Walking Box Ranch, located just west of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada, was historically operated as a cattle ranch. Originally carved from the massive Rock Springs Land and Cattle Company, the ranch was purchased and occupied by silent film era stars Rex Bell and Clara Bow, beginning in May 1931. The property continued as an operating cattle ranch, under Bell and the subsequent ownership of Karl Weikel, through the 1980s until it was sold to Viceroy Gold Corporation in 1989. Viceroy used the property to access their local mine and rehabilitated the ranch headquarters to serve as an executive retreat. Since the mid-1990s, the property, located in the midst of an expansive desert tortoise conservation area, has changed hands several times and is now owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The BLM proposes to establish a Walking Box Museum/Interpretive Center and Field Research and Training Center (FRTC) at the site of the historic Walking Box Ranch (40-acre parcel).
The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA), among other things, provides for funding of selected Capital Improvement projects within Clark County in southern Nevada. Under two separate SNPLMA awards, funding has been allocated for the BLM to establish a Museum/Interpretive Center and FRTC at the site of the historic Walking Box Ranch.
The first SNPLMA project provides for rehabilitation of the historic structures at the Walking Box Ranch and phased development of a museum/interpretive center. As specified in the project nomination, the goal of the museum/interpretive center project is to “[educate] the public about the historic site and also about the biological diversity and geological features of the Mojave Desert setting.”
The second SNPLMA project provides for the development of a FRTC at the Walking Box Ranch. As specified in the project nomination, the goal of the FRTC project is “for the ranch to become a recognized facility for national training and research on important arid lands issues.”
By establishing the Walking Box Ranch Museum/Interpretive Center, the BLM has an opportunity to develop a facility dedicated to promoting public appreciation of a historic Southern Nevada site, to preserve some of the best examples of architecture and building materials representative of the time period of the early 1930s, and to provide a venue for public education about the fragile ecosystems and public land management of the Mojave Desert.
By establishing the Walking Box Ranch FRTC , the BLM has the opportunity to partner with the Nevada System of Higher Education (formerly UCCSN) in developing a facility dedicated to understanding and managing the fragile and biodiversity-rich ecosystems centered on the Mojave Desert. The Walking Box Ranch FRTC is envisioned as becoming the flagship property within an integrated network of field educational, research, and training sites located within and focusing on southern Nevada’s natural and cultural resources.
The Walking Box Ranch museum/interpretive center and the FRTC present a unique opportunity for exploring issues and opportunities related to sustainability in the desert, including both historic sustainable practices and modern sustainable or “green” technologies. The BLM proposes to design and develop the museum/interpretive center and FRTC , including both construction and programming, consistent with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) accreditation standards.
Project scoping letters were mailed (December 24 and 26, 2008, respectively) to approximately 450 interested parties. 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: The Nature Conservancy (TNC), U.S. Geological Survey, and the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association. Representatives from BLM , University of Nevada – Las Vegas (UNLV), and EDAW AECOM facilitated the agency scoping meeting.
For the purposes of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the Proposed Action alternative includes the desired program elements from the 2009 Development Concept Plan, as well as several additional program elements and site options identified in the 2008 Master Plan and Preservation Plan. These additional elements and options have been included to expand BLM decision space as well as to account for final design, site conditions, and market conditions at the time of implementation.
This EA analyzes the effects of a No Action alternative and a Proposed Action alternative as there are no other alternatives to this Proposed Action that would substantially differ in design or effect and still fulfill the Purpose and Need for the project ( BLM National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] Handbook 8.3.4.2).
Table 1, “Summary of Site-Specific Elements by Alternative” provides a summary of the key elements of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives.
Table 1. Summary of Site-Specific Elements by Alternative
| Element | No Action | Proposed Action | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL REGISTER ELEMENTS | ||||
| Historic Buildings | ||||
| Ranch House | No changes to the existing structure | Preserved and rehabilitated; portions of the first floor would be used for interpretive and administrative purposes | ||
| Barn | No changes to the existing structure | Upgraded and reconstructed, including climate control and new concrete foundation; barn would serve as the gateway to the ranch and primary visitor contact station | ||
| Historic Structures | ||||
| Ice House Interpretive Exhibit | No changes to the existing structure; original ice house exists in nonhistoric location | Relocated elsewhere within the barn area, but not to historic location; used for interpretation or storage | ||
| Water Tank | No changes to the existing structure | Existing water tank to remain in use for fire suppression water storage; to be interpreted | ||
| Corrals | No changes to the existing structure | Existing corrals to remain and to be interpreted; would also serve as expanded exhibit space, group gathering areas, picnicking areas, and special event space; amphitheater-style seating for up to 25 people on haybales; southernmost corral used for event/overflow parking | ||
| Historic Site Features | ||||
| Walking Box Ranch Road / Site Entry | No changes to the ranch entry way | Ranch entry road improvements to include partial paving and additional signage | ||
| Boundary Fences | No changes to the existing structure | Existing corrals, fences, water tank, shed ruins, and wagon artifacts to remain and to be interpreted; minor modification, including removal or repair of some sections, as necessary, to ensure ranch security, delineate property boundaries, etc. | ||
| Pathways | No changes to the existing pathways | Circulation through the interior of the site, connecting points of interest, gathering areas, parking areas, and other essential amenities; patterns to take advantage of existing / historic ’corridors’ | ||
| OTHER EXISTING RANCH ELEMENTS | ||||
| Bunkhouse | No changes to the existing structure; currently accommodates up to 12 guests in double-occupancy rooms | Completely remodeled for interpretive exhibits and/or support space; would not serve any overnight guests | ||
| Guest Cottages | (None existing) | One ~800 sq. ft. two-story duplex style guest cottage to accommodate faculty and VIP guests; located south and west of the historic core | ||
| Reconstructed ‘Shop String’ | (None existing, no interpretation) | ‘Shop string’ is interpreted through exhibits, but would not be reconstructed | ||
| Reconstructed Blacksmith’s Shop | (None existing, no interpretation) | Blacksmith’s shop would be reconstructed in a new (nonhistoric) location; the reconstructed shop would be used for interpretive purposes | ||
| Reconstructed Guest House | (None existing, no interpretation) | (None proposed) | ||
| Pumphouse and Water Treatment System | No changes to the existing structure | The existing pumphouse and treatment facility would be demolished and a new pressurized system and pumphouse would be constructed; potable and nonpotable water would be separated into different pipe systems | ||
| NEW ELEMENTS | ||||
| Maintenance Area | (None existing) | New ~1,650 sq. ft. maintenance building south of the historic core with workshop, ‘dirty lab’, and enclosed maintenance yard. Adjacent to the new research facility; covered parking area | ||
| New Concession Structure | (None existing) | A new concession structure would not be necessary if the bunkhouse were remodeled to fit these needs | ||
| New Research Facility | (None existing) | New 2,500-5,000 sq. ft. research facility to include classrooms, offices, laboratories, observation/interpretation area and storage space; located south of the historic core | ||
| New Bunkhouse | (None existing) | New ~3,700 sq. ft. bunkhouse facility to consist of several buildings connected by covered porches; double-occupancy rooms, including ADA accessible rooms, and common/shared living space and kitchen | ||
| Manager’s Residence | (None existing) | Permanent housing for a ranch manager south of the ranch house; 800-1,000 sq. ft. | ||
| Caretaker’s Residence | Temporary double-wide mobile home | Permanent housing for a caretaker south of the ranch house; 800-1,000 sq. ft. | ||
| Interpretive center | (None existing) | None, existing barn would serve as primary visitor contact station | ||
| Parking | Ad hoc parking in existing disturbed areas | Paved visitor drop-off area capable of accommodating buses; drop-off and main parking areas would be adjacent but not connected; overnight and long-term guest parking located central to the new group camping area and new bunkhouse addition; event parking would be available in the southernmost corral, immediately west of the pumphouse | ||
| Group and RV Camping | (None existing) | New designated group (35-40 guests) and RV camping (3 full hook-up sites) areas for researchers, students, and official guests located south of the historic core; not open for public or recreational use; one new 400 sq. ft. shower/restroom building would be constructed | ||
| SUMMARY | ||||
| Total new development footprint | n/a | 4 acres | ||
| Existing disturbed areas that would be restored with native plantings | n/a | 5 acres | ||
| Short-term disturbance footprint (in addition to the total new development footprint) | n/a | 3 acres (primarily for pipeline trenches; where possible, these pipelines would be routed through existing disturbed areas) | ||
| Total net change | n/a | Negligible; difference is approximately 1 acre, restored | ||
Per the BLM Nevada supplemental authorities and issues identified during scoping, the following resources and/or issues were retained for description and analysis in Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of the EA .
