Kwiaht researchers have completed a review of the BLM's Proposed RMP for the San Juan Islands National Monument and drafted our protest. We are especially concerned that the Proposed RMP adopts the following strategies and actions:
• Constructing additional trails
• Permitting dispersed camping
• Restricting local food foraging
• Taking no specific actions to protect species that are locally rare
• Conducting extensive prescribed burning as a habitat management tool
• Applying herbicides to large areas of protected landscapes
• Planting species not previously found in the Monument
The full protest is attached.
Size: 257 KB
MONDAY, DEC.... Read all
Is on Kwiaht letterhead, has Kwiaht signature. Hoping no one is sending stuff out from you that isn't yours. The one we received is the one that has the huge number of lbs of herbicide that BLM will be.... Read all
I personally agree with some of the items you are protesting and disagree with others. Yet your protest often says you speak for islanders and our community. You speak for Kwiaht (you, Russell, your board, your members). Your protest is from Kwiaht not from islanders nor our community.
No one should feel intimated to file a protest that differs because Kwiaht's protest says such yet an islander feels differently.
Recommendations on submitting protests:
Send specific protest per item. Sending a long letter may risk specific points being lost.
Be certain you as the protester state how you will be adversely affected if the Proposed RMP is adopted. This is a BLM requirement if you want your protest to be considered.
State here's a place/item where BLM made a wrong decision in the Proposed RMP.
State here's what it should be, include citations, personal observations (backed by photos if possible)
Protests deal with the Proposed RMP only. This is confusing as much of the material from BLM talks about Alternatives A,B,C,D. Look only to what is in the Proposed RMP, which at times is also confusing as the document does contain inconsistencies.
Don't go off on tangents, whine about items that should have been submitted regarding the Draft RMP/EIS, or take on that condescending tone some elected officials and news reporters tend to do. This doesn't help your protest nor make your protest have more importance if used in a lawsuit.
As mentioned by me before, recreation was left out of the official proclamation due to political reasons, not some higher design in favor of plants, cultural resources or historic structures. It was to be an integrated approach - respecting cultural resources, history, ecological resources and appropriate recreation. Recreation was included in the National Conservation Area legislation and in the material submitted to the Obama administration. Recreation is in the legislative history and in the backup documents for the proclamation such as press releases that a judge would consider as relevant.
A White House lawyer was concerned if recreation was specifically included in the Proclamation that the entire Antiquities Act could be threatened, so the Proclamation adhered to specific terms of that Act. Our monument was one of the first uses of the Antiquities Act by President Obama. Later uses of the Act included recreation as the administration became more comfortable the entire Act would not be challenged.
There would not be any protections on these lands were it not for appropriate public access - these are your stories that created the monument and before that the ACEC's. Recreation made the protection of these lands possible and should be allowed, where appropriate, on these lands.
Thank you SO MUCH for doing all this research and commenting. The more local folks and visitors to these lands who comment in your ilk, the better.