alexsidles
Paddler
I'm a little late to this news, but the 30-day protest period is now open with regard to the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and associated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the San Juan Islands National Monument. The decision to adopt the RMP has been made, so no further comment need be submitted. However, anyone opposed to the RMP must submit an administrative protest no later than December 22. Failure to submit a protest will foreclose further appeal of the decision.
Details, including links to the plan itself and a helpful FAQ are available here: https://sanjuanislander.com/news-ar...ment-management-plan-ready-for-public-comment
For those not familiar with the issues, here is some background and my own take:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long owned about 1,000 acres in the San Juan Islands. The most notable of these landholdings are Cattle Point on San Juan Island and Iceberg Point and Watmough Bay on Lopez Island. The BLM landholdings also include many small, uninhabited island suitable for day visits or even camping by kayakers, a summary of which I provided in an earlier post here. (The BLM islands are not to be confused with the more numerous National Wildlife Refuge islands, which are closed to visitors.)
Activities on BLM land are supposed to be governed by a RMP specific to each BLM landholding. However, BLM never developed an RMP for its San Juan Islands holdings. I suspect the San Juan Islands holdings were too small, too isolated from any other BLM holdings, and too distant from BLM's regional office in Spokane. For decades, activities in the San Juan Islands BLM lands were regulated not by a site-specific RMP but by the general BLM regulations. Some of the general BLM regulations are friendly to kayakers: for example, no-permit, no-fee, dispersed camping is allowed anywhere on these lands. Others of the general BLM regulations are hostile to kayakers: for example, BLM could have approved livestock, timber, or mining leases on these lands. In addition, BLM had the power to sell off its holdings to private interests, and some such sales were proposed (though not completed) in the 1970s.
There were some exceptions to the general laissez-faire regime. Some of BLM's largest San Juan holdings, including almost all of the ones on Lopez Island, were designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The ACECs were subject to highly protective rules, including no commercial leases and no overnight camping, although day use was allowed. Most of the BLM lands in the San Juans were not ACECs.
Shortly after beginning his second term in office, President Obama exercised his powers under the Antiquities Act to declare all of the BLM holdings in the San Juan Islands a National Monument. This designation prevented the granting of leases or the selling of land. The designation retained no-fee, no-permit dispersed camping. The designation was extremely friendly to kayakers, in that it froze out new development without reducing existing recreational uses, including camping.
The National Monument designation seems to have spurred BLM to finally issue a RMP for its San Juan Islands holdings, which it should have done decades ago. That RMP, and the associated FEIS, is the decision that has now entered its protest period.
In my opinion, the RMP is worse for kayakers than simply leaving the holdings in their current state (that is, National Monument without RMP). The RMP keeps all existing formal campgrounds (which is good), keeps all existing use restrictions in the ACECs while deleting the ACECs themselves (which is fine), and proposes a permitting system for dispersed camping on some, but not all, of the remaining lands (which is bad).
Currently, dispersed camping is allowed on these lands without a permit. The new permit system will, I fear, be bad for kayakers.
First, some islands will be permanently excluded from the permit system and are now closed to camping—or even to day use. The most notable of these closures are Lummi Rocks and McConnell Rocks. (Details available here, in the plan's Appendix R, and summarized at pg. 18 of the RMP/FEIS and pg. 2 of the FAQ). I have camped at Lummi Rocks, and it is a tragedy to lose this site.
Second, prior to the implementation of the permit system, BLM will conduct a survey of remaining dispersed camping lands. If the survey reveals that dispersed camping would impact cultural or ecological resources in a particular site, camping would not be allowed there. Although I support protecting legitimate cultural and ecological resources, I fear the surveying process could lead to large-scale closures. Dispersed camping is not popular among landowners in the San Juans, and I can imagine BLM catering to landowners' interests by closing dispersed camping in the name of culture or ecology.
Finally, once implemented, permits will be limited to one group per night per "recreation management area." Since all of the BLM small island holdings comprise a single RMA, a group of kayakers camping on, say, Freeman Island would preclude any kayakers from camping on, say, Victim Island that same night, even though the two islands are more than 10 miles apart as the kayaker paddles.
