BLM LIBRARY
88045290
PROPOSED
PLAN AMENDMENT and FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for the
CLARK COUNTY
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN
SAND AND GRAVEL LEASING
IN THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY SUB-UNIT
STATELINE RESOURCE AREA NEVADA
prepared by the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
^
&
r-p<£
«•
a
o
#
L37
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
CLARK COUNTY
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN
SAND AND GRAVEL LEASING IN THE
LAS VEGAS VALLEY SUB-UNIT
STATELINE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA
Prepared by:
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
<:
Edwardf F. Spang . /
Nevada State Director
The Proposed Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Assessment considers new
lease applications filed prior to the revocation of 43 CFR 3563.2 and renewal
of existing ieases for sand and gravel on lands within the boundaries of the
Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit in Clark County. Six alternatives were analyzed.
For further information contact: Ben F. Collins, District Manager, Las Vegas
District Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 26569, Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
or telephone (702) 646-8800.
BLMLUPT88031617 ^k%°^ SSo^NTSf, November 23, 1988
PREFACE
This Proposed Management Framework Plan (MFP) Amendment and Final
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been printed in an abbreviated format and
must be used in conjunction with the Draft Plan Amendment issued in July,
1987. This document contains the Purpose and Need for the Amendment; Proposed
Management Framework Plan Amendment and the alternatives analyzed in the draft
plan amendment; Implementation, Text Qianges; and Coordination, Consistency,
and Public Participation. This document also contains copies of all comment
letters received on the draft plan amendment and draft environmental
assessment and responses to the issues raised in each letter.
This proposed MFP amendment may be protested following the procedures outlined
in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.5-2. Protests must be filed
within thirty days after release of this document (see date on title page)
with the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, 18th and C Streets, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20240, and should contain the following information:
0 The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the
person filing the protest.
0 A statement of the issue or issues being protested.
° A statement of the part or parts of the document being protested.
0 A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues previously
submitted during the planning process by the protesting party, or an
indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the
records.
0 A short, concise statement explaining precisely why the BLM Nevada
State Director's decision is wrong.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS i i
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT 1
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN AMENDMENT
Proposed Amendment 5
Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft Plan Amendment 7
IMPLEMENTATION 8
TEXT CHANGES 8
COORDINATION, CONSISTENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 9
Public Involvement 9
Availability of the Draft MFP Amendment and
Draft EA 10
Availability of Proposed MFP Amendment and
Final EA 12
Introduction to Public Comments and Responses 12
Comment Letters and Responses 13
TABLES
Table 1. Pre and Post Amendment Comparison 7
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Las Vegas Valley Sub -Unit 2
Figure 2. Site Location Map 4
Figure 3. LeaseAlining Boundaries of the Proposed Amendment 6
ii
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of the proposed plan amendment and final environmental assessment
is to consider the authorization of three sand and gravel lease applications
in addition to the renewal of two existing sand and gravel leases in the Las
Vegas Valley Sub-Unit (see Figure 1). The surface is privately owned while
the mineral estate is owned by the Federal government. Lease application
approval and the renewal of the existing leases will conflict with and
preclude surface development. Failure to renew the existing leases and
denial of the lease applications will limit the amount of sand and gravel
reserves available to the companies involved. The issues analyzed were
primarily socio-economic in nature rather than biologic.
The existing Clark County Management Framework Plan (MFP) decision, dated
1984, states that not less than four sand and gravel community pits would be
established and maintained in the Las Vegas Valley and immediate vicinity for
aggregate sales to the pub Lie. It further states, award no new sand and
gravel leases or sales contracts, either competitive or non competitive, and
renew no existing leases or contracts upon their expiration. The principal
driving forces behind this decision were changing land use and ownership
patterns (public vs. private land) and suburban expansion within the Las Vegas
Valley. Additionally, the scarceness of federal minerals prevented the Bureau
from providing aggregate operators with exclusive mining sites near the market
area.
Sand and gravel is commonly disposed of under the Materials Sales Act of
1947. However, the Nevada Exchange Act of 1926 provided for the disposal of
all Federal minerals from certain private lands in Nevada under such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of Interior may prescribe. Such rules for the
mining of sand and gravel by lease were promulgated under 43 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 3563.2. Pursuant to the regulations, two leases, Nev-057863
and N-35779, were granted in 1982 and 1983 to Bonanza Materials (hereinafter
referred to as the lessee) and three lease applications, N-41931 and N-41932
(lessee) and N-41639 (WMK Transit Mix) were filed with the BLM in 1986. The
Federal regulations made no provisions for competitive leasing or surface
owner consent.
On May 22, 1986, the above regulations were revoked and replaced by 43 CFR
3586. These later regulations, however, recognized existing leases and
provided for their continuance. Applications filed prior to revocation of 43
CFR 3563.2 were also grandfathered. Sand and gravel underlying Nevada
Exchange Act Lands, except for existing leases and applications, is now
disposable only under 43 CFR 3600, by sale or free use permit.
It was thought, at the time of the MFP writing, that the establishment of no
less than four community pits in the Valley would satisfy the local demand for
aggregate. Upon expiration of all aggregate contracts and leases in the
Valley, the operators would be moved into community pit areas. During the
early part of 1986, three factors caused the Bureau to reconsider the
restrictive nature of its MFP decision regarding sand and gravel.
First, the community pit concept was becoming less realistic because of
suburban expansion. Although suitable sites to locate community pits are
becoming scarce in the Valley area, the Bureau still intends to pursue the
location of these pits.
'$4
: — I
FIGURE 1. LAS VEGAS VALLEY SUB-UNIT
// R63E
R61E gun
-. life- '
!^R62El£§
T19S
; ^N*t« MOUNTAIN
|r.
gr^^
\ ^
*^
Secondly, it was realized that community pits, while appropriate for small
scale, low volume, and intermittent operations, would not accommodate
large-scale operations such as the lessee's, whose current production exceeds
700,000 cubic yards per year. Large-scale operations, which involve
significant capital investment in terms of equipment, employees, employee
facilities, and permanent structures, require exclusive rights, a concept
community pits do not convey. Also, by regulatory provision, large volume
sales (over 200,000 cubic yards), if not by lease, must be by competitive bid
(43 CFR 3610.2). Competitive sales necessitate exclusive rights which are
inconsistent with the community pit non-exclusive rights provision.
Competitive contracts are generally long term, up to ten years, in contrast to
community pit contracts which are normally not authorized for more than three
months.
Lastly, the complexity of the problem was further increased both by the
continued residential and industrial growth throughout the Las Vegas Valley
and by proposed development plans near or on the existing leases and lease
application areas. Surface owners began to express concern about their rights
to develop their property and what options if any they had. Lease Nev-057863
was due to expire on February 28, 1987, and in light of the discussed
shortcomings, it became apparent that a reasoned analysis would be needed to
either renew or deny the lease as well as other leases pending action.
Towards the end of 1986, it was determined that, in addition to taking an
indepth look at the sand and gravel leasing operation in relation to its
environment, an MFP amendment would be necessary before the existing leases
would be renewed or any new leases would be issued in the Las Vegas Valley
Sub-Unit. The environment in this instance, focused on the mining of Federally
owned minerals from lands where the surface is privately owned and the
conflict resulting between mining operator and surface owners.
