Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout*Other - BOCCThe Commissioners met with Make and Gary Maughn, Curtis Bryan- Bureau of Land Management, Jerry Wise, Jef Galaci, Johnny Buck, Fire District 8, Clyde Lay - Bureau of Reclamation, Rachel Crowley— Senator Murray's Office, Congressman New House Office, Tom Jones and Ryan Rectenwald — Sheriff's Office • Trespassing and theft of petrified wood is rampant on Maughan lands which are all in a checkerboard pattern with BLM and BOR lands making it near impossible for law enforcement to protect private land owners rights on the 5 miles by 18 mile ranch. • Maughans have built a fence to contain the public use but it doesn't mitigate the risk, it just contains the theft and trespassing to less Maughan property. • BLM historical practice on Saddle Mountain has shown that they do not monitor activity or implement controls sufficient to prevent misuse. • Motorbiking trails are not marked and go everywhere, roads are being destroyed and the burned up area from the Powerline fire has not been allowed to recover. • Fire District No. 8 can no longer get their emergency response vehicles up the roads in the BLM OHV recreation area and would have to hike in to recover someone. • Because the lands have not been allowed to recover there has been a lot of sand and dust that blows and fills adjoining orchards, vineyards and the South Slope canal. The sand in the South Slope canal is now filling up farmer's ponds and downstream canals. Some adjacent farmers to these BLM managed lands have not been able to harvest their crops because of the sand and dust. • BLM is supposed to manage BOR lands on the ranch as part of the grazing lease agreement. BOR lands are to be conservation lands that prohibit motorcycle use and other recreation activities. There is rampant motorcycle use on BOR lands and there is also a squatter living in a trailer on the BOR lands. 27-Y-? IAEA" IVA Aill Q-2 V2 " United States Department of the Interior o ;i MANAGEMENT SPOKANE DISTRICT OFFICE EAST -441" MAIN SPOKANE, -WASHINGTON 992C" Record of Decision for Spokane Resource Management Plan Amendment Prepared By Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District Spokane, Washington 1 TAItF�� PRIDE INS !N REPLY REFER TO: Introduction This Resource Management Plan Amendment documents the changes in decisions reached by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for managing 340,000 acres of public land in Spokane District that arose since completion of the Spckane Resource Management Plan of 1985 and subsequently documented in the Record of Decision of 1987. In addition, it also addresses more than 1.38 million acres of federal mineral estate scattered throughout all counties in Washington state east of the Cascades. These are lands on which the BLM has oil and gas andior other mineral leasing authority. These lands inc;ude not only those administered by the BLM, but lands with surface management by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of the Army. This RMP Amendment will not address resource issues on BLM-administered land in western Washington nor the BLM-administered mineral estate of U.S. Foresr Service and Indian lands. This decision results in the designation of 5 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern encompassing about 6,300 acres of public land and the de -designation of two existing ACEC's involving about 120 acres of public land, Off Road Vehicle use would be limited to designated roads and trails on an additional 38,000 acres of puolic land to the extent allowed by law anc regulation, these restrictions would apply equally to all users. Alternatives Considered and Rationale for Decision Two alternatives for management of public lands in the Spokane District were analyzed in the Draft and Final RMPA/EIS. Alternative 1 (Existing Plan) Alternative 2 (Amended Plan) Alternative 1 (Existing Plan) This alternative consists of continued implementation of the RMP without allowing for adjustments in land management decisions (i.e. ORV designations and additional ACEC proposals) based on new information or policy changes. Oil and Gas Leasing and Development - This alternative is the most simplistic alternative that can reasonably be analyzed. It is potentially the least restrictive leasing program the BLM would legally be permitted to implement. Approximately 1.1 million acres of public land and private surface/federal mineral estate would be open to leasing subject to Standard Leasing Terms and Conditions. