MULTIPLE USE AND COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES

This Plan provides a positive guide for the Walla Walla Coordinating Committee and The Board of County Commissioners to coordinate their efforts with federal and state land management agencies in the development and implementation of land use plans and management actions which are compatible with the best interests of Walla Walla County and its citizens. The Plan is designed to facilitate continued and revitalized multiple use of federally and state managed lands in the County.

The Coordinating Committee, the Board, and the citizens of Walla Walla County recognize that federal law mandates multiple use of federally managed lands and they positively support multiple use. Maintenance of such multiple use necessarily includes continued maintenance of the historic and traditional economic uses which have been made of federally managed and state managed lands in the County. It is therefore the policy of Walla Walla County that the Coordinating Committee and the Board of County Commissioners work constantly to assure that federal and state agencies shall inform the Board of all pending or proposed actions affecting local communities and citizens arid coordinate with the Board in the planning and implementation of those actions.

Such coordination of planning is mandated by federal laws. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S. § 1701, declared the National Policy to be that "the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other federal and state planning efforts." See 43 USC § 1701 (a) (2).

43 USC § 1712 (c) sets forth the "criteria for development and revision of land use plans." Section 1712 (c) (9) refers to the coordinate status of a county which is engaging in land use planning, and requires that the "Secretary shall" "coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities... with the land use planning and management programs of other federal departments and agencies and of the State and local governments within which the lands are located." This provision gives preference to those counties which are engaging in a land use planning program overlie general public, special interest groups of citizens, and even counties not engaging in a land use planning program.

Section 1712 also provides that the "Secretary shall" "assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between federal and nonfederal government plans." This provision also gives preference to those counties which are engaging in the planning process over the general public, special interest groups of citizens, and even counties not engaging in a land use planning program. In view of the requirement that the Secretary "coordinate" land use inventory, planning and management activities with local governments, it is reasonable to read the requirement of assisting in resolving inconsistencies to mean that the resolution process takes place during the planning cycle instead of at the end of the planning cycle when the draft federal plan is released for public review. .

The section further requires that the "Secretary shall" "provide for meaningful public involvement of state and local government officials... in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands." When read in light of the "coordinate" requirement of the section, it is reasonable to read "meaningful involvement" as referring to ongoing .consultations and involvement throughout the planning cycle not merely at the end of the planning cycle. This latter provision of the statute also distinguishes local government officials from members of the general public or special interest groups of citizens.

Section 1712 (c) (9) further provides that the Secretary must assure that the land use plan be "consistent with State and local plans" to the maximum extent possible under federal law and the purposes of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is reasonable to read this statutory provision in association with the requirement of coordinated involvement in the planning process.

The provisions of Section 1712 (c) (9) set forth the nature of the coordination required by the Agency with planning efforts by the Indian tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local government officials. Subsection (f) of Section 1712 sets forth an additional requirement that the Secretary "shall allow an opportunity for public involvement", which again includes Federal, State and local governments. The "public involvement" provisions of Subsection (f) do not limit the coordination language of Section 1712 (c) (9) or allow the agency to simply lump local government officials in with special interest groups of citizens or members of the public in general. The coordination requirements of Section 1712 (c) (9) set apart for public involvement those government officials who are engaged in the land use planning process as is Walla Walla County. The statutory language distinguishing the County because it is engaged in the land use planning process makes sense because of the Board's obligation to plan for future land uses which will serve the welfare of all the people of the County and promote continued operation of the government in the best interests of the people of Walla Walla County.

In American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt, 534 F. Supp. 923 (U.S.C.D. Cal. 1981), the Court held that a County could challenge the implementation of Conservation Plan issued by the BLM on the basis of these coordinated planning provisions of FLPMA. The Court pointed out that FLPMA requires the Secretary to provide for meaningful involvement of local government in developing plans and regulations, and pointedly referred to FLPMA's "mandate" that federal land use plans be consistent with local plans.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that all federal agencies consider the impacts of their actions on the environment and on the preservation of the culture, heritage and custom of local government. In 16 U.S.C. § 4331 (a) (4) the law provides as follows:

"It is the continuing responsibility of the federal government to use all practicable

means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to: (4)

Preserve important historic, culture, and natural aspects of our national heritage."

The term "culture" is defined as "customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a group; the integrated pattern of human behavior passed to succeeding generations." See Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary at 277 (1975). Thus, by definition, the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on the custom of the people as shown by their beliefs, social forms, and "material traits." It is reasonable to read this provision of the National Environmental Protection Act as requiring that federal agencies consider the impact of their actions on rural, range-oriented, agricultural counties such as Walla Walla County where, for generations, families have depended upon the "material traits" of ranching, farming, mining, timber production, wood products, and other agricultural lines of work for their economic livelihoods.

The Endangered Species Act requires that the Secretary and the management agencies under his supervision cooperate with local government to resolve water resource issues. The Act also requires that the Secretary can make a listing decision only after "taking into account" the efforts being made by local government to protect species. The Outdoor Recreation Coordination Act of 1963 requires that the Secretary consider local government plans and provide cooperation to local governments with regard to recreation uses of the federal lands. See 16 U.S.C. Section 460L-l(c) (d).

Historically, the Congress, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Federal Courts have recognized that community economic stability is an important consideration in the management of federally managed lands. In interpreting the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315 et. seq. (the Act which created the agency to become known as the Bureau of Land Management) the Courts have recognized that the purpose of the Act "is to stabilize the livestock industry and to permit the use of public range according to needs and qualifications of livestock operators with base holdings." See Chournos v. United States, 193 Fd.2d 321 (10th Cir. Utah 1951), Cert den. 343 U.S. 977 (1952). In Red Canyon Sheep Co. v.Ickes, 98 Fd.2d 308(1938), the Court slated that the purpose of the Taylor Grazing Act is to provide the "most beneficial use possible of public range because the livestock industry of the West is an important source of food supply for the people of the nation." Red Canyon also pointed out that "in the interest of the stock growers themselves" the Act was intended to define "their grazing rights and to protect those rights by regulation against interference."

Even more recently, a United States District Court has re-affirmed the message that the Taylor Grazing Act was intended to provide economic security to the rancher who grazed those western federal lands which the Congress determined to be suitable for grazing when the Act was passed. In public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 929 F.Supp.l436 (U.S.D. Wyoming 1996), Judge Brimmer issued an injunction restraining the Secretary of Interior from eliminating a grazing preference by use of the term "permitted use" in his infamous Rangeland Reform regulations.

Judge Brimmer stated that the term "grazing preference" represents an adjudicated right to place livestock on public lands" which provided predictability and security to livestock operators. He pointed out that the Taylor Grazing Act imposes on Secretary "an affirmative duty to protect" this preference. In issuing the injunction, the judge found that the Secretary had violated this "affirmative duty":

"With a mere stroke of his pen, the Secretary has boldly and blithely wrested away from Western ranchers the very certainty, the definiteness of range rights, and the necessary security of preference rights that their livestock operations require. Congress gave Western ranchers these rights by enacting the Taylor Grazing Act, and many decades of satisfactory operations and the course of case by case adjudications have confirmed these rights." - 929 F. Supp. at 1441

Walla Walla County has previously developed its Comprehensive Plan related to privately owned lands in the County. This Land Use Plan is now directed toward management of federally and state managed lands. With adoption of this Plan the County puts in place a "Comprehensive Plan" which includes "all land within the jurisdiction of the governing Board" as directed by the legislature.

The Coordinating Committee and the Board now call upon the federal and state management agencies to coordinate in advance with the Board any proposed actions which will impact the county’s custom, culture or economy in any way. This includes investment backed expectations of citizens of the County, the economic stability and historically developed custom and culture of the County, or provisions of this Land Use Plan. Such management agencies are requested to so coordinate their actions by providing to the Board in a timely manner, prior to taking official action, a report on the proposed action, the purposes, objectives and estimated impacts of such action, and the economic impact.