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Hydrology, Drainage, and Erosion
Land Use
Non-Native Invasive and Noxious Species
Soils
Threatened, Endangered, or Protected Species
Vegetation
Visitation / Residents
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Wildlife, including Migratory Birds
Table 2, “Summary of Alternative Impacts by Resource” presents a comparison of project effects by alternative.
Table 2. Summary of Alternative Impacts by Resource
| Resource(s) | No Action Alternative | Proposed Action Alternative |
| Air Quality | No direct effects to air quality. | Short-term direct adverse effects as a result of construction-generated dust and vehicle emissions. Long-term minor adverse effect as a result of increased vehicle traffic, and subsequently increased emissions. |
| Cultural Resources, Native American Religious Concerns | No direct effects to historic structures or district. Without human presence on the ranch, increased potential for vandalism, theft, and fire. Potential adverse effects to the structures and district would be long-term and moderate or greater. | Rehabilitation and stabilization of historic structures; some adverse effects as a result of modifications to these structures; intensity or severity of effects would be minimized through the use of project design features and Secretary’s Standards. Overall, long-term benefit to the integrity of the district; no overall adverse effect to National Register status. |
| Hydrology, Drainage, and Erosion / Soils | No direct effects to hydrology, drainage, and erosion. | Minor short-term adverse effects to erosion and hydrology as a result of construction activities. Long-term effects to drainage patterns within the 40-acre parcel boundary as a result of relocated swales. Negligible adverse effects anticipated beyond the 40-acre boundary. Future water demand is anticipated to be within existing water rights. Overall, negligible effects to groundwater resources. |
| Land Use | No direct effects on land uses at the ranch. No Action may encourage unauthorized uses of the ranch. Ultimately, not consistent with the terms of TNC conservation easement as it would not preserve the historic and scenic values of the ranch. | Direct effects to existing land uses at the ranch. Ranch would transition from a dormant historic ranch to an active educational and interpretive facility. Would ensure the preservation of historic and scenic values, as stipulated in TNC conservation easement. |
| Vegetation; Threatened, Endangered, or Protected Plant Species; Non-Native Invasive and Noxious Species | No direct effects to vegetation, including threatened, endangered, or protected plant species such as cactus and yucca. Indirect effects are unlikely. | Direct effects to 3 acres in the short term; however, much of this area is currently denuded. Long-term loss of 4 acres of native vegetation due to building footprints. Restoration of approximately 5 acres to native vegetation. Total net change: approximately 1 acre. Low risk to special status species. Limited potential for long-term impacts to individual yucca and cacti. Where these species occur within the construction footprint, individuals would be salvaged and relocated. |
| Visitation / Residents | No direct effects to visitation. Ranch is currently closed to the public, except by special arrangements. May encourage unauthorized visitors and delinquent activities at the ranch in the long term. | New public educational and interpretive opportunities. Increase in permanent resident presence. Long-term UNLV academic pursuits. Potential for several special events per year. |
| Visual and Aesthetic Resources | No direct effects. Long-term adverse effects as deterioration of historic structure and facilities worsens without human presence on the ranch. Overall, still consistent with VRM Class II objectives. | Short-term minor adverse effects resulting from construction activities. Long-term beneficial impacts resulting from rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. Overall, consistent with VRM Class II objectives. |
| Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species, Migratory Birds | No direct effects to any wildlife species or habitats. Long-term negligible beneficial impacts resulting from removal of human presence. | Minor adverse direct effects to wildlife species in he short-term resulting from increased human activity, noise, dust, vibrations, or displacement during construction. Long-term minor adverse effects as a result of increased background levels of human activity. Minor long-term benefit as a result of restoration of denuded areas. |