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - The 12 currently designated ACECs would continue to be managed to preclude land uses that could potentially damage special resource vaiues. No new ACECs would be proposed for designation. Off Road Vehicle (ORV) Designations - ORV designations would remain as described in the 1987 RMP Spokane District Record of Decision. All 29,000 acres of land acquired since completion of the RMP would remain open to ORV use. Alternative 2 (Amended Plan) This alternative addresses BLM's revised guidelines for fluid mineral leasing and development, and also new prescriptions (i.e., ORV designations and additional ACEC nominations) derived from recommendations of BLM staff and the general public. The management area (MAs) boundaries would be reconfigured as follows: The Similkameen and Conconully MAs would be combined and renamed the Okanogan MA; North Ferry, North Stevens, and Huckleberry Mountains MAs would be combined and renamed the Northeast MA; and Douglas Creek and Jameson Lake MAs would be combined and renamed Moses Coulee MA. No boundary changes are being proposed for Badger Slope, Juniper Forest, Rock Creek, and Saddle Mountains. These areas are proposed for consolidation because of their proximity to one another and because the program emphasis of the areas being combined are similar. Oil and Gas Leasing and Development • Oil and gas resources on about 1.3 million acres would be leased with Standard Terms and Conditions as well as additional leasing stipulations to protect other resources and values. The new stipulations are derived from two sources: the existing stipulations and stipulations developed during this plan amendment process from new inventory information. Since this RMP includes mineral resources of lands managed by other surface management agencies, any leasing recommendations made by BLM must take into consideration the missions of rhese agencies, their policies and restrictions on oil and gas activities, existing withdrawals, and limits imposed by regulations and Congress. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - Under this alternative five areas would be proposed for ACEC designation: Coal Creek, Cowiche Canyon, Little Vulcan Mountain, Yakima River Canyon, and Keystone Point. Coal Creek is proposed for designation because it contains habitat for a Bureau sensitive plant species and important riparian habitat, Cowiche Canyon for its unique botanical and recreational values, Little Vulcan Mountain because it provides important habitat for a Bureau sensitive animal species, Yakima River Canyon for its recreational, botanical, wildlife and scenic values, and Keystone Point would be designated because it provides habitat for a Bureau sensitive plant species. Two existing ACEC designations, Webber Ca^yon and Roosevelt Slope, would be de-designated. Webber Canyon ACEC designation would be revoked because evaluations subsequent to its designation by both contract paleontologists and district resources specialists, indicated that there were no significant paleontological resource values at this site, and that returning this area to multiple use would not result in any deterioration of the values that are present. Roosevelt Slope ACEC was designated because at the time of designation, it contained habitat for a Bureau sensitive species Astragalus misellus v. pauper. Subsequent evaluations or inventories revealed that this species is more common that initially thought (and therefore less sensitive), and that returning this area to multiple use would not result in any deterioration of the values that are present. Off Road Vehicle Designations - Most of the ORV designations made in the 1987 RMP Record of Decision would not be changed. Only those areas where new information indicates that additional restrictions are necessary to protect resource values are limitations proposed, The specific changes being proposed are as follows: Yakima River Canyon and Upper Crab Creek Management Areas ORVs are limited to designated roads and trails (34,000 acres); in the Okanogan Management Area north of the Simiikameen River ORVs would be limited to designated roads and trails on another 4,000 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERABILITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE Environmental preferability is judged using the criteria in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Title 1, Section 101 (b) of NEPA establishes the following goals: 1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports a diversity and variety of individual choice; 5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use wnich will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and 6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. The two alternatives considered in this RMP Amendment were rated against these criterion. There was little difference between these alternatives however, under Alternative 2, the Amended Plan, criterion 3 and 4 would be better served or met than under Alternative 1 simply because of the additional oil and gas leasing stipulations, additional ACEC designations, and increased ORV limitations provide a high degree of protection to important resource values. Consequently this would be the environmentally preferred alternative. IMPLEMENTATION Decisions in this plan will be implemented over a period of years and are tied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) budgeting process. General priorities for overall management guidance will be developed through long-term budgeting processes. Specific priorities for each program will be reviewed annually to help develop the work plan commitments for the coming year. The procedures to implement each decision are shown in the Plan on a decision -by -decision basis. Valid Existing Rights This plan will not repeal valid existing rights on public lands. Valid existing rights are those claims or rights to public land that are valid as of the date of this decision. Such rights will take precedence over the actions in