Thus, while the RMP is not terrible news for kayakers, and there certainly were worse proposals on the table (including one that would have eliminated all dispersed camping), the net result is yet another loss of island camping in the San Juans.
Alex
Details, including links to the plan itself and a helpful FAQ are available here: https://sanjuanislander.com/news-ar...ment-management-plan-ready-for-public-comment
For those not familiar with the issues, here is some background and my own take:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long owned about 1,000 acres in the San Juan Islands. The most notable of these landholdings are Cattle Point on San Juan Island and Iceberg Point and Watmough Bay on Lopez Island. The BLM landholdings also include many small, uninhabited island suitable for day visits or even camping by kayakers, a summary of which I provided in an earlier post here. (The BLM islands are not to be confused with the more numerous National Wildlife Refuge islands, which are closed to visitors.)
Activities on BLM land are supposed to be governed by a RMP specific to each BLM landholding. However, BLM never developed an RMP for its San Juan Islands holdings. I suspect the San Juan Islands holdings were too small, too isolated from any other BLM holdings, and too distant from BLM's regional office in Spokane. For decades, activities in the San Juan Islands BLM lands were regulated not by a site-specific RMP but by the general BLM regulations. Some of the general BLM regulations are friendly to kayakers: for example, no-permit, no-fee, dispersed camping is allowed anywhere on these lands. Others of the general BLM regulations are hostile to kayakers: for example, BLM could have approved livestock, timber, or mining leases on these lands. In addition, BLM had the power to sell off its holdings to private interests, and some such sales were proposed (though not completed) in the 1970s.
There were some exceptions to the general laissez-faire regime. Some of BLM's largest San Juan holdings, including almost all of the ones on Lopez Island, were designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The ACECs were subject to highly protective rules, including no commercial leases and no overnight camping, although day use was allowed. Most of the BLM lands in the San Juans were not ACECs.
Shortly after beginning his second term in office, President Obama exercised his powers under the Antiquities Act to declare all of the BLM holdings in the San Juan Islands a National Monument. This designation prevented the granting of leases or the selling of land. The designation retained no-fee, no-permit dispersed camping. The designation was extremely friendly to kayakers, in that it froze out new development without reducing existing recreational uses, including camping.
The National Monument designation seems to have spurred BLM to finally issue a RMP for its San Juan Islands holdings, which it should have done decades ago. That RMP, and the associated FEIS, is the decision that has now entered its protest period.
In my opinion, the RMP is worse for kayakers than simply leaving the holdings in their current state (that is, National Monument without RMP). The RMP keeps all existing formal campgrounds (which is good), keeps all existing use restrictions in the ACECs while deleting the ACECs themselves (which is fine), and proposes a permitting system for dispersed camping on some, but not all, of the remaining lands (which is bad).
Currently, dispersed camping is allowed on these lands without a permit. The new permit system will, I fear, be bad for kayakers.
First, some islands will be permanently excluded from the permit system and are now closed to camping—or even to day use. The most notable of these closures are Lummi Rocks and McConnell Rocks. (Details available here, in the plan's Appendix R, and summarized at pg. 18 of the RMP/FEIS and pg. 2 of the FAQ). I have camped at Lummi Rocks, and it is a tragedy to lose this site.
Second, prior to the implementation of the permit system, BLM will conduct a survey of remaining dispersed camping lands. If the survey reveals that dispersed camping would impact cultural or ecological resources in a particular site, camping would not be allowed there. Although I support protecting legitimate cultural and ecological resources, I fear the surveying process could lead to large-scale closures. Dispersed camping is not popular among landowners in the San Juans, and I can imagine BLM catering to landowners' interests by closing dispersed camping in the name of culture or ecology.
Finally, once implemented, permits will be limited to one group per night per "recreation management area." Since all of the BLM small island holdings comprise a single RMA, a group of kayakers camping on, say, Freeman Island would preclude any kayakers from camping on, say, Victim Island that same night, even though the two islands are more than 10 miles apart as the kayaker paddles.
Thus, while the RMP is not terrible news for kayakers, and there certainly were worse proposals on the table (including one that would have eliminated all dispersed camping), the net result is yet another loss of island camping in the San Juans.
Alex
Last edited: