Alabama Hills Management Plan Scoping Report, February 2020

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Alabama Hills National Scenic Area and Special Recreation Management Area

Alabama Hills Management Plan Scoping Report February 2020

The Bureau of Land Management's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 Scoping Process ...... 1 Purpose ...... 1 Pre-Scoping Outreach ...... 1 Public Notification of Scoping ...... 2 Public Scoping Period ...... 2 Public Scoping Workshops ...... 3 Consultation and Coordination ...... 3 Scoping Comment Summaries ...... 4 Summary of Scoping Comment Submissions ...... 4 Summary of Scoping Comments by Resource/Topic ...... 5 Issues Identified through External Scoping ...... 6 Planning Process ...... 6 Scenic Resources ...... 6 Cultural, Historical, and Cinematographic Resources ...... 7 Geological Resources ...... 7 Biological Resources (Soil, Water, and Vegetation and Wildlife including Special Status Species) ...... 7 Recreational Resources ...... 8 Fuels Management and Wildland Fire ...... 11 Livestock Grazing ...... 11 Lands and Realty ...... 11 Social and Economic Conditions ...... 12 Issues Beyond the Scope of this Planning Effort ...... 12 Future Steps in the Planning Process ...... 12 Contact Information ...... 13

Tables

Table 1. Public Scoping Workshops ...... 3 Table 2. Consultation and Coordination Meetings ...... 4 Table 3. Comments by Resource Topic ...... 5

Figures

Figure 1. Alabama Hills NSA and SRMA Planning Area...... 14

Appendices

Appendix A. Comment Summary by Resource/Topic.

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bishop Field Office, is in the early stages of preparing a management plan (Plan) and environmental assessment (EA) for public lands in the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area (NSA) and Alabama Hills Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) in Inyo County, California (Figure 1). The BLM is preparing the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA Management Plan and EA in accordance with the requirements of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Dingell Act) of 2019 (Public Law 116- 9), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).

Scoping is the first step in the BLM’s planning and environmental review process for development of a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the Alabama Hills NSA and SRMA. The BLM will announce future opportunities for public participation in this planning effort, including a public review and comment period for the Draft Plan and EA, through news releases, local news outlets, email notifications, social media channels, and the BLM’s press release and ePlanning websites.

This scoping report provides a brief overview of the scoping process, brief summaries of comments received through public scoping and during initial consultation and coordination meetings, a listing of issues identified through external scoping with short summaries for future consideration in the planning and environmental review process, a brief description of future steps in the planning and environmental review process, and current contact information for the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA planning effort.

SCOPING PROCESS

Purpose

Scoping allows the BLM to gather internal and external input on the issues, potential alternatives, and associated impacts to be addressed during the development and consideration of a proposed action (in this case an implementation plan for the long-term management Alabama Hills NSA and SRMA), as well as the extent to which those issues, alternatives, and impacts will be analyzed in accordance with the NEPA. Scoping is also used to identify incomplete or unavailable information that may be needed for the environmental review and decision-making process.

External scoping is a form of public involvement that occurs early in the NEPA process. While BLM policy provides that external scoping for an EA is optional, the BLM determined that external scoping would ensure early and effective public and agency involvement in the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA planning effort. External scoping is also being used to fulfill some of the consultation requirements identified in Title XIV, Section 1403 (b) of the Dingell Act.

Pre-Scoping Outreach

Prior to beginning scoping for the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA Plan and EA, the BLM provided multiple opportunities for the public and agency representatives to get updated on current uses and management in the Alabama Hills and to share their thoughts about future management of the area.

Pre-scoping outreach included the following: • On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, the Bishop Field Office and Alabama Hills Stewardship Group co-hosted an informal public “Information Sharing Workshop” in Lone Pine, CA. This workshop focused on the Alabama Hills and occurred just prior to passage of the Dingell Act on March 12, 2019 and Congressional designation of the Alabama Hills NSA. Over 53 individuals attended this workshop. • During the Veterans Day holiday weekend, 2019, the Bishop Field Office and Alabama Hills Stewardship Group co-hosted a series of informal “Pop-up” public information sharing opportunities in the community of Lone Pine and in the Alabama Hills. These information sharing opportunities were designed to reach both visitors from outside the local area and area residents that might not be able to attend evening public scoping workshops that were being planned for early December in Lone Pine and Bishop, CA.

o On Friday, November 8, 2019, information sharing tables were set up at the Lone Pine Interagency Visitor Center and on Main Street in Lone Pine.

o On Saturday, November 9, 2019, information sharing tables were set up at two popular visitor locations in the Alabama Hills.

These informal “Pop-ups” allowed people to describe what they love about the Alabama Hills, what they do while they are there, what they would like to stay the same, and what they would like to change. Over 150 individuals took advantage of these public outreach opportunities and shared their thoughts regarding the Alabama Hills with the BLM and the Alabama Hills Stewardship Group.

Public Notification of Scoping

The public received notification of scoping in the following ways: • Press release distributed to a California/Nevada based media list on November 21, 2019, announcing public scoping, the public scoping period, and the dates and locations of public scoping workshops. • This press release was also posted on the BLM press release website at https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-input-alabama-hills-management- plan and the BLM ePlanning website for the Alabama Hills Management Plan at http://bit.ly/AlabamaHillsPlan. • Scoping notification emails, which included the press release, sent to the BLM’s interested party list for the Alabama Hills. • Numerous scoping notifications published in the local newspaper (Inyo Register) before the workshops.

Public Scoping Period

The BLM began public scoping for the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA planning effort on November 21, 2019. Written comments could be submitted by U.S. Postal Service mail, email, fax, or in person at two public scoping workshops. The public scoping period lasted 34 days, ending on December 23, 2019.

After the public scoping period ended, the BLM continued to receive and accept comments. All scoping comments received to date, including late comments, have been reviewed, considered, and incorporated into this scoping report.

Public Scoping Workshops

The BLM hosted two public scoping workshops during the scoping period. The first workshop was held on Monday, December 9, 2019 in Lone Pine, CA. The second workshop was held on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 in Bishop, CA. A total of 77 individuals signed in at these workshops. Participation at the Lone Pine workshop was nearly double that at the Bishop workshop (Table 1).

Table 1. Public Scoping Workshops

Date and Time Location Attendees

Monday, December 9, 2019 Statham Hall >51 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 138 North Jackson Street Lone Pine, CA Tuesday, December 10, 2019 BLM Bishop Field Office >26 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 351 Pacu Lane Bishop, CA

Both workshops began with a brief informational presentation about the Alabama Hills, including the Congressionally designated NSA and the BLM designated SRMA. This presentation was followed by an opportunity for participants to provide both written and map-based comments about specific uses, resource values, and future management strategies for the planning area in an interactive setting with BLM resource specialists and managers. These workshops also provided an opportunity for the public to learn more about the planning area, the current planning process, and how to provide effective scoping comments.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The BLM has initiated consultation for the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA planning effort consistent with Title XIV, Section 1403 (b) of the Dingell Act and other applicable law and policy. Consultation is ongoing and will continue throughout the planning and environmental review process. Table 2 identifies the consulting entities, dates, and venues for consultation and coordination meetings conducted to date.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the NEPA allow Federal agencies to invite Tribal, State, and local governments, as well as other Federal agencies, to serve as cooperating agencies during the NEPA process. To serve as a cooperating agency, the potential agency or government entity must have either jurisdiction by law, or special expertise relevant to the environmental analysis. The BLM has invited Inyo County to be a cooperating agency for this planning effort. For more information on cooperating agencies, please see the 2012 publication A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners.1

1 BLM. 2012. A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2012-115.

Table 2. Consultation and Coordination Meetings

Consulting Entity Date Venue

Alabama Hills Wednesday, January 8, 2020 Meeting Stewardship Group Conference Southern California Edison Thursday, January 9, 2020 Call Inyo County Friday, January 10, 2020 Meeting Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe Thursday, January 23, 2020 Meeting California Department of Fish and Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Meeting Wildlife City of Los Angeles, Wednesday, January 29, 2020 Meeting Department of Water and Power

The requirements for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) are in addition to, and independent of, those identified in Title XIV, Section 1403 (b)(1) of the Dingell Act. On December 12, 2019, the BLM formally invited the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe to consult on the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA planning effort. An initial government-to-government consultation meeting with tribal leadership occurred on January 23, 2020.

SCOPING COMMENT SUMMARIES

Summary of Scoping Comment Submissions

The BLM received 76 written comment submissions during the public scoping period. Written comments were received by U.S. Postal Service mail, email, and in person at the public scoping workshops and at the Bishop Field Office. In addition to written comment submissions received, 33 individuals provided comments on the flipcharts and maps at the public scoping workshops.

Each submission was categorized by the type of entity from which it was received (i.e., individual, tribal, government agency, non-governmental organization or special interest group, or business). All comments received were given equal consideration, regardless of the individual or entity submitting the comment or the method of submittal.

The BLM received submissions from the following governmental and tribal entities, groups, and businesses: • Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance California (one letter representing both organizations) • Adventure Trails System of the Eastern Sierra • Blue Ribbon Coalition • Center for Biological Diversity • The Wilderness Society, Conservation Lands Foundation, and California Wilderness Coalition (one letter representing all three organizations) • Defenders of Wildlife • Friends of the Inyo • Inyo County

• Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce • Lone-Pine Paiute-Shoshone Cultural Resources Protection Committee • Southern Inyo Climbers • McGee Creek Pack Station • Southern California Edison

Summary of Scoping Comments by Resource/Topic

All submissions received during public scoping were entered into an electronic database, then reviewed and parsed into separate comments that were classified according to resource/topic categories. For example, if a letter brought up four different issues, the text was parsed into four separate comments. This comment parsing resulted in approximately 840 comments, which were then classified according to resource/topic categories. Table 3 shows the number and relative percentage of comments by resource/topic category.

Table 3. Comments by Resource/Topic

Resource/Topic Count Percentage

Recreational 648 77.1% Scenic 60 7.1% Planning Process 45 5.4% Biological 34 4.0% Partnerships 17 2.0% Livestock Grazing 14 1.7%

Cultural, Historical, and Cinematographic2 12 1.5% Outside of Planning Scope 6 0.7% Geological 3 0.4% Lands and Realty 1 0.1% Total 840 100.0%

Less than 1% of comments received were about resources/topics and related issues that are beyond the scope of this planning effort. In some instances, comments contained multiple intertwined issues concerning multiple resources/topics, and it was not possible to parse these comments into separate comments; therefore, some of the resources/topics and related issues discussed in the next section are not reflected in Table 3. However, all resources/topics and related issues are captured in the issue statements and comment summaries provided. Additional information on each resource/topic is also provided in Appendix A.

2 Individually these resource/topic categories represented less than 1% of the comments received (Cultural 0.4 %, Historical 0.6%, and Cinematographic 0.5%).

ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH EXTERNAL SCOPING

The following resources/topics and related issues were identified based on comments received during public scoping and through initial consultation and coordination meetings. Additional resources/topics and related issues may be identified based on internal scoping and ongoing consultation and coordination efforts. Resources/topics and related issues identified to date are summarized here for future consideration in the planning process for the Alabama Hills NSA and SRMA.

Planning Process

Issue: What type of plan is BLM developing for the Alabama Hills and will it meet the intent of Title XIV, Section 1403 (a) of the Dingell Act? What is the planning area?

Comments posed questions about the level of planning proposed (i.e. implementation plan/activity plan, land use plan, or land use plan amendment(s)) and whether a Notice of Intent announcing the planning effort was required. Comments also questioned how ongoing efforts to revise the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Land Use Plan Amendment (DRECP LUPA) may affect this planning effort and future management of the Alabama Hills. Comments also included a request for a 60 to 90-day public review and comment period on a Draft Plan and EA. Comments also requested clarification about whether the planning area included both the NSA and the SRMA, and if both, whether the management strategies and actions would differ among units.

Issue: Who will the BLM consult, coordinate, collaborate, and partner with to develop and implement the plan?

Comments stated that the BLM should consult, coordinate, and collaborate with State, local, and other Federal entities and agencies. Comments also requested that the BLM build partnerships with the recreational community and local and national non-governmental organizations. Comments noted that the BLM is required to consult with the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and asked that the BLM consider co-management options with the tribe. Comments also included a suggestion that the plan include Tribal voice and that the BLM enter into cooperative agreements with the tribe if requested.

Scenic Resources

Issue: What management actions or measures could be implemented to conserve, protect, and enhance scenic resources and values in the planning area, including dark skies and quiet soundscapes? How would scenic vistas, dark sky areas, and quiet soundscapes be identified and prioritized for management action? How would these actions or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments stated that the Alabama Hills contains unique landscapes of the highest scenic quality and expressed their appreciation for intact landscapes, scenic vistas, solitude, dark skies and quiet soundscapes. Comments identified dispersed camping, climbing, and vehicle use as activities that can negatively impact viewsheds and dark skies. Comments also expressed concern about dust and noise impacts from motorized vehicle use. Comments requested that the plan limit or prohibit certain uses that may conflict with scenic values and visual resources. Comments also requested that unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) should be prohibited or limited to minimize impacts on scenic values, solitude, and soundscapes. Comments also recommended preservation of scenic values

which would preserve the character and setting of the landscape and potential for economic growth. Comments suggested that any facilities or signs be minimal or camouflaged to minimize scenic impacts.

Cultural, Historical, and Cinematographic Resources

Issue: What conflicts exist between other land use activities and the conservation, protection, and enhancement of cultural, historical, and cinematographic resources and values in the planning area? What management actions or measures could be implemented to minimize or eliminate these conflicts? How would sites be prioritized for management action? How would these actions or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments suggested that the plan should prioritize the protection of cultural resources and include measures to reduce or eliminate impacts due to recreational use. Comments stated that the Alabama Hills has important sites associated with filming history and that the BLM should collaborate with the Museum of Western Film History to preserve the remains of historic movie locations. Recreation, including climbing, was identified as a historic use in the area. Comments also suggested that the plan include consideration of interpretive signage at archeological (cultural and historic) sites, including filming locations.

Geological Resources

Issue: What recreational uses and prospecting activities could adversely affect geological resources and values in the planning area? What geologic features are at the greatest risk of damage and what management actions or measures are needed to minimize or eliminate threats to those features? How would these actions or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments expressed concerns about impacts to unique geologic features and suggested formal protection for arches, including restricting climbing or other recreational uses that may damage unique geologic features. Comments also expressed that casual use or recreational mining should be limited to existing claims.

Biological Resources (Soil, Water, and Vegetation and Wildlife including Special Status Species)

Issue: What management strategies, actions, or measures could be implemented to minimize erosion, preserve water quality and quantity, and ensure that riparian areas are conserved, protected, and enhanced? Where is management action needed to achieve these goals? How would these strategies, actions or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments identified plants and wildlife as important biological resources to be protected or enhanced during the planning process. Comments identified several areas within the planning area for active restoration. Comments identified perennial streams and riparian habitats as important resources for protection. Comments noted that the Alabama Hills are considered potential habitat for some special status species. Comments stated that activities authorized in the plan may have the potential to cause changes in hydrology and impact water quality. Comments specifically

expressed concern about conditions of riparian habitat areas in George Creek and Hogback Creek and suggested that a priority should be to restore ecosystem function in all streams and riparian areas that are not in proper functioning condition. Comments also recommended closure of riparian areas to motorized vehicle use.

Issue: What inventory, monitoring, and restoration strategies could be implemented to conserve and protect special status wildlife species and other important wildlife and wildlife habitats in the planning area? What management actions or measures are needed to conserve, protect and enhance habitat for migratory mule deer and resident tule elk? Where is management action needed to minimize the effects of recreational use and livestock grazing on wildlife and wildlife habitat? How would these strategies, actions or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats from grazing and recreational use. Specific concern for raptor nesting sites and potential impacts from rock climbing and dispersed camping were noted. Comments recommended that inventories be conducted to document wildlife occurrences and wildlife habitats and that those inventories be used to identify areas for resource protection and conservation.

Issue: What inventory, monitoring, and interpretation strategies could be implemented to conserve and protect special status plant species and unique or rare vegetation communities in the planning area? Where is management action needed to minimize the effects of recreational use and livestock grazing on these species and vegetation communities? How would these strategies or actions affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to vegetation, including special status plant species and unique or rare vegetation communities from both livestock and recreational uses. Comments suggested that inventories be conducted to document species occurrences and to establish baselines for future management. Comments also suggested monitoring be conducted on a recurring basis to document management effectiveness and trends. Comments recommended use of California Natural Diversity Database and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships guidelines for inventory and monitoring efforts. Comments also suggested that the development of interpretive displays or distribution of handouts at project sites and visitor centers would help educate the public about the need to protect these species.

Recreational Resources

Issue: What management strategies could be implemented to ensure that increasing visitation and recreational use do not adversely affect other resources and values in the planning area? How would these strategies affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Issue: Should permit systems or fees be implemented to resolve user conflicts and resource issues caused by growing visitation and recreational use? How would permit systems or fees affect current and future recreational opportunities and experiences?

Issue: What management strategies could be used to provide for a diversity of high-quality recreational opportunities, minimize user conflicts, and reduce recreational impacts to

other resources and values in the planning area? Where is management action needed to resolve these conflicts and how will competing uses and values be prioritized? How would these strategies affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

General

Comments expressed concern about the ability to manage increased visitation and protect the natural and cultural resources and values of the area. Comments suggested a permit, lottery or quota system for both day and overnight users. Fees were suggested for all users, as well as for specific user groups only such as campers, tour groups, and buses. Comments also suggested that there be no fees.

Comments offered statements of support for a variety of recreational activities within the Alabama Hills, including rock climbing, historical tourism, camping, hiking, horseback riding, OHV use, biking, and other recreational vehicle use. Comments expressed support for the delineation of management zones that would set overarching goals for visitor experiences. Suggestions were made to create day use areas and to make the entire NSA a day use area.

Some of the concerns highlighted that recreational use has led to environmental degradation, especially in the Movie Flat area. Specific concerns related to recreational impacts were highlighted for vegetation, rare plants, wildlife, dust, human safety, noise, recreational opportunities and soils. Conflicts between users due to overlapping uses was noted by several commenters. User conflicts were noted between dispersed camping and day use such as climbing, sightseeing, film touring and commercial filming.

Camping

Commenters offered support for continuing to allow dispersed camping as is, prohibiting it in the NSA, or managing it in a variety of ways. Those that wanted dispersed camping to remain the same appreciated that it was free, easy, wild, private, remote and allowed for spontaneity. Those that wanted to eliminate or restrict dispersed camping were concerned about impacts on scenic values, human safety, and biological and cultural resources.

Suggestions for changes included adding equestrian campsites with corrals, limiting or eliminating dispersed camping in areas where scenic values were being impacted, designating a limited number of dispersed campsites or areas, focusing dispersed camping in already disturbed areas, focusing dispersed camping outside of the NSA, phasing dispersed camping out over time, restricting vehicle type, limiting group size, instituting stay limits, adding amenities such as toilets, picnic tables and firepits, requiring quiet hours, charging a fee, creating a permit system, having a quota, and using education to manage impacts.

Other suggestions for managing impacts from dispersed camping while still providing for overnight opportunities included adding campgrounds in the northern part of the NSA, one near the Movie Road-Whitney Portal junction and one near Moffat Ranch. Several suggestions were also made related to modification of the Tuttle Creek Campground such as increase the size and number of sites, reduce the number of sites and increase the spacing between sites, improve signage to make it easier to find, and privatize management. Comments also suggested that there should be no new campgrounds.

Climbing

Comments stated support for a range of climbing management strategies. Comments stated there should be unrestricted access for existing and new climbing routes and areas. Comments also stated some existing routes and anchors should be removed, permits should be required for any new routes and anchors, and restrictions should be placed on future route development.

Other suggested changes included closing and restoring some climbing areas and access trails, restricting climbing in sensitive areas such as arches, cultural sites, rare plant habitats and raptor nesting areas, not allowing new bolting or anchors, making climbing areas day use only with parking areas, and developing a policy for placement, camouflage and replacement of climbing hardware. Comments addressed the impacts climbing has on natural, cultural and scenic resources. Suggestions were also made to work with the local climbing community to manage existing and new routes.

Roads and Trails (Travel Management)

Comments offered that all roads and trails should be inventoried and designated for specific user types. Other comments offered that all existing roads and trails should continue to be managed as they are today. There was support for maintaining, increasing, and reducing recreational opportunities on roads and trails. Suggestions were made to limit vehicle and user types allowed in specific areas, to maintain a semi-primitive setting with dirt roads only, to add trails that connect campgrounds to the NSA, to implement speed limits to reduce dust and improve safety, to consider a shuttle system, and to improve signage to reduce impacts.

Education and Interpretation

Comments offered a variety of suggestions regarding the need for improved public education and interpretation, increased funding availability and stewardship opportunities, as well as the identification of areas that could benefit from additional signage or personnel. Comments expressed interest in providing more educational and interpretive activities and maintaining resource values to educate current visitors and future generations. Commenters suggested that the BLM utilize the Alabama Hills as an educational resource by adding interpretive tours, hosting school groups, and creating a docent program through partnerships.

Issue: What management actions, measures, or infrastructure could minimize recreation- related human health and safety problems, including the disposal of human waste, protection of water quality, and road safety? Where is management action needed to address these health and safety problems? How would these actions, measures or infrastructure affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments expressed concern about the lack of infrastructure in the area and the ability to accommodate the influx of visitors. Comments also stated that trash, pet waste and human waste were a concern. Comments expressed concern about air quality due to dust from vehicles and that the speed of vehicles was a concern. Comments addressed a need for additional infrastructure to mitigate issues with human health and safety, such as day-use parking, informational signage, trash disposal and recycling, use of wag bags, and additional campgrounds and toilet facilities. Comments suggested that increased staffing could help protect natural and cultural resources and values.

Issue: What management strategies or measures could be implemented to maintain quiet soundscapes in the planning area? Where is management action needed to minimize noise pollution effects on visitors, wildlife, and other values? How would these strategies or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments identified “natural quiet” or the absence of human-made noise as a valuable resource of the NSA. Comments also noted that quiet soundscapes are important for managing wildlife resources. Activities of concern included unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) use, infrastructure development, and traffic associated with visitation.

Fuels Management and Wildland Fire

Issue: Where and how could fuels management be used to minimize potential wildland fire impacts to the resources and values of the Alabama Hills and nearby communities? How would fuels management activities affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments expressed concern about the threat that wildfire poses to the resources and values of the Alabama Hills, neighboring residential communities, and the town of Lone Pine.

Livestock Grazing

Issue: What measures could be incorporated into the plan to reduce potential conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources and values in the planning area? Where is management action needed to quantify and/or address these potential conflicts? How would these measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments suggested that livestock grazing should be managed to conserve, protect, and enhance scenic values. They also stated that livestock grazing in the NSA and on adjacent lands should be limited or prohibited, including retiring active allotments. Comments suggested the plan assess where grazing may be incompatible with the protection and preservation of vegetation, wildlife habitat, water quality, riparian areas, and recreational resources. Comments included several suggested monitoring methods to assess the status and condition the riparian and upland habitats.

Lands and Realty

Issue: How would the plan provide for maintenance of existing utility infrastructure and rights-of-way and what would be the effects on other resources and values in the planning area?

Comments expressed interest in, and support for, plan provisions that would allow for continued maintenance of existing rights-of-way (ROWs).

Issue: How would the plan ensure that any new proposal for a utility facility right-of-way within the portion of the West-wide Energy Corridor located in the NSA (Segment 18-23, Mile Post 183-192) is the only technical or feasible location? How would the BLM deny an application for a right-of-way without a land use plan amendment that eliminates that segment of the West-wide Energy Corridor?

Comments questioned how future proposal for new transmission lines in the NSA would be addressed in an implementation level plan as compared to a land use plan or land use plan amendment.

Social and Economic Conditions

Issue: How would future management of the planning area affect local, regional, and national economies? What would be the effects on disadvantaged and underserved communities such as Lone Pine?

Comments noted that recreational and commercial uses of the Alabama Hills are economically significant to both the local and national economies. Comments also noted that Lone Pine is classified as a “Severely Disadvantaged Community” by the State of California, and that the socioeconomic benefit of the Alabama Hills to the Lone Pine community and its youth is invaluable. Comments expressed concern about potential impacts that management decisions may have on small businesses and other commercial uses, including filming which is dependent upon the area’s scenic and cinematographic resources.

Issue: What management actions or measures could be implemented to maintain and improve air quality in the planning area? Where is management action needed? How would these actions or measures affect other resources, values, and uses in the planning area?

Comments expressed concern about the impacts to air quality from fugitive dust associated with unpaved roads and motorized vehicle use.

ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PLANNING EFFORT

Submissions included comments on the following issues that are beyond the scope of this planning effort because they are outside of the BLM’s authority: • Changing the geographic place name of the Alabama Hills. • Increasing fines, jail time, or other legal repercussions for violations of laws or regulations. • Providing Inyo County resident OHV users preference over users from outside of the county.

Submissions determined to be inconsistent with Title XIV of the Dingell Act are also beyond the scope of this planning effort and include: • Complete prohibitions on hunting, grazing, motorized vehicle use, existing recreational or commercial uses, or similar existing uses within the Alabama Hills NSA except where such prohibitions are provided for, or clearly consistent with other provisions, in Title XIV of the Dingell Act, other applicable law, or determined to be necessary for public health and safety.

FUTURE STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

Scoping was the first step in the planning and environmental review process for development of a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the Alabama Hills NSA and SRMA. Several more steps are necessary for this planning effort and include:

• Formulating a proposed action (draft Plan) and alternatives.

• Preparing an EA to analyze the effects of the draft Plan and alternatives.

• Publishing the draft Plan and EA for public review and comment.

• Reviewing and responding to substantive comments on the draft Plan and EA.

• Preparing a finding regarding the significance of effects for the selected alternative (final Plan) and EA.

• Issuing a Finding of No Significance Impact (FONSI) and Decision Record (DR) for the final Plan and EA if appropriate based on the predicted effects.

The BLM is currently formulating a proposed action and range of alternatives to consider for the draft Plan and EA based on comments received through external and internal scoping. Alternatives will generally fall into two categories: 1) alternatives to be analyzed in detail, or 2) alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The EA will provide rationale for any alternative considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.

Once the draft Plan and EA are complete, the BLM will publish the documents for a 30-day public review and comment period. The BLM will also hold public meetings, most likely in Lone Pine and Bishop, CA during this public review and comment period. Public notification of the availability of the draft Plan and EA, as well as information on future public meetings, will be provided through the media, posted on the BLM ePlanning website for the Alabama Hills Management Plan, and via email to those on the interested party for this planning effort.

The BLM has revised the interested party mail and email distribution lists for the Alabama Hills NSA/SRMA planning effort based on comments received during public scoping. Please contact the Bishop Field Office if you wish to be added to, or removed from, the interested party distribution lists for this planning effort. Contact information is provided below.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Web: BLM ePlanning site for the Alabama Hills Management Plan at http://bit.ly/AlabamaHillsPlan

Email: [email protected]

Mail: BLM Bishop Field Office Attn: Alabama Hills Management Plan 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 100 Bishop, CA 93514

Phone: 760-872-5000

Figure 1. Alabama Hills NSA and SRMA Planning Area.