this plan. Valid existing rights may be held by other federal agencies or by private individuate or companies. For example valid existing rights may pertain to mining claims, oil and gas leases, rights-of-way, and water rights. Administrative Actions Various types of administrative actions will require special attention beyond the scope of this plan. Administrative actions are the day-to-day transactions required to serve the public and to provide optimal use of the resources. These actions are in conformance with the plan. They include issuance of permits for fuelwood, saw -timber, gravel, and competitive and commercial recreation activities; lands actions, including issuance of grants, leases, permits and resolution of trespass; facility maintenance; law enforcement; enforcement and monitoring of permit stipulations; cadastral surveys to determine legal land ownership: and engineering support to assist in mapping designing, and implementing projects. These and other administrative actions will be conducted at the resource area, district, and state level. The degree to which these actions are carried out will be based upon BLM policy, available personnel, and funding levels. MITIGATION AND MONITORING All protective measures and standard operating procedures identified in the plan will be taken to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. These measures will be strictly enforced throughout implementation. All practicable means to avoid or reduce environmental harm will be adopted. Monitoring needs identified in this plan will be employed on a priority basis subject to funding and staffing availability and incorporated into existing monitoring plans and schedules identified in the 1987 Record of Decision. Monitoring and evaluations will be utilized to ensure that decisions and priorities conveyed by the Plan are being implemented, that progress toward identified resource objectives is occurring, that mitigating measures and standard operating procedures are effective in avoiding or reducing adverse environmental impacts, and that the plan is maintained and consistent with the ongoing development of national and state guidance. Public Involvement On May 19, 1989, a notice was published in the Federal Register to announce the formal start of the RMP Amendment planning process. At that time a planning newsletter was sent to the public requesting further definition of major issues within the planning area and explaining the scope of the plan amendment. On June 30, 1990, another newsletter was posted to those interested in the planning process, affected parties, and the local news media. In addition to outlining the proposed alternatives, this document also listed major issues and planning criteria. On October 23, 1991, a notice of document availability was published in the Federal Register and in local news media for the Draft Spokane District Resource Management Plan Amendment. This Draft plan was sent to a list of over 900 individuals, organizations and agencies. The comment period was ended on February 16, 1992. Eight individuals, organizations or agencies responded. Minor changes and corrections were incorporated into the Final EIS. In June of 1992, the FEIS was published and a notice was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 1992. No protests were received. In addition, the Governor of Washington State did not identify any inconsistencies with officially approved or adopted State of local governmental natural resource related pians, programs, or policies. Comment letters on the PRMP Amendment/FEIS were received from one individual and one organization. These comments have been considered in the process of making the final decision. A*K41IT, I T,I=11JINKORK With full knowledge of the commitment to resource management presented in this proposed plan amendment, the Spokane District recommends adoption of the Spokane RMP Amendment. Ann'/B. Aldrich Date Border Resouces Area Manager l�1 Jame�F. Fisher Date Wen � chee Resource Area Manager seph h . Buesing n Date District Manager, Spokane STATE DIRECTOR APPROVAL I approve the Spokane RMP Amendment/EIS as recommended. This document meets the requirements for a Record of Decision as provided in 40 CFR 1505.2. DEC 1 7 '992 D. Dean Bibles Date State Director, Washington/Oregon Bureau of Land Management Table S-1 Summary 0 ong-Term Environmental L4 �eyue� ic�� ul Comparison of Alternative Allocations Soil (Erosion Potential) Water Quality Quantity Vegetation Ecological Condition Climax Late Sera( Mid Seral Early Seral Unclassified Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species Haoitat Wildlife Uoiand Habitat Riparian Habitat Yish Habitat Li—stock Grazing idabie Forage _ eation Visitor Use Levels Off -Road Vehicle L imitation/Closure Open Cuiturai Resources Visual Resources Protection/Enhancement of Visual Quaiity Special Management Areas Forest Products Sustainable Harvest Level Energy & Minerals Closed to Leasing Open Subject to Standard Lease Terms and Conditions + t Open Subject to Timing or Other Constraints, NSO, CSU, Special Administrative Stips. Economic Conditions Alternative #1 unit of Existing Measure Plan Alternative #2 Amended Plan –L +L NC NC NC NC Acres 7493 NC Acres 35376 NC Acres 40725 INC Acres 59556 NC Acres 106324 NC No