In other words, the Coordinating Committee and the Board request no more from the federal management agencies than what is required by the federal laws governing their management processes as well as Executive Order 12630 issued by former President Reagan on March 15, 1988 and implemented by guidelines prepared for all federal agencies by the Attorney General of the United States.

The Coordinating Committee and the Board request no more from the state management agencies than what was clearly intended by the Washington Legislature and as constrained by the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Agency and other federal laws. The courts have determined that state and local agencies and private individuals must comply with the NEPA if there is an existing “federal nexus” between a federal agency and a state or local agency and private individual. Generally, a federal nexus is present when (1) a federal permit or approval is required or (2) a federal agency provides federal financial assistance for a specific project. See e.g. Historic Preservation Guild v. Burnley, 896 F.2d 985 (5^th Cir. 1989); Save Barton Creek Assn. v. Federal Highway Administration, 950 F.2d 1129 (5^th Cir. 1992); Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434 (9^th Cir. 1996). A state’s receipt of a federal block grant does not necessarily require the state to comply with NEPA unless it can be shown that part of that block grant funded a specific project; Citizen’s for Better St. Clair County v. James, 648 F.2d 246 (5^th Cir. 1981).

In exchange for compliance with federal law by the federal management agencies, the Coordinating Committee and the Board commit to a positive planning process through which the County will maintain its commitment to true multiple use of the federally managed lands. In exchange for participation by the state management agencies, the Coordinating Committee and the Board commit to a positive planning process through which the County will equitably consider the best interest of all the people of the state of Washington in the use of the state managed lands. The County commits to an effort to develop Memoranda of Understanding with these agencies through which coordinated planning can be better implemented.

Through the land-use planning process Walla Walla County commits itself to an effort to assure that all natural resource decisions affecting the County shall fulfill the intent of the various laws within the principles of:

1. maintaining and revitalizing multiple use of federally managed and state managed lands,

2. protection of private property rights and private property interests including investment backed expectations,

3. protection of local historical custom and culture,

4. protection of the traditional economic structures in the County which form the base for economic stability for the County,

5. the opening of new economic opportunities through reliance on free markets, and protection of the right of the enjoyment of the natural resources of the County by all citizens of the County and those communities utilizing those natural resources within the County.

Walla Walla County is convinced that resource and land use management decisions made in a coordinated manner by federal management agencies, state management agencies and county officials will not only firmly maintain and revitalize multiple use of federally and state managed lands in Walla Walla County but will enhance environmental quality throughout the County.

Moving onward with the planning process, the Coordinating Committee and the Board set forth in this Land Use Plan those positive general concepts which they believe are necessary and desirable for the maintenance and revitalization of multiple use as well as economic stability and custom and culture of the County. This Land Use Plan will guide the continuing land use planning process in Walla Walla County. The General Planning Guidelines present the standards of law, fact, and planning by which the Board will be guided in its official capacity as the executive authority of the County. The Guidelines include standards for land management set forth by statute, by which the Land Use Committee and the Board will be guided. A "plan" is variously defined as "a detailed and systematic formulation of a large scale program," "a proposed undertaking or goal," and "an orderly arrangement of parts in terms of an overall designer objective." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1729 (1986). This Plan fits those definitions. It includes the description of the process by which the land use program began, the guidelines which provide the general standards by which the program will be developed, and finally the Management Actions which formulate the program actions which maybe taken to achieve goals and objectives.

The Management Actions set forth will contain, where appropriate, management alternatives designed to achieve maintenance and improvement of multiple use. They will also contain statements of actions which maybe taken by the Board to implement objectives set by the Coordinating Committee and the Board.

The planning process is on-going, and will require the Coordinating Committee and the Board to become involved with analysis and evaluation of all stages of the planning cycles followed by federal and state management agencies, including plan development as well as implementation which includes monitoring and evaluation of plan implementation.