Discussion of the alternatives is limited to existing leases and applications
because they are grandfathered by the regulations. The amendment does not
discriminate against other Federal leases or contracts similarly situated
because there are none in the Sub-Unit. The draft amendment was written
primarily to analyze the conflict arising between the right of the current
lessee to continue mining, as allowed by law and regulations, versus the right
of the surface owners to develop their property. Its secondary purpose was to
consider authorizaton or denial of three sand and gravel lease applications.
As illustrated on Figure 2, the proposed amendment involves all of Sections 10
and 16 and portions of Sections 9 and 15 in T.22S., R.62E. Generally, the
area is situated in the southeastern portion of the Las Vegas Valley about 3.5
miles northwest of downtown Henderson, Nevada. It is bordered 0.5 mile to the
north by Sunset Road and on the south by Lake Mead Drive (State Route 146).
Gibson Road forms the east boundary of lease applications N-41931 and N-41639
and lease N-35779. All legal descriptions mentioned hereafter shall refer to
T.22S., R.62E. unless noted otherwise.
*A WHIDC,. 5 T
■ , * Grapnnn* -. y C i f~T
; • 3 Sprang, i r^ ^,-j.
/>..
aa.
-? 3>
iV
T
5 _ —
"V^
"".' Iir.'iinv/i:-
33
Whitney J5*
( Mesa „ „fC
— .4*8*,.,'
SJ
K-
T22S-R62E
X
E :™"
My ./«.
4 '*
CORPORATE' "5*
•^
i-sL-V1'!
^■M'1^^ ,
Gr..*i P'liA |
HK^hF P1V(
• w
\ N-41932
* S/G Lse Aoln
{nr~-^
N-41931
N-41639
. S/G Lse Aoln S
/ -Nev-057863
S/G Lse
.'rtelt-
- A i -^
N-35779
S/G Lse 16
' z' *— '
2:\W
■■'-,
21'
FIGURE 2. SITE LOCATION MAP
Existing Sand/Gravel Leases and Applications
«
I
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN AMENDMENT
Introduction
The Las Vegas District of the Bureau of Land Management proposes to implement
a Management Framework Plan Amendment to meet the original land use plan
objective as identified in the Clark County MFP. This objective is to manage
public lands in Clark County so as to facilitate exploration and development
of leaseable, locatable and salable minerals.
The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment incorporates a modified Preferred Alternative as
analyzed in the draft plan amendment, released in July, 1987.
The proposed amendment is:
- Renew, simultaneously and for another five years all of lease
Nev-057863 and only those portions of lease N-35779 where the
current leasee owns the surface or has a written agreement with the
surface owner to mine sand and gravel (see Figure 3 J.
- All future lease renewals will be subject to a comprehensive review
which will include public input and may be adjusted to include
terms, conditions, size, and compatibility with surrounding surface
uses.
- Reject sand and gravel lease applications N-41931, N-41932, and
N-41639.
Figure 3 shows the boundaries of the lease areas to be renewed, as well as
those to be to be rejected. Mining agreements currently exist between the
lessee and three surface owners; Sullivan, City of Henderson and PEPCON.
McLeod's property is needed for access only. The inclusion of BMI's property
is dependent upon agreement or purchase by the lessee. If neither transaction
takes place, BMI's property will be excluded from N-35779 upon renewal.
Through implementation of the proposed amendment, the Bureau of Land
Management would meet the following objectives:
- Manage public lands in Clark County to facilitate mineral
exploration and development.
- Allow a viable mining operation to continue with minimal effect on
competing surface uses.
Table 1 compares the original MFP decision with the elements of the proposed
amendment :
FIGURE 3. LEASE/MINING BOUNDARIES
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
T22S - R62E
£
Cihy of-HenJarson
Subdivision
L-J
\
1 &^
I 1.
0»
L.McLetxi
Service Co.
i L McLeoA
f
tfa.K*ta.
g I Three - tfneteen loc.
|h ,
Ata»n/«j Post, «/.«£
BRO
Invtiimmts
___L.
AT- «fl*3<?
/IT- <f/?3l
fi/MX
*«*$
l
I
i
l Arroyo
j GmrKfe
t
I
S^fAfetf-0#»3
%AV A ///////// /
t/V / /.
a~/V-
////// A/ /%/ / / /
A A AAA AAA A A7
ALAMelxodA./ aa/ . >*
////// \/?E.9CCN,
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
//////A///////
' KAV A /£/ / 'AS / /
V/> /Materials'
TJ^ZhS*/ //////
Wettwn
Holdi«% Co
-JO
I L.Plvarotf
Pacific Ejr§wetri*% iProi. Co.
{PEPCQtt)
' "
■ -— - ■ » ■ 7 T—7--7 / / /
////A////// A/ / / /
f//S,/,//A/£-{//£,/\AAAAA.
/ / / / /
' \y ' / ' ' / ' ' A A ////////////// /s~7-*^.
'AAAA
' / / / /
r ^y///////y///////////////////A7?.
American N*v*4a.
Corp.
«/////////////>7/7/7///////////////////7>s.
w "///// //////A///////,"//y//////" ///////
\mmmMMm-- *
i/ //////////// //////■
Y A A A A A A A A///// '
\A A A / / // // / /
y A A A£*~ — —
ft. Thurmond
Lease application area to be rejected
A / / A A
A A A A A
/ / / / /
Area to be deleted upon lease renewal
Existing lease area to be renewed
TABLE 1
PRE AND POST AMENDMENT COMPARISON
1984 MFP
1988 Proposed Amendment
Establish and maintain not less than
four community sand and gravel pits in
the Las Vegas Valley, one in each
quadrant. No community pits will be
established within the Burton-Santini
land disposal area (P. L. 95-586).
Authorize no new sand and gravel leases.
No change.
Reject sand and gravel lease
applications N-41931, N-41932
and N- 41 639.
Renew no existing leases in the Valley
upon their expiration.
Renew lease No. Nev-057863 in
its entirity and lease No.
N-35779 as modified.
Authorize no sales contracts,
competitive or non-competitive, in the
Valley.
Renew no existing sales contracts in the
Valley upon their expiration.
No change. Material sales
contracts will not be authorized
in the Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit.
No change. At present, there are
no existing sales contracts in
the Las Vegas Valley Sub -Unit.
Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft Plan Amendment
Preferred Alternative: Modified renewal, deny lease applications
Renew Bonanza's existing leases Nev-057863 and N-35779 for a five-year period
but with a reduction in lease size. The new configuration compromises
competing surfaces uses but allows a viable mining operation to continue.
Future renewals, not being limited by number, will be subject to review and
lease adjustments, to include terms, conditions, size, and compatibility with
surrounding surface uses. To reduce the surface /mining use conflict, lease
applications N-41931, N-41932 and N-41639, will be rejected.
Alternative A:
applications
Renew leases for one more five-year period, deny lease
Renew existing lease Nev-057863 for one more five-year term. Existing lease
N-35779 would be renewed in 1988 for a term less than five years such that
both leases would expire February 28, 1992. This alternative would provide
Bonanza Material with sufficient time to consider relocation, either on
private or government land. Since the mining of federal minerals would end in
1992 under this alternative, there is no justifiable reason to expand
aggregate mining operations further, and hence, the three lease applications
will be denied.
Alternative B: Renew leases indefinitely, approve lease applications
Renew the existing leases indefinitely, in five-year periods to Bonanza
Materials for as long as aggregate reserves are present and Bonanza submits
their renewal application as required by regulation. Approve lease
applications N-41639 or N-41931 and N-41932 where no surface improvements are
currently in place at the time of the final decision. Implementation of this
alternative will enlarge and intensify the existing conflict, expand Bonanza's
existing reserves and bring yet another aggregate producer, WML Transit Mix,
into the picture.
Alternative C: Renew leases until Bonanza Materials is moved to an
alternative site, deny lease applications
Leases Nev-057863 and N-35779 will be renewed until an alternative site can be
found for the mining operation, but not necessarily the processing
facilities. Bonanza Materials owns the surface on which the processing
facilities are located. Relocation of the mining site would be a coordinated
effort between Bonanza Materials and the Las Vegas District. An alternative
site has been identified by said company which involves land in Sections 5, 6,
7, 8 in T.23S., R. 62E. Since the existing leases are to be phased out, the
three lease applications will be denied for reasons of continuity.
Alternative D: Partial renewal of Nev-057863, let both leases expire in
1988, deny lease applications
This is, in effect, a no action alternative but it differs in that lease
Nev-057863 would be renewed so its expiration (February 28, 1987), coincides
with that of lease N-35779 (September 30, 1988). The Nev-057863 expiration,
in effect, nullifies N-35779. The construction of new access across the Union
Pacific Railroad is impracticable because of the short timeframe involved.
Since the existing leases are to be phased out, the three lease applications
will be denied for reasons of continuity.
Alternative E: Let both leases expire according to Clark County MFP, deny
lease applications (No Action Alternative)
The Bureau would take no action by making no change in the Clark County MFP.
Existing leases Nev-057863 and N-35779 would not be renewed upon their
expiration (February 28, 1987, and September 30, 1988, respectively) and the
three lease applications would be denied.
IMPLEMENTATION
Upon completion of the plan amendment process, leases Nev-057863 and N-35779
will be renewed simultaneously for another five-year term. Lease N-35779 will
be subject to a reduction in lease size as shown in Figure 3. Further
implementation will include rejection of lease applications N-41931, N-41932,
and N-41639.
TEXT CHANGES
This section contains revisions, errata, and additions to tnose portions of
the Draft Amendment that are reprinted in this Proposed Amendment /Final EA.
Page 1, second paragraph, first sentence siiould read:
"Tne Clark County Management Framework Plan (MFP) , dated 1984,
states that no new sand/gravel leases and material sales contract be
authorized or existing sand/gravel leases and contracts be renewed
on lands within the Las Vegas Valley."
Page 5, first paragraph, first sentence should read:
"Sand and gravel lease applications N-41932 (360 acres) and N-41931
(640 acres) were filed by Boyd P. Anderson, dba Bonanza Materials,
on April 2, 1985, and April 9, 1985, respectively."
Page 5, second paragraph, delete the third sentence and revise the
last sentence to read:
"Dirt work and initial development of a trailer court has been
accomplished on the E 1/2 NW i/4 of Section 16."
Page 12, first paragraph, second sentence:
Legal description E 1/2 SW 1/4 should read E 1/2 NW 1/4.
Page 13, first paragraph, first sentence, revise as follows:
"Although located in an unincorporated area of Clark County, outside
the City of Henderson, PEPCON's industrial park project would be in
conformance with tiie City of Henderson's Master Plan for land use,
which shows recommended land use policies for lands adjacent to city
boundaries."
Page 23, Item No. 3, second paragraph, first sentence:
Legal description S 1/2 SW 1/4 should read S 1/2 SE 1/4.
COORDINATION, CONSISTENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Involvement
All individuals who were originally invited to participate in the Clark County
Management Framework Plan, completed in January of 1984, were again invited to
participate in this plan amendment. In addition to the original mailing list,
over 160 other individuals and companies were also notified of the plan
amendment. These individuals and companies were felt to have interests which
may be affected by the implementation of one or more of the alternatives
analyzed in the amendment. During this notification, a letter dated October 30,
1986, asked participants to comment on planning issues and criteria and to
provide feedback as to the range of alternatives to be analyzed.
A Notice of Intent to prepare an amendment to the Clark County MFP and an
invitation for public participation in identifying issues and reviewing
planning criteria was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1986,
(51 FR 32853). A subsequent Federal Register notice on October 17, 1986 (51 FR
37079) extended the timeframe for public comment and participation to October
31, 1986.
As a result of the scoping, two additional alternatives were developed and
analyzed. A news release was sent, concurrently with tiie mail out, to all
newspapers servicing Clark. County. Over 141 letters were received as a result
of this 30-day scoping period. Of these, sixteen participants asked to be put
on the mailing lists for any other documents associated with this amendment.
Those individuals, organizations, agencies and/or companies were sent the
draft plan amendment for their review.
By letter of September 28, 1987, the Las Vegas District Manager initiated a
30-day public comment period on the Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental
Assessment. The draft amendment was also sent to the Governor of Nevada for
his consistency review through the Nevada State Clearinghouse. Over 200
copies of the draft amendment were distributed to reviewing agencies, elected
officials, and interested publics.
On January 21, 1988, a meeting, called by Congressman James Bilbray and
chaired by Carl Johnson, was held. Approximately 15 people attended and BLM
officials were available to answer questions.
An informal public meeting was held by BLM on March 23, 1988, to provide
information concerning the plan amendment, BLM's planning process, policy and
regulations regarding sand and gravel leasing. Notice of the public meeting
was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 1988 (53 FR 5470). A
news release and letter to interested citizens were also sent announcing the
meeting. About 150 individuals attended the meeting.
Availability of the Draft MFP Amendment and Draft EA
The Clark County MFP Amendment and Draft EA dealing with sand and gravel
leasing in the Las Vegas Sub-Unit was made available to the public on
September 28, 1987. Some 200 copies of the draft amendment were distributed
to the following agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals:
CONGRESSIONAL
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES
Senator James Bilbray
Senator Harry Reid
STATE AGENCIES
Office of the Governor, Nevada
State Clearinghouse
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Nevada Department of Transportation
Nevada State Department of Agriculture
LOCAL AGENCIES
City Planner, Henderson, NV
City Manager, Henderson, NV
Department of Development Services,
City of Henderson
East Las Vegas Town Advisory Board
Clark County Department of
Comprehensive Planning
Clark County Department of Finance,
Community § Economic Development
Adams, Micky
Allard £ Company
American Nevada Corporation
Americana Group
Arroyo Grande Development Co.
Baker, Billie
Bank, Jon Jr.
Basic Management Inc.
Bayer, John
Bell, Thomas G.
Berry, Jerry
Binion, Jack
Bonanza Materials
Bowling, Jack G.
Brazier, Joan
BRD Investments
Brooke, Bill
Brown, Ben
Camasco, Helio
Campbell, Rebecca
Canty, Jonn tj Tanna
Calfajun, Paul
10
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES (Com.)
Causey Beverly and C.
Center, Roy
Chaffin, Keith
Chain, Jeff
Christensen, Dolores
Christian, Frank M.
Ciaborn, Jerry
Collins Brothers Corporation
Cooper, Keith
Cripps, R.L.
Crumley, Harry tj Ellen
Darby, Sam M.
Deitrich, David $ Mary
Diinmitt, Frank
Drache, Eric
Dumett, Katherine
Eddy, Ed
England, Charles
Escoto, Mark
Fierro, Mark
Fig, Peter
Frazler, Bill
Frey, Herbert
Gang, Leonard I.
Graham, Ron £ Trau
Grimes, F.W.
Gunsobs, Cliff
Haiseu, Lee
Harrington, Gary
Harrison, Kirk
Hartmon, Joiin
Henderson, Arthur § Lenore
Henderson, Philip T.
Herbert, Jim
Hibbs, Mary
Hofmeister, Bob
Hunt, Roger
Jans sen, Fred
Jeffery, Jack
Jensen, Lloyd
Johnston, Carl
Jones, Herbert M.
Juarez, Joe M.
Ken, Robert
Kupiks, Jared W.
Kusliner, Meyer
Las Vegas Building Materials Inc.
Las Vegas Fertilizer Co. , Inc.
Laoas, Noel
Lee, Rosemary
Lee, Wayne
Ley, Jim
Lindblum, Ray
Linn, Milton
Long, Carl K.
Loup i as, Louis
MacDonald, Richard
Marin, Gregory D.
McClone, Robert R.
McGinty, Mike
rlcLeod, Angus
Me shard, David
Miller, Randy
Miller, Russell F.
Mi 11 is, Pat $ Darla
Mitchell, Richard
Moore, Barry
Morris, W.M.
Mundy, Dan
Murphy, Tim
Murray, Craig
Nakata, Richard
Nevada State Bank
Newell, Ronald M.
Obney, Scott
Oiness, Mark A.
Pacific Engineering § Production Co.
Partners for Profit
Peagola, John
Pearson, Howard
Peterson Manufacturing Co. Inc.
Pivaroff, Ivan G.
Platter, George
Post, Manning J.
Puckett, Joseph
R. Henhouse, Franklin
Rittoff, Stanley
Rivers, David J.
Roszko, Larry
Rush, Jim
Ryan, Michael J.
Salles, C. A.
Santon, Nick
Schulz, Harold F.
Seglor, Hardy H.
Shroyer, Steve
Singleton, William
Smith, Burt
Southern Nevada Paving Corp.
Spruell, Michele
Stalians, Joyce
Stark, Gerald E.
Stewart, Darcy
Stocks Mill and Supply
Struthers, Jay H.
Sullivan, Kenneth Jr.
Sweet, Andrea L.
Sweet, Ben G.
11
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES (Coat.)
Thorn, Arthur £ Susan
Three Nineteen Inc.
Thurmond, Gary
Thurmond, Richard
Tierney, Keith J.
Traurig Foundation
VanDerHarst, E.
VanDerHarst, L.
Wagner, William
Warm Springs Investment Fund
Western Holding Company
Wheeler, Dolly
Wickham, diaries
Windsor, Brian
Witt, Roseann
WMK Transit Mix
Wong, Cyril B.Y.
Wruck D.A.
Zaidenberg, Harry
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICES
Nevada State Office
850 Harvard Way
P.O. Box 12000
Reno, Nevada 89520
Las Vegas District Office
4765 Vegas Drive
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Availability of Proposed MFP Amendment and Final EA
This document has been mailed to all those who received copies of the Draft
MFP Amendment and Draft EA as well as those who commented on the document. A
"Federal Register" notice and an area wide news release have been issued to
inform the public of the availability of this document. A limited number of
additional copies are available upon request from the Las Vegas District
office. Copies of the Draft Amendment and Final EA are available for review
at the following BLM offices:
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICES
Nevada State Office
850 Harvard Way
P.O. Box 12000
Reno, Nevada 89502
Las Vegas District Office
4765 Vegas Drive
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Introduction to Public Comments and Responses
All written and oral comments on the Draft MFP Amendment were reviewed to
determine if they met the required criteria for response, i.e., discussion of
the adequacy of the draft document. Substantive comments which presented new
data, questioned facts or analyses, or commented on issues bearing directly on
the Draft were fully evaluated and were responded to in this final document.
Changes or additions to the Draft Amendment have been incorporated into the
text changes section of this document. No response is provided to those
letters with comments that did not meet the criteria specified above.
12
Comment Letters and Responses
All letters received have been reprinted. Comments responded to are indicated
by number.
The following is a listing of comment letters received and published in this
document :
1 Thomas G. Bell (representing 3-19 Inc. J
2 Riciiard Thurmond
3 Allard § Co. (Peter Allard)
4 Collins Brothers Corp. (E.A. Collins, et. al.)
5 Partners for Profit (Gary Thurmond)
6 8th Judicial District Court (Franklin Rittenhouse)
7 Allard $ Co. (Peter Allard)
8 Americana Group (Jeff Chain)
9 Partners for Profit (Philip Cohen)
10 Partners for Profit (Peter Fig)
11 Clark County Comp. Planning (Richard Holmes)
12 J.B. Enterprises (John Bayer)
13 Nevada Dept. of Agriculture (Tnomas Smigel)
14 Diversified Interests (Barry Moore)
15 PEPCON of Nevada (C. Keith Rooker)
16 Bonanza Materials (Philip Nelson)
17 Jones, Jones, Close £ Brown (Herbert Jones)
18 Las Vegas Building Materials (Phillip Henderson)
19 Angus McLeod
20 Gang § Berkley (Leonard Gang)
21 William Wagner, IVOE Local No. 12
22 State of Nevada, Office of Community Services
23 Jack Binion
24 Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy, Jemison, § List
25 State of Nevada, Office of Community Services/NDOT
26 Diversified Interests
27 Las Vegas Building Materials
13
Letter # 1
Thomas G. Bell, Chartered
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT l_AW
SUITE 300
irill SOUTH FOURTH STREET
LjAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89IOI
(702) 382-3866
October 2, 1987
in
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
P. 0. Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for
the Clark County Management Framework Plan, Sand and
Gravel Leasing in the Las Vegas Valley Sub-unit,
Stateline Resource Area, Nevada
Gentlemen
This is to advise you that the undersigned represents
Three Nineteen, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, which owns
approximately 20 acres of land in Section 10, Township 22
S, Range 62 E. Three Nineteen, Inc., is composed of 12
shareholders, all of whom are local residents of long
standing. The Corporation has invested $500,000.00 in the
Section 10 property.
At the present time the property is in escrow with a
Henderson, Nevada, Company which intends to promptly
develop the property for light industrial purposes. The
undersigned, and all of the shareholders in Three
Nineteen, Inc., concur in your conclusions that sand and
gravel operations in Section 10 will no longer be
compatible with the surrounding surface uses, including
the planned surface use of Three Nineteen, Inc.'s
property.
In view of all of the above and foregoing, Three Nineteen,
Inc., and its 12 individual shareholders urge you to adopt
the "preferred alternative" set forth in the
above-entitled Draft dated July 16, 1987, which would deny
sand and gravel lease applications.
THOMAS O. BELL, CHARTERED
District Manager
October 2, 1987
Page Two
Your courtesy in advising me of the decision concerning
the proposed plan amendment and environmental assessment
would be appreciated.
Very truly yo
jf
Thomas G. Bell
cc: William Morris
Vern Christensen
Norman K. Reed
Kermit Moe
Delores A. Christensen
Michael Conway
Joseph M. McNamee
Mary Hibbs
Doris M. Christensen
Franklin Rittenhouse
Tony Morici
Letter #
RICHARD E. THURMOND
3362 TOPAZ ROAD
LAS VEGAS, NEYADA 89120
702/736-4892
October 6, 1987
District Manager
B. L. M., Las Vegas District
P. 0. Box 26559
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re. Lease Number N-35779 and Draft Plan Amendment... . included
in letter of September 28, 1987 identified as 1612/4310 (NV-053)
and signed by District Director, Ben F. Collins; Portion Relating to
R. Thurmond from Figure 3. Surface Ownership T22S-R62E.
Good Afternoon:
1 have thoroughly studied the thirty-five page document including
various Exhibits and Figures.
May I commend you and your department on a thorough job and on
your recognition of the difficult blend of public policy and conflicting needs.
I have studied the various alternatives and, after first preferring
Alternate C with a recommendation for a short time period of, say eighteen
months, I have changed my mind. Your dicussion concerning the many
uncertainties to Bonanza of Alternative C persuaded me that your Preferred
Alternative, as to me, and with a minor exception and recommendation is
best.
2-1
Since my portion will be deleted from the lease to be partially
renewed, 1 am concerned about Bonanza's hurriedly coming onto my area to
mine before the September 30, 1988 expiration date. 1 surely need your
good offices and help in negotiating an agreement with Bonanza to preclude
Bonanza from mining on my portion. If such an agreement can be reached,
then I have no objection to the preferred alternative's going forward.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Thurmond
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
1 certify that 1 mailed the foregoing letter by first class mail postage
prepaid to the District Director at the address above on the _____ day of
October 1987.
Richard E. Thurmond
RESPONSE TO RICHARD THURMOND
Letter No. 2
1 The Bureau of Land Management will coordinate with the necessary parties
to implement tiie proposed amendment and with the surface owners of lease
N-35779 which will be subject to a reduction in lease size. Please note
that Bonanza has, in their letter of October 27 (see letter No. 16),
offered to work with the surface owners to deal with land reclamation to
everyone's satisfaction. Since this letter, the lessee has purchased MF.
Thurmond 's property north of State Highway 146.
Letter # 3
Allard and Company barristers & solicitors
October 5, 1987
SUITE 600
SI5 HORNBY STREET
VANCOUVER, B. C. VSZ 2E6
TELEPHONE (604) 689-3885
FAX NO. (604) 687-OSI4
District Manager
United States Department of
the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
4765 Vegas Drive
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Attention; Ben F. Collins
Dear Sirs:
Re: September 28, 19 87
Environmental Assessment
Clark County Management Framework Plan
Thank you for your very thorough and well prepared assessment. In
such a difficult decision for competing uses, the preferred
alternative was probably the only reasonable compromise available.
Naturally, we prefer alternative E, as in normal contractual
relationships, a company amortizes and contracts its business
within the terms of the lease. That is to say, a lease is usually
only for a fixed period or periods of time and the parties know
full well that the property reverts back to the landlord at the
end of the term. A proprietary right or obligation to renew
should not be created by the mere fact that a business was asked
to move because its lease has run out.
Yours truly,
ALLARD AND COMPANY
Per: ('. [ . v ( , . ,. ,
Peter A. Allard
PAA/cb
c
OLLIN
BROTHERS
CORP
$
Letter # 4
October 12, 1987
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
P. 0. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Attention: Ben F. Collins
District Manager
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and Envioronmental Assessment
for the Clark County Management Framework Plan
Dear Mr. Collins:
In reference to your preferred solution, we would point out that
our written agreement with Bonanza Materials was taken into
account in coming to this solution.
We would therefore request that any extention given on this
lease be for a duration no longer than our written agreement with
them.
Sincerely -yours ,
E.' A. Collins, M. M. Collins
K. J. Sullivan, Jr. and R. J. Sullivan
KJS/mb
GENERAL BUILDERS
BOX 42427 HUNTRIDGE STATION • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89116 • PHONE (702) 736-6151
Letter # 5
PARTNERS FOR PROFIT
5362 TOPAZ ROAD
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89120
702/736-4S92
October 6, 1987
District Manager
B. L. M., Las Vegas District
P. 0. Boi 26559
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re: Lease Number N-35779 and Draft Plan Amendment... . included
in letter of September 28, 1987 identified as 1612/4310 (NV-053)
and signed by District Director, Ben F. Collins; Portion Relating to
Partners for Profit from Figure 3. Surface Ownership T22S-R62E.
Good Afternoon:
, 1 am one of the partners. May I commend you and your department
on a thorough job and on your recognition of the difficult blend of public
policy and conflicting needs. However, I cannot agree with the Preferred
Alternative as it relates to our surace ownership in Lease N-35779. I think
an alternative of having the lease partially renewed for a very short period
of time is preferred and that Bonanza be urged to move to the new site
quickly.
As your plan points out, we are one of the surface owner negatively
affected by the continuation of the lease. To extend the lease for another
five years makes it impossible for us to make any development plans, even
speculative plans. It surely seems that Bonanza has the capability of mining
the adjoining Basic property instead of ours now. Basic, as your work
product shows, does not have any development plans. That would then
allow you to delete our portion from the lease extension also. However, to
allow a full five year extension seems to me to invite Bonanza to delay
doing what is necessary to make sure all facilities, permits, and the like are
made ready for their move to the alternate site. We do plan to move into
the development stage if we can see that our planning will not be pushed
into the too distant future to be feasible. We plan to develop our property
as a joint venture with Richard E. Thurmond.
Indeed, the development around Henderson from Green Valley into
the Lake Mead Drive area should not be frustrated by too generous a time
frame given to Bonanza to move it's mining operations. We cannot see how
the freeway construction would adversely be affected by our proposed
alternative or how the overall socio-economic balance would be distorted if
you delete our portion of N-35779.
Very truly yours,
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I certify that I mailed the foregoing letter to the District Manager by
first class mail postage prepaid on the / ?th day of October 1987 to the
address above.
-/■
&/)r'y Th^rf>'1<>n^
Letter # 6
Franklin Rittenhouse
probate commissioner
Eighth Judicial District Goubt
CLARK COUNTY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89155
CLARK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
(702) 386-40II
October 12, 1987
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
United States Dept. of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and
Environmental Assessment, CCMFP
Ui
|C_FILES
Dear Mr. Collins
Thank you for recently forwarding to me a copy of the
referenced draft. Heretofore I expressed concern about
relevant lease applications, my interest arising as a
stockholder in Three Nineteen, Inc.
Not surprizingly , I share the Bureau's view that the
Preferred Alternative set forth in the draft is the
appropriate solution to the problem. It is apparent
to all of us that the subject area is becoming urban
in one use or another. A gravel pit simply doesn't
belong there.
The Preferred Alternative considers the land already
disturbed by gravel extraction, the rapid growth in the
area, and various future surface development plans of
the owners. No other alternative appears feasable.
Very truly yours,
RANKLIN RITTENHOUSE
FR:gp
cc : Tom Bell
Letter
# 7 '?~\°V
Allard and Company
October 7, 1987
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
SUITE 600
SIS HORNBY STREET
VANCOUVER, B. C. V6Z 2ES
TELEPHONE (604) 689-3885
FAX NO. (604) 687-0814
DM
.-ASM—
• f AO
£^
LAND
-res'. H<yb^
AOJ-I.
1—
CRA~
._ . |
SRA
i
C. FILES
Nevada Rock and Sand
Vegas Valley Drive
P.O. Box 42755
Las Vegas, Nevada
89104
Attention: Dan Stewart
Dear Sirs:
Re: S.E. h of the N.E. h of Section 9
TWP 22 South, Range 6 2 East M.D.B.&M.
40 Acres Corner of Robindale & Stephaine
We are solicitors acting on behalf of B.D.R. Investments and L&C
Management Ltd, the registered owners of the above property.
We understand you have recently commenced removing sand and gravel
deposits from the 40 acres owned by the Federal Government in the
north west half of the south east quarter of section 9.
Myron Kushner, acting on behalf of our clients has informed you
that you are presently trespassing on our client's lands and has
asked you to stop your trucks from traversing any part of the
south east quarter of the north east quarter of Section 9 TWP 22
South Range 62 East.
Mr. Kushner advised us that you informed him you will only be
requiring access to our client's property until the end of January
1988, at the latest, at which time you will tear up any indication
of a road made by your trucks and will leave the property in the
same condition it was in before your trucks commenced using it.
Our client is extremely concerned that no prescriptive rights be
created by your trucks temporarily using our client's property.
As a consequence, we request that you confirm in writing by return
courier that you will cease and desist trespassing on our client's
i-
<
n
Allan! and Company •AKnnnm & sono
lands no later than January 31, 1988, and that on or before
January 31, 1988, you agree to tear up any roads your trucks
created on our client's property at your cost, so as to prevent
future use of the area by vehicles. You must leave a number of
small mounds of earth along the course the road followed to assure
that it does not allow easy access to vehicles.
Yours truly,
ALLARD AND COMPANY
i- >
Per : / .
<
Peter A. Allard
PAA/cb
cc : Myron Kushner
Ben F. Collins
Letter # 8
Americana ^Commercial
Group, realtors® 2555 cr investment
3790 South Paradise Road, Suite 170, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
(702) 796-8888 uj
October 9, 1987
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nv.
69126
- n' fr
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for^the.
Clark County Management Framework Plan, Sand and Gravel
Leasing in the Las Vegas Valley Sub-unit, Stateline Resource
Area, Nevada
Gent 1 emen :
This is to advise you that the undersigned represents Thrienen
Enterprises, Inc. and Status Game Corporation, Inc. uho are
currently in escrow on approximately 16 acres of land in Section
10, Township 22s, Range 62 E. They Have Invested approximately
$ 600,000. in the land and have architects working on 60,000 Sq
of light industrial buildings that have been sold. There are
additional plans to develop 60 acres adjacent to the south.
In view of all of the above and foregoing, Thrienen Enterprises,
Inc., and Status Games Corporation urge you to adopt the
"preferred alternative" set forth in the above-entitled draft
dated J u 1 )
appl ications.
16, 1937, u*hich would deny sand and gravel lease
Your courtesy in advising
proposed plan
appreciat ed .
me
amendment and
of the decision concerning the
environmental assessment uould be
Respectful 1 y ,
Letter # 9
PARTNERS FOR PROFIT
5362 TOPAZ ROAD
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89120
702/736-4892
October 6, 1987
District Manager
B. L. M., Las Vegas District
P. 0. Box 26559
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re: Lease Number N-35779 and Draft Plan Amendment... . included
in letter of September 28, 1987 identified as 1612/4310 (NV-053)
and signed by District Director, Ben F. Collins, Portion Relating to
Partners for Profit from Figure 3. Surface Ownership T22S-R62E.
Good Afternoon:
, I am one of the partners. May I commend you and your department
on a thorough job and on your recognition of the difficult blend of public
policy and conflicting needs. However, I cannot agree with the Preferred
Alternative as it relates to our su&ce ownership in Lease N-35779. I think
an alternative of having the lease partially renewed for a very short period
of time is preferred and that Bonanza be urged to move to the new site
quickly.
As your plan points out, we are one of the surface ownersnegatively
affected by the continuation of the lease. To extend the lease for another
five years makes it impossible for us to make any development plans, even
speculative plans. It surely seems that Bonanza has the capability of mining
the adjoining Basic property instead of ours now. Basic, as your work
product shows, does not have any development plans. That would then
allow you to delete our portion from the lease extension also. However, to
allow a full five year extension seems to me to invite Bonanza to delay
doing what is necessary to make sure all facilities, permits, and the like are
made ready for their move to the alternate site. We do plan to move into
the development stage if we can see that our planning will not be pushed
into the too distant future to be feasible. We plan to develop our property
as a joint venture with Richard E. Thurmond.
Indeed, the development around Henderson from Green Valley into
the Lake Mead Drive area should not be frustrated by too generous a time
frame given to Bonanza to move its mining operations. We cannot see how
the freeway construction would adversely be affected by our proposed
alternative or how the overall socio-economic balance would be distorted if
you delete our portion of N-35779.
Very truly yours,
IkSl
41 v«
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I certify that I mailed the foregoing letter to the District Manager by
first class mail postage prepaid on the _^5r day of October 1 987 to the
address above.
Letter # 10
PARTNERS FOR PROFIT
3362 TOPAZ ROAD
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89120
702/736-4892
October 6, 1987
District Manager
B. L. M., Las Vegas District
P. 0. Box 26559
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re: Lease Number N-35779 and Draft Plan Amendment... . included
in letter of September 28, 1987 identified as 1612/4310 (NV-053)
and signed by District Director, Ben F. Collins; Portion Relating to
Partners for Profit from Figure 3. Surface Ownership T22S-R62E.
Good Afternoon.
, I am one of the partners. May 1 commend you and your department
on a thorough job and on your recognition of the difficult blend of public
policy and conflicting needs. However, I cannot agree with the Preferred
Alternative as it relates to our surace ownership in Lease N-35779. I think
an alternative of having the lease partially renewed for a very short period
of time is preferred and that Bonanza be urged to move to the new site
quickly.
As your plan points out, we are one of the surface owner negatively
affected by the continuation of the lease. To extend the lease for another
five years makes it impossible for us to make any development plans, even
speculative plans. It surely seems that Bonanza has the capability of mining
the adjoining Basic property instead of ours now. Basic, as your work
product shows, does not have any development plans. That would then
allow you to delete our portion from the lease extension also. However, to
allow a full five year extension seems to me to invite Bonanza to delay
doing what is necessary to make sure all facilities, permits, and the like are
made ready for their move to the alternate site. We do plan to move into
the development stage if we can see that our planning will not be pushed
into the too distant future to be feasible. We plan to develop our property
as a joint venture with Richard E. Thurmond.
Indeed, the development around Henderson from Green Valley into
the Lake Mead Drive area should not be frustrated by too generous a time
frame given to Bonanza to move it s mining operations. We cannot see how
the freeway construction would adversely be affected by our proposed
alternative or how the overall socio-economic balance would be distorted if
you delete our portion of N-35779.
Very truly yours,
*i>
z\-^
V
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
1 certify that 1 mailed the foregoing letter to the District Manager by
first class mail postage prepaid on the _Li_k day of October 1987 to the
address above.
^
JS&k Clark
^BSr County
Department of
Comprehensive Planning
RICHARD B. HOLMES
DIRECTOR
JAMES L. LEY
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
CLARK COUNTY BRIDGER BUILDING
225 BRIDGER AVENUE, SEVENTH FLOOR
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA B9155
[702] 455-41 81
11-1
I
11-2
11-3
October 20, 1987
Ben Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
4765 Vegas Drive
Post Office Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Dear Ben:
We have reviewed the "Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for
the Clark County Management Framework Plan, Sand and Gravel Leasing in the
Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit," and provide the following comments:
Page 1
Contains a statement that the existing MFP languag
gravel leases is "unrealistic, outdated and imprac
regard but we
the problem,
to justify th
to address th
now intend to
appreciate the BLM's concern in this
that the proposed amendment resolves
practical effect of the amendment is
material lease only, and does little
Las Vegas Valley sub-unit. Does BLM
leases and extend old leases throughout the sub-un
and needs throughout the sub-unit should be addres
existing MFP language is abandoned. All the steps
process (which are identifed on Page 7 of the EA)
place before a decision is made solely on Bonanza,
cess is not followed, we must assume that we will
MFP revisions.
Page 7-8
What issues and what criteria?
e on sand and
tical." We can
do not feel
Instead, the
e Bonanza
e rest of the
approve new
it? The issues
sed before the
in the planning
should take
If this pro-
face incremental
Page 13
It is inappropriate to reference the City of Henderson Master
Plan in regard to these sites as the sites are generally con-
tained within unincorporated Clark County. Clark County has
COMMISSIONERS
Paul J. Christensen, Chairman • Thalia M. Dondero, Vice-Chairman
Jay Bingham, Manuel J. Cortez, Karen Hayes, William U. Pear-son, Bruce L. Woodbury
Donald L. "Pat" Shalmy, County Manager
Ben Collins
-2-
October 20, 1987
pursued development of this area as an industrial park. We
have obtained grants from the Economic Development
Administration (as mentioned) to extend utilities into the
area for the use of surface right owners. This area has
effectively been urbanized. Excess leases will jeopardize
the anticipated purpose of the investment.
Page 11-22
11-4
A great deal of mention is given to disruption of surface
owner rights. The author appears to discard these rights
with statements such as those contained within the last four
lines of the first paragraph on Page 13. A long standing
issue associated with mining operations has been the need for
strongly enforced reclamation plans to ensure that the sur-
face is left in some useable form for existing or future sur-
face rights owners. One of the purposes of the current MFP
language was to encourage limited, controllable mining acti-
vity. Another purpose of the current MFP language was to
encourage the development of mutually acceptable reclamation
plan review procedures at the local and BLM level. Another
long standing issue is our rapid urbanization which catches
up with and overruns these sites creating all sorts of land
use, social nuisance, traffic and other conflicts.
11-5
Little is said about the existing (or needed) Clark County or
Henderson land use approval processes which might be utilized
to mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed action, or
which have placed operational or time limits on the existing
operations. Recognition of the impact or effectiveness of
existing processes could influence evaluation of alternatives
and selection of the preferred alternative. As a simple
example, Clark County only approves sand and gravel mining
land uses on a temporary basis knowing full well from past
history that development will catch up and create conflicts.
Page 16-17
11-6
Paragraph five references washes as the "best" source of
material. Much of the remainder of the discussion presents a
plan of development that involves mining the material from a
wash. Does the plan of development enhance or hinder the
recently adopted Clark County Regional Flood Control
District Master Plan?
Ben Collins -3- October 20, 1987
We recognize the importance of the aggregate mining industry to our
overall growth. They are in many cases the suppliers of materials
upon which all of our development is built. We also recognize that we
are an expanding community which inevitably causes uses to conflict
with one another. We strongly encourage the BLM to establish a proce-
dure to implement the existing MFP.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Holmes
Director
djg
RESPONSES TO CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Letter No. 11
11-1 The leasing system for sand and gravel in certain portions of Clark
County was unique on public lands and had originally been established
under a special Act of June 8, 1926, and regulations in 43 CFR 3586.
There are currently only two existing leases within the Las Vegas
Valley. Sand and gravel is usually disposed of as mineral materials
under 43 CFR 3600. In 1985, JBLM decided that this unique leasing
system was no longer the best way to manage these resources and by
final regulations of ApriL 22, 1986, deleted the system, grandfathering
the existing and pending leases. The BLM was given the discretion to
deal with pending leases and applications, but after April 22, 1986,
all new disposal of sand and gravel had to be managed under 43 CFR
3600. This amendment resolves the issues of existing and pending
leases. Please refer to the rewritten section entitled "Purpose and
Need For Action" in this document. The Clark County MFP is currently
being monitored to determine the extent of plan implementation and
issues which may necessitate plan revision.
11-2 At the outset of the planning process, other agencies, State and local
governments and publics, were given the opportunity to suggest
concerns, needs, and resource use, development and protection
opportunities for consideration in preparation of the MFP Amendment.
The primary issue driving this plan amendment is the consideration of
new lease applications filed prior to the revocation of 43 C.F.R.
3563.2 and the renewal of existing leases for sand and gravel on lands
within the boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit in Clark County.
Planning criteria guided development of the plan amendment and ensured
that it is tailored to the issue identified and ensured that
unnecessary data collection and analysis were avoided. Planning
criteria developed indicated the need to analyze access to leases,
surface ownership of leased lands, continuation of present leases and
authorization of new leases. The criteria also helped to formulate and
analyze alternatives that addressed the concerns of tiie BLM and ail
publics involved.
The planning criteria identified that the decision should:
1. Consider present and potential uses of the Federal minerals;
2. Address the relative scarcity of the values involved;
3. Consider alternatives that include management options to
allocate the resources to the combination of uses that best
serves tne public interest,
4. Weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term
benefits, and
5. Consider public views and concerns.
11-3 A text change for page 13, first paragraph, first sentence reads as
follows: "Although located in an unincorporated area of Clark County,
outside the City of Henderson, PEPCON's industrial park project would
be in conformance with the City of Henderson's Master Plan for land
use, which shows recommended land use policies for lands adjacent to
city boundaries."
11-4 The BLM has, through the lease, plan of operations and amendments to
the plan of operations, required reclamation of the subject sand and
gravel operations. Tnese requirements include sloping all excavated
areas, minimizing erosion, smoothing and grading pit slopes so as to
conform with the surrounding terrain, backfilling finished excavations
with part of stockpiled waste material, removing all equipment and
buildings from the site after completion, leveling and grading any
waste material (overburden) left on site, leaving drainage ways open
and clean to prevent flooding, cleaning up debris, etc. BLM has and
will continue to inspect the operation to assure compliance with these
requirements until all activities are completed and final reclamation
is acceptable and the bond released. The BLM, through new policy, has
increased bonding requirements. These tie the amount of the bond to
the total of several months of royalty and the proceeds may be used for
both royalties and reclamation. Upon renewal of these leases, these
new bonding requirements will apply.
11-5 Leases normally contain a stipulation which requires compliance with
applicable State and local government statutes and regulations. It is
the lessee's responsibility to adhere to this stipulation. The same
holds true for material sales contracts. The analysis of State and
local government land use approval processes and their mitigative
effect is beyond the scope of this document.
11-6 Due to the scope of the action proposed, it would have an insignificant
impact on the Clark County Regional Flood Control District Master Plan.
Letter # 12
$. S Sritvrffu&M'
COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - INVESTMENT - REAL ESTATE
October 26,1987
Bureau Of Land Management
District Manager
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Mr. Collins,
As manager of Western Holdings Group and regarding the property located
in section 10 Township 22 South Range 62 East, I wish to inform you we
prefer to exercise alternative "E" . "Let both leases expire according
to Clark County MFP, deny lease applications (No actions Alternative).
We would accept , however, your preferred alternative suggestion if
our first choice is not feasible.
Sincerely,
■z.
n
DM
*
~&to
' -ADM
/
?AO
land"
■
"~
--RES. j
OPS.
ADM.
CRA
SRA
C. FILES
lvlCC C TDADirAMA CI IITC 0"7C * I AC WC^AC MC\/APiA QOIHO • /7flO\ 7QQ XG.AA
MAILING ADDRESS
Mail Room Complex
las vegas, nevada 89158
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Letter # 13
October 26 , 1987
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
P. 0. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Ben F. Collins:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFICE
2300 mcLeod Drive
Las Vegas. Nevada
Telephone (702) 486-4690
DM
ADM -•Co^>
PAO
LAND
UMIMU ^
lAOJVi;.
^SRA*
The Draft Plan amendment and Environmental Assessment
for the Clark County Management Framework Plan, Sand and
Gravel Leasing in the Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit has been
reviewed .
The Nevada Department of Agriculture supports the
preferred alternative.
Sincerely,
cnV
,-v~*-*a
t.Sr
-?*
Thomas E. Smigel,
Regional Coordinator
TEStmla
cc: P. C. Martinelli
Letter # 14
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
October 26, 1987
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
4765 Vegas Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89108
Attn: Mr. Ben F. Collins
District Manager
Dear Ben ,
I am writing this letter in response to your draft
plan amendment and environmental assessment for the
Clark County Management and Framework Plan on the
Sand and Gravel Leasing in the Las Vegas Valley
Sub-unit .
14-1
I have read the draft. The draft cone
property which I own with other pa
northwest quarter of Section 9, Town
Range 62 East. I have read your repor
ferent alternatives about the renewal
cations for new leases on land for mine
Please be hereby advised that I am
issuing any new leases, especially wh
my property, which I am a co-general
20 acres lying on the east side of
between Eldorado and Warm Springs
represent the owners of the 20 acres
lying between Warm Springs and Eldor
side of Lynn Lane in the northwest quar
9, Township 22 South, Range 62 East.
erns a piece of
rtners in the
ship 22 South,
t and the dif-
and the appli-
ral extraction.
in protest of
en it concerns
partner on the
Christy Lane
Road. I also
east of that,
ado on the west
ter of Section
Please be furthur advised that this letter is a
formal protest to the lease applications. We are
currently drafting plans for development of our 40
acres. I represent the Warm Springs Investment Fund
along with S.P.R.I.T. Inc. which includes Eric
Drache, Jack Binion and et al.
As is previously mentioned, we are in the process of
developing our property and do not feel leases on our
privately owned property are keeping in the best in-
terests of the community, the city of Henderson and
the State of Nevada and all the existing property
owners surrounding this site, the residential
Diversified Realty / Diversified Equities Group / Diversified Leasing & Management / Diversified Development
Flamingo Fountains 3885 S. Decatur Suite 3000 Ql
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103 (702) 737-7777
DiVERSiFSEO
INTERESTS
14-2
Page II
Ben F . Col 1 ins
October 27, 1987
In addition, after reading your plan regarding both
S.P.R.I.T. and Warm Springs Investment Fund, it said
we were contacted and requested responses and
comments, we were "surprised" that no formal protests
were issued at that time. I would like to clarify
that although Mr. Bestram sent letters, I never
received the letters, they were mailed to the wrong
address and we would have protested then if we would
have received proper notification. However, we were
not aware of any lease proposals on our subject pro-
perty.
Please respond to our notification herein so that we
may attend any meetings or submit any furthur
protests with regard to the lease that would destroy
our investment in our privately owned property and
would be negligent to the Community, City of
Henderson, State of Nevada.
loo
Partner
"m Springs Investment Fund
BRM/rb
C.C. File
RESPONSES TO DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS
Letter No. 14
14-1 Please refer to the Preface of this document for the procedure to
protest the decision in this proposed amendment. The issuance of tiiis
document constitutes the Proposed Plan Amendment. All proposals
contained herein are subject to protest as outlined in 43 CFR
1610.5-2. Protests must be filed within thirty days after release of
the document (see date on title page), with the Director of the Bureau
of Land Management, 18th and C Streets, N.W. , Washington D.C. 20240,
and should contain the following information:
0 The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the
person filing the protest.
° A statement of the issue or issues being protested.
° A statement of the part or parts of the document being protested.
A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues previously
submitted during the planning process by the protesting party, or
an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for
the records.
0 A short, concise statement explaining precisely why the BLM Nevada
State Director's decision is wrong.
14-2 Thank you for furnishing your current address. Our mailing list has
been corrected accordingly.
Letter # 15
Pacific engineering & production co. of nevada
8201 GIBSON ROAD • P.O. BOX 797 • HENDERSON, NEVADA 89015
TELEPHONE: AREA CODE (702) 565-8741 • TELEX 187204
FAX (702) 565-1894
$*X*£« *
October 27 , 1987
Las Vegas District Office
Bureau of Land Management
United States Department
of the Interior
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Attention: Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental
Assessment for the Clark County Management
Framework Plan: Sand and Gravel Leasing in
the Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit
15-1
Gentlemen:
We are in receipt of the captioned document,
together with the transmittal letter dated September 28,
1987, initiating a 30-day public comment period thereon. We
provide herewith our comments.
1. Background and Present Status.
A. Mobile Home Estate Park in the
E1/2NE1/4NW1/4 of Section 16.
As you are no doubt aware, the trailer park
development discussed in the captioned document (p. 5)
is now a reality. Utilities, paving and walls are
complete; the clubhouse is nearly completed; one mobile
home has been erected; others are under construction.
B. Public Improvements in Section 10.
Major changes have also occurred in the South
1/2 of Section 10. American Pacific Drive has been
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 2
I
completed from Gibson Road to the right-of-way of
Stephanie Street centered on the South line of Section
.__. 10 and the North line of Section 15. This major
thoroughfare is on a 100-foot right-of-way that we
granted to Clark County. The full four-lane width of
the road has been built; there are four lanes of
pavement one-half mile west from Gibson Road, and two
lanes of pavement for the remainder of the street. The
24"/18" water line of which you are aware is under
construction (at a cost exceeding $3.3 million) from
the intersection of Sandhill and Russell Road. At this
writing, the water line is approaching the intersection
of Sunset and Stephanie. The water line will be
installed within Section 10. As you are aware, this
public road (and a connecting public road in the North
1/2 of Section 15) were constructed, and the water line
is being constructed, under a grant from the Economic
Development Administration of the U.S. Department of
Commerce to Clark County that is designed to target
minority and disadvantaged unemployment in the Las
Vegas Valley. The objectives of this grant would be
totally frustrated by the approval of gravel lease
applications in Section 10 (##N-41931 and N-41639) .
C. Private Improvements in Section 10.
We have planned an 8-acre mixed-use
mini-storage, boat storage and RV storage facility in
the SW1/4SW1/4. We expect construction on this
facility to commence in the late Fall of 1987. We
anticipate a major manufacturing operation on a 10-acre