APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF NEPA PROCESS FOR WMRNP WEST MOJAVE (WEMO) ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix B Summary of NEPA Process for WMRNP B.1 Notice of Intent The impact analyses are based on the Applicant’s description of their proposed Project, and that description includes, for some The planning process was initiated by a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment to the 2006 WEMO Plan that was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2011, and clarified on May 2, 2013. The clarified NOI served as notification of the intent to prepare an EIS as required in 40 CFR 1501.7, as well as of potential amendment to the CDCA Plan. The NOI served to indicate the planning- level vs non-planning level decisions, and to clarify that the plan amendment would be an EIS- level amendment, and requested comments on relevant issues, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f) concerns, and initial planning criteria for the plan amendment. The NOI indicated that the Proposed Plan Amendment and SEIS would consider the following: Amend the Motorized-Vehicle Access (MVA) Element of the CDCA Plan to modify the language regarding the process for designating routes in the West Mojave Planning Area; Reconsider other MVA Element land-use-planning level guidance for the West Mojave Planning Area; Revisit the route designation process for the West Mojave Planning Area; Clarify the West Mojave Planning Area inventory for route designation and analysis; Establish a route network in the Planning Area consistent with current guidance and new information; Adopt travel management areas (TMAs) to facilitate implementation of the West Mojave route network; Provide or modify network-wide and TMA-specific activity-plan level minimization, mitigation, and other implementation strategies for the West Mojave Planning Area; and Respond to specific issues related to the US District Court WEMO Summary Judgment and Remedy Orders. B.2 EIS Scoping Following the NOI, BLM held two overview public scoping meetings on September 27 and 29, 2011, in Ridgecrest and Barstow, California. As part of the scoping process, the BLM hosted scoping meetings and public workshops for the public and other interested parties to learn about and submit comments on the West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP). The BLM advertised the scoping meetings using a variety of outreach materials including the Project website and news releases. The outreach materials provided an overview of the proposed project; APPENDIX B-1 WEST MOJAVE (WEMO) ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT provided meeting locations, dates, and times; explained the purpose of the scoping meetings; identified methods for making comments; and provided contact information for questions regarding the WEMO Project. All materials provided an e-mail address for submitting comments ([email protected]) and a link to the Project website (http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/west_mojave__wemo.html) which contained a comment form and additional project background information. The BLM held 10 public scoping meetings to initiate the BLM’s process for reconsidering motorized vehicle (OHV) route designations in the WEMO Project planning area. The BLM held two overview open house public meetings September 27 and 29, 2011, in Ridgecrest and Barstow, California, and based on scoping comments and feedback from those meetings, followed with eight public travel designation workshops, also held in Ridgecrest and Barstow, in January and February 2012. A total of 299 people, not including BLM staff, attended the scoping meetings and workshops. Prior to the meetings, the BLM posted current maps and additional project information to the Project website for public review. Table 2 of the Scoping Report provides the locations, dates, times, and number of attendees at each scoping meeting. The issues to be addressed and the areas of controversy surrounding the proposed plan amendment were similar to those identified for the 2006 WEMO Plan Amendment. In the Scoping Report for the 2011 and 2012 meetings, BLM categorized the public comments as follows: NEPA process, and requests for maximizing public involvement in the process; Effects of the proposed action on livestock grazing; Type of route designation process to be used; Criterion A of 43 CFR 8342.1 (minimizing damage to air, soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness sustainability); Criterion B of 43 CFR 8342.1 (minimizing harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats); Criterion C of 43 CFR 8342.1 (minimizing conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands); Criterion D of 43 CFR 8342.1 (prohibiting trails in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas); Definition of the purpose and need for the route network; The range of alternatives to be considered; The source of data for the route inventory being evaluated; Specific resource impacts, including air quality; biological resources; climate change; and cumulative impacts associated with alternative energy projects, expansion of military bases, and other planning efforts; Mitigation and minimization measures to be considered; APPENDIX B-2 WEST MOJAVE (WEMO) ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Implementation and administrative actions including route signage, trail monitoring, enforcement, public education, trail enhancements, and other administrative actions; and Area and route-specific comments organized by the Travel Management Areas initially identified. Following the May 2, 2013 publication of a clarified NOI, three additional public workshops were held in January, 2014, in Barstow, Bishop, and Ridgecrest, which targeted tribal communities. The great majority of the scoping issues and comments were related to specific route designations in the Planning Area. One exception was the comment by many users to address the routes in the Ridgecrest and El Paso subregions through a separate route designation process. Many commenters also provided input on the network inventory, the needs that the network serves, and the route designation process. Primary NEPA considerations focused on cumulative effects to resource values, particularly soils and sensitive species, the cumulative effects of grazing, and to potential cumulative loss of recreational access opportunities. Primary user considerations focused on maintaining diverse recreational opportunities, providing access for specific users, including rock-hounders, motorcyclists, scientific and educational activities, and non-OHV users, dealing with conflicts between users, and maintaining commercial and private access needs. B.3 2015 Draft SEIS The Notice of Availability of the WMRNP Draft SEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2015 (FR Vol. 80, No. 44, Pgs. 12194 to 12195). The initial public review period began on March 6, 2015, and continued for 90 days until June 4, 2015. During that period, BLM held public meetings in Ridgecrest on March 31, 2015, in Victorville, on April 2, 2015, in Lone Pine, on April 7, 2015, and on April 15, 2015, in Yucca Valley. BLM received 458 public comment letters, as well as six form letters that were signed by a total of approximately 4,000 individuals, within this comment period. Based on comments requesting an extension of the public comment period, and the ability to review the Draft SEIS within the context of the DRECP, an additional public comment period was re-opened beginning on September 25, 2015. This additional comment period was open for 120 days, until January 25, 2016. During this period, two additional public meetings were held in Victorville on December 15, 2015, and in Ridgecrest on December 17, 2015. During this comment period, BLM received an additional 286 public comment letters and four form letters that were signed by a total of 74 individuals. Following each of those public comment periods, BLM sorted and reviewed the public comments. Where appropriate, changes were made in the route designation alternatives, analysis, and/or text of the SEIS. Comments that were not route-specific were organized into categories, and responses were developed to each group of comments. The response–to- comment document is provided in Appendix I of this Draft SEIS. There were approximately 11,900 route-specific comments in which a commenter requested a change to the designation of a route. Where these comments identified a specific route, requested a change in its designation, and provided rationale for the proposed change, they were reviewed by resource staff, and changes to designations were made in the Alternative 4 route network, where appropriate. APPENDIX B-3 WEST MOJAVE (WEMO) ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT B.4 2018 Draft SEIS The NOA of the revised Draft SEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 16th, 2018 (FR Vol. 83, No. 52, Pgs. 11785 to 11786). The public review period began on March 16, 2018, and continued for 90 days until June 14, 2018. During that period, BLM held public meetings in Victorville on April 17, 2018, in Ridgecrest on April 18, 2018, in Lone Pine on April 24, 2018, and on April 25, 2018, in Joshua Tree. BLM received public comment letters and e-mails from 422 individuals, as well as eight form letters