Affec: Nc -L NC L NC -L NC AUMs 30073 NC NC NC Acres 77100 93400 Acres 254100 234600 No Affect No Affect -L -L 14 '1 I I NIMbf 4 4 Acres 458000 422000 Acres 1123080 1021080 Acres 138920 1C7900 -L NC �s e �e L �w 'd Moo ... te H H pn C'4. Change • incluaes All pede•ei Minerais within Plarn.ng Area except for Tribai Lanes ana :ansa acminis;aree by the JSrS. ' • All leases wanin :he planning area wiil incivaa the controiiea surface use Moulation to, spec,ai status plant spec.es a. 0 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT M, Burns District Office 74 South Alvord, Burns, OK 97720 November 14, 1984 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comment is the John Day proposed Resource Management Plan and final Environmental Impact Statement for the John Day Planning Area, Burns District, Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management has prepared this document in partial fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The proposed RMP and final EIS is published in an abbreviated format and is designed to be used in conjunction with the Draft RMP/EIS published in June of 1984. Additional copies of the Draft RMP/EIS are available upon request from Bureau of Land Management, 74 South Alvord, Burns, Oregon 97720. This proposed RMP and final EIS contains a summary from the draft, introduction, the proposed plan, text revisions to the Draft RMP/EIS, public comments received on the draft, and the Bureau's response to these comments. If you wish to comment for the District Manager's consideration in the development of the decision, please submit your comments to the District Manager by December 31, 1984. Your comments should be sent to: District Manager 74 South Alvord Burns, Oregon 97720 The plan decisions will be based on the analysis contained in the EIS, any additional data available, public opinion, management feasibility, policy and legal constrains. The approval of the plan will be documented in a record of decision, which will be available to the public. The proposed plan cannot be approved until after the Governor of Oregon has had an opportunity to review it to identify any inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing. Approval of the plan will also be subject to the final action on any protest that may be filed. Protests must conform to the requirements of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 1610.5-Z and be filed with the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Thank you for your interest and participation. Sincerely yours, ua 1. Wa bu o Di, rict Manager IN RKPIA REFER To. United States Department of the Interior 3809 (ORW020) Mike Maughan 2967 S Fox Pointe Drive Saratoga Springs, UT 84045 Dear Mr. Maughan, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Spokane District Wenatchee Field Office. 915 Walla Walla Avenue Wenatchee, Washington 98801 Based on our phone call last week we wanted to provide you some additional information regarding your privately held mineral estate located in the Saddle Mountains near Mattawa, WA and what process you would be required to follow should you choose to extract minerals from your deeded estate. This is a complicated issue due to BLM's scattered ownership in the area, your scattered mineral estate in the Saddle Mountain area, combined with the fact that you have not defined a proposal to utilize your subsurface mineral rights (When, Where, What, and How). The purpose of this letter is not to define the required process in its entirety but rather to provide the general process that the BLM would follow should you wish to pursue mineral extraction on these lands. Based on our preliminary discussions and depending on what parcels you intend to extract minerals from, it appears that you might need to first cross BLM managed lands (not overlaying your mineral estate) to access these split estate lands. In order to cross BLM managed lands, you would be required to obtain a BLM Right of Way Grant (ROW), as described in 43 CFR Part 2800, to build or improve roads to access your privately held mineral estate. It should be noted that if there is no reasonable access to your mineral estate apart from crossing these BLM managed lands we would be required to consider all actions that might be connected or enabled by the issuance of a ROW as described in 40 CFR Part 1508.25 (a) and in our NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Handbook. In addition to the access issue noted above, in order to develop your mineral estate that lies under BLM managed surface estate and prior to conducting any surface disturbing activities on BLM managed lands, you are required to submit a land use authorization application pursuant to 43 CER Part 2920. These regulations establish procedures for the orderly and timely processing of proposals for non -Federal use of the public lands. 43 CFR § 2920.0-1. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires the BLM to regulate through easements; permits, leases, licenses, "the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands, including, but not limited to long-term leases to permit individuals to utilize public lands for habitation, cultivation, and the development of small trade or manufacturing concerns..." [43 U.S.0 § 1732 (b)]. Under FLPMA the BLM is required to take any actions necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands which would be analyzed and reviewed through the 2920 permit application and review process. Approving either a 2920 Permit or a ROW Grant may be considered a major federal action under NEPA, as described in 42 U.S.0 § 4332(2). If your proposed action qualifies as a major federal action the BLM is required to conduct an environmental analysis under NEPA prior to permitting either action. The type of NEPA document that would be required can only be determined after the BLM receives and begins a review of your complete application. Both the 2920 and ROW processes are considered fully cost reimbursable, from the applicant, for all costs related to the issuance of these permits. [43 CFR 2920.6 and 43 CFR 2804.14]. The applicant is required for both a 2920 permit and a ROW grant to pay rental rates as determined by the applicable regulations. [43 CFR 2920.8 and 43 CFR Part 2800, Subpart 2806]. As noted above, you are required to consult with the BLM before you begin surface disturbing activities on BLM managed lands. We look forward to working with you to allow access to these minerals throughout our management area. Land use authorizations and FLPMA ROW grants can take time to process, so the earlier you begin coordinating with the Wenatchee Field Office the more responsive we can be. This letter is not an appealable decision under 43 CFR Part 4 and it is provided for informational purposes to clarify the different processes that are required to access private minerals located under BLM managed Surface. At the point you submit an application for either a 2920 permit or a ROW grant the BLM will respond with a decision that would be appealable under Part 4. If you have any questions, please contact Bryan Mulligan, Assistant Field Manager, at 509-665-2119, or via email at bmulliga@blm.gov. Sincerely. 14e Zon C ing Wenatchee Field Manager Saddle Mountains R eati tea. LEGEND Information Administered Lands ®Bureau or Land Management Fe+.inart..�;yr'nn ' .,Mau LEGEND Information Administered Lands ®Bureau or Land Management Bureau of Land Management No Petrified Wood Collecgrg Other Federal sensisve Area (No Motor Vehides) Bureau of Reclamation _�__ Og Highway Vehicles U.S. Fah and Wildlfe Service Open Area Boundary - Improved Road Dept. of i Fsh and VNldlfe Fh and Access Route Nhshington Dept. of ____ Other Road or Trail, Natural Resources A—ea Denigrated Private or Other Barbara Vasquez From: Cindy Carter Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:52 PM To: Barbara Vasquez Subject: BLM 9/14/2020 BLM and Wahluke Meeting Conccerns with BLM land on Saddle Mtn. Mike Maughan: Squatters on land Not following Mnagement plan written in 80's, updated in 90's. Did not consult with Indian Tribe on plan Not repairing burned fences allowing cattle to get in canal or vineyard and other crops Illegally Removing mining/petrified wood Increase monitoring Gary Maughan: Dust 24" silt in canal from windblown burned land Mismanagement Fires 40 -minute drive to top of hill on an ATV Fence repair not completed Request closure of BLM land to ORV use BLM is a bad neighbor ATV roads not mapped Cutting fences to continue riding ORV's Jerry Wise: Agrees with the above problems Gutters need shoved out because of sand from BLM property 100 loads of sand hauled off vineyard Garage driveway needs sand shoved off Soot blown in Additional information added in 9-15-20 call Door locks not working because of sand damage Windows and doors leak sand into home $20k landscaping project ruined with sand blown into hauled in rocks/plants R -RD SW traffic of ORV pickups/traifers utilizing his road to BLM land Recommends no ORV's during fire season Agrees that BLM is a bad neighbor Jef Galaci- Agrees with above 3" lawn higher because of blow sand Irrigation fields, yard and orchard impacted by blow sand accumulated 22 -loads Fire line needed Johny Buck Agrees with above and wants to ground protected Andrea- Fire Dist Cannot access fire with poor road conditions/sand over roads No roads mapped out Clyde- Bureau of Reclamation Conservation management New ATV trails Curtis BLM $250K to mitigate fires/fence contractor started but left after short period of time to go elsewhere Needs to reevauluate ORV use to close during fire season Fire Access roads- can work with Fire Dist to get those figured out Can close riding up to 2 -years for vegetation to grow back Open ORV Land use plan (open/limited/closed are 3 options) Rachel- Congressman Newhouse's Office No trespassing signs Trail cam to catch riders Raquel- Sen Patty Murray's Office Wahluke own Type 3 firefighter truck- yes, no type 3 -ambulance Poor road conditions Need fire adaptive community planning- barriers/buffers FSA fence funding available end of this week BLM does have fencing material but contractor will not install- waiting 2 -years for fence repair Cheat gross- season closure recommended BOCC- Will send letter to BLM Request seasonal closure Request temporary closure to address new grown of grasses for sand control Followup Mtg Land Use plan- close for 2 -years Engage with local citizens Wind/sand barrier Close OHV- visit with OHV community Start for Nov closure and temp closure until then Stop erosion/blowing sand