserve, protect, and restore the objects of historic and scientific interest identified in 

Proclamation 8947. 

The purpose of the RMP includes protection and restoration of cultural and historical resources 

identified in the proclamation, including traditional use areas of the Coast Salish people and 

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

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

Additionally, the purpose of the RMP includes protecting and restoring historical resources 

associated with early Euro-American settlement found in the Monument, such as lighthouses and 

associated structures. 

The purpose of the RMP regarding scientific and ecological resources is to protect and restore 

the wide array of habitats described in the proclamation, including forests, fire dependent 

grasslands, and wetlands, as well as bluffs, rocky balds, and shorelines. The RMP will promote 

the continuation of the diversity of habitats critical to supporting a varied collection of native 

wildlife, including special status species. 

An additional purpose of the RMP is to address increases in human uses of the Monument. The 

RMP will address recreation, education, and scientific uses consistent with the protection and 

restoration of the objects and values described above. 

The RMP will also safeguard tribal treaty rights, and will, as provided for in the proclamation “in 

consultation with Indian tribes, ensure the protection of religious and cultural sites in the 

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

customary uses, consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 1996) and 

Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites).” 

In determining the suite of management actions necessary to protect and restore the Monument 

for present and future generations, this RMP responds to three important sources of overarching 

requirements and guidance: 

 Presidential Proclamation 8947 of March 25, 2013, which created the Monument and 

identified the objects for protection and restoration.

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

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

conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes.” This section also provides 
62

that the BLM manage these lands “in a manner that protects the values for which the 

components of the system were designated.” 

 The FLPMA, which provides the basic underpinnings for the BLM’s management of public 

lands. Section 302 of the FLPMA states that the BLM is to manage public lands under the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield “except that where a tract of such public land 

has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be 

managed in accordance with such law.” Therefore, as a general rule, if a presidential 

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

mandate, the Monument designating language will apply.

Recognizing these purposes, there is a need for an RMP for the San Juan Island National 

Monument to ensure that the long-term management of these lands achieves a level of protection 

and restoration consistent with the guidance described above.
63

Appendix 3: List of Preparers

An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and managers from the BLM field offices, 

districts, and the Oregon/Washington state office prepared and conducted the analysis for the 

Draft RMP/EIS including: 

San Juan Islands National Monument Office, Lopez Island

Marcia deChadenedes, Monument Manager

Jennifer McNew, GIS Specialist

Nick Teague, Recreation Planner 

Oregon State Office, Portland

Stewart Allen, Socioeconomic Specialist

Mike Brown, Natural Resource Specialist, State Soil/Water/Air Program Lead

Al Doelker, Natural Resource Specialist/State Water/Riparian Program Lead (now 

retired)

Louisa Evers, OR/WA Science and Climate Change Coordinator (Carbon and Climate 

Change and Fire and Fuels)

Chris Knauf, Travel and Transportation Specialist

Zach Jarrett, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Lauren Pidot, Planner and Interdisciplinary Team Lead

Dale Stewart, Natural Resource Specialist (Soils) (now retired)

Wenatchee Field Office

Molly Boyter, Botanist

Brent Cunderla, Geologist (now retired)

Anjolene Price, Planning and Environmental Specialist

Chris Sheridan, Ecologist

Benjamin Toole, Wildlife Biologist

J.A. Vacca, Wildlife Biologist (no longer on team due to new position)

Mark Williams, Forester and Invasive Plant Specialist 

Spokane District Office

Rich Bailey, Archeologist

Elizabeth Earp, Physical Scientist (HazMat)

Mark Hatchel, Realty Specialist (now retired)

Richard Parrish, Assistant Spokane Fire Management Officer

Greg Thorhaug, GIS Specialist

Coeur d’Alene District Office

Carrie Hugo, Wildlife Biologist 

Jim Hammons, GIS Specialist
64

Appendix 4: Substantive Comments

Substantive comments are those that reveal new information, missing information, or flawed 

analysis that would substantially change conclusions (USDOI BLM 2005, pp.23-24). The BLM 

NEPA Handbook (USDOI BLM 2008, p.66) states that substantive comments must do one or 

more of the following: 

 Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS. 

 Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used 

for the environmental analysis. 

 Present new information relevant to the analysis. 

 Present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the EIS. 

 Cause changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives. 

Nonsubstantive comments (i.e., opinions, assertions, and unsubstantiated claims) include:

 Comments in favor of or against the alternatives without reasoning that meet the criteria 

listed above (such as “we disagree with Alternative Two and believe the BLM should 

select Alternative Three”). 

 Comments that only agree or disagree with BLM policy or resource decisions without 

justification or supporting data that meet the criteria listed above (such as “more 

recreation should be permitted”). 

 Comments that do not pertain to the planning or project area (such as “the BLM should 

eliminate all air traffic,” when the BLM does not administer or have legal jurisdiction 

over air space). 

 Comments that take the form of vague, open-ended questions. 

BLM Response to Substantive Comments

Comments must be in writing (including paper or electronic format), substantive, and timely, in 

order to merit a written response in the Final EIS. While the BLM may also consider oral 

comments given at public meetings and workshops, to ensure that the true intent of the comment 

is captured, the commenter should record his or her comment in writing. 

The BLM considers all comments regardless of the geographic location, organizational 

affiliation, or other status of the respondents. Additionally, the BLM does not give different 

consideration to comments based on the number of submissions making the same comment.

40 CFR 1503.4, and Section 6.9.2.2 of the BLM NEPA Handbook, recognize several options for 

the BLM to respond to substantive comments, including: 
65

 Modifying one or more of the alternatives as requested.

 Developing and evaluating suggested alternatives. 

 Supplementing, improving, or modifying the analysis. 

 Making factual corrections. 

 Explaining why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing cases, 

authorities, or reasons to support the BLM’s position47.

The BLM is not required to respond to comments that are not substantive or comments 

that are received after the close of the 90-day comment period.

 

47 USDOI BLM 2008, p.66
66

Appendix 5: Next Steps

YOU ARE HERE: 90-Day Draft RMP/EIS Comment Period

The BLM is releasing the Draft RMP/EIS for a 90-day comment period during which the public

and other governmental organizations review and provide feedback on the draft impact analysis; 

approaches to management (alternatives), including specific approaches to human uses and 

vegetation treatments; and other suggestions for the BLM to consider in developing the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS.

BLM Comment Review and Proposed RMP/Final EIS Development

Following the 90-day comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM will review the 

comments and work with cooperating agencies to develop a Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

The BLM will develop a Proposed RMP either as a modification of the design an alternative 

analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, a new alternative from within the spectrum of alternatives 

considered in the Draft RMP/EIS, or an alternative analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS as written. 

In the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM will also provide copies or summaries of substantive

comments (Appendix 4 above) on the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM responses to those comments, 

and changes or additions to the text of the Draft RMP/EIS in response to comments. 

Protest and Governor’s Consistency Review

Following publication of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, any person who participated in the 

planning process and has an interest that may be adversely affected by the approval of the 

Proposed RMP may protest to the Director of the BLM within 30 days of the publication of the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM will submit the Proposed RMP to the Governor of 

Washington to identify any known inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or 

programs.

BLM Prepares Record of Decision (ROD)

Following resolution of any protests and the completion of the consistency review by the 

Governor of Washington, the BLM will prepare a Record of Decision/RMP (ROD/RMP) to 

approve the Proposed RMP. The ROD/RMP will identify the decision by the State Director on 

the RMP revision and the rationale for the decision. The ROD/RMP will also contain the RMP 

itself, including the land use allocations, management objectives, and management direction. 

BLM Finalizes ROD and RMP

The publication of the ROD/RMP will represent the completion of the RMP development 

process. Following publication of the ROD/RMP, the BLM will take only those management 

actions that are consistent with the goals, objectives, or management direction of the approved 

RMP, through additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis as needed for site-specific 

proposals.
67

Need More Information?

Attend a Public Meeting

The BLM is planning a series of public meetings after the release of the Draft RMP/EIS. The 

purpose of these meetings is to help members of the public understand the content of the Draft 

RMP/EIS and provide meaningful and constructive comments. 

Scheduled public meetings include the following locations and times:

November 5 - 6:00-8:00 PM, Woodman Hall

4102 Fisherman Bay Rd, Lopez Island

November 6 - 6:00-8:00 PM, San Juan Island Grange

152 1st St N, Friday Harbor, San Juan Island

November 7 - 6:00-8:00 PM, Orcas Island Library

500 Rose St., Eastsound, Orcas Island

November 8 - 6:00-8:00 PM, Squalicum Boathouse

2600 N Harbor Loop Dr, Bellingham

November 9 - 6:00-8:00 PM, Anacortes Library

1220 10th St, Anacortes

Contact Lead Planner, Lauren Pidot

Email: blm_or_sanjuanislandsnm@blm.gov

Phone: (503) 808-6297

Stop By or Call the BLM Lopez Island Office

37 Washburn Place, Lopez, WA 98261

Phone: (360) 468-3754
68

When is the Comment Deadline?

Comments on the Draft RMP/EIS are due within 90 days of publication of the Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register on October 5, 2018. 

The comment period will end on January 3, 2019. 

Where Do I Submit My Comments?

During the comment period, submit comments using one of the following methods:

Email: blm_or_sanjuanislandsnm@blm.gov

Regular Mail: San Juan Islands National Monument

 BLM Lopez Island Office

 PO Box 3

 Lopez, WA 98261

Hand Delivery at: Any Public Meeting (see list above in Need More Information)

San Juan Islands National Monument

BLM Lopez Island Office

37 Washburn Place, 

Lopez, WA 98261

Spokane District

BLM Spokane Office

1103 N Fancher Rd, 

Spokane Valley, WA 99212

All information in your comments including your address, phone number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information is maintained as a BLM record. Although your personally 

identifying information is sensitive and protected from public access, it may be made available 

under a Freedom of Information Act request. You may request in your comment that your 

personal identifying information be withheld from public review although the BLM is unable to 

guarantee full protection of such information. Please consider all information you may want to 

include in your comments.