“Scoping” is the process by which the BLM solicits internal and external input on the issues, impacts, and potential alternatives that will be addressed in an EIS or EA , as well as the extent to which those issues and impacts will be analyzed in the NEPA document (BLM 2008).
Project scoping letters were mailed (December 24 and 26, 2008, respectively) to approximately 450 interested parties. One letter was addressed specifically to interested agencies and/or stakeholder groups. The second letter was distributed to private landowners, congressional representatives, special interest groups, county commissioners, and local media, including radio stations and newspapers. The letters were intended to inform the agencies and public of the project and to invite comments and feedback on the proposal and its potential impacts. All letter recipients were given approximately 30 days to respond with comments.
The BLM received three written comment responses, including one response from a private individual and two responses from interested agency or stakeholder groups. Additionally, agency and stakeholder groups were invited to participate in a scoping meeting on January 20, 2009. Three agency/stakeholder groups were represented at the scoping session, including: TNC , U.S. Geological Survey, and the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association. Representatives from BLM , UNLV , and EDAW AECOM facilitated the agency scoping meeting.
In July 2009, the BLM - Southern Nevada District Office requested that UNLV and TNC submit their comments on the proposed DCP . UNLV ’s Planning and Construction Department reviewed the DCP and provided written comments in March 2010. TNC provided written comments on February 5, 2010. These comments are considered in this EA and will be reflected in the final DCP .
A project Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) comprised of BLM , UNLV , and contractor resource specialists reviewed all comments received to help determine the range of issues to be analyzed in the EA . The scoping letter, press releases, mailing list, and all comments received are filed in the Project Record, available for review at the Red Rock/Sloan Field Office in Las Vegas.
All comments received were considered when defining the scope of the EA , and helped guide the appropriate level of analysis for each resource. The following list of issues and concerns indicates the major items of public or agency concern identified during the scoping process; however, it is not intended to be a complete or comprehensive list of issues to be analyzed in the EA . All written and oral comments received during the scoping period are summarized below.
Consistency with the conservation easements.
Concerns about increasing human presence in a remote and fragile desert environment.
Existing and emerging land use proposals in the greater Ivanpah, Piute, and southern Eldorado valleys and Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
Long-term funding for the Walking Box Ranch programs.
Cumulative effects of nearby land use changes.
Ensuring the character and function of lands adjacent to the Walking Box Ranch, which are critical to the recovery of the desert tortoise.
Ensure that other biodiversity and ecological values remain intact or are enhanced.
Concerns about inadequate BLM resource protection capacity to enforce existing land use designations in and around desert tortoise critical habitat.
Potential for increased public recreational use in the areas surrounding the project site, specifically within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) mitigation reserve area and how it may impact past, current, and future mitigation actions funded by the DCP .
Concerns that emerging land use patterns or major developments may compromise the research opportunities at/around the Walking Box Ranch.
Potential for collaboration and coordination to promote desert environment educational opportunities; interpretive network.
Concerns regarding what level of development is permissible/consistent with the language of the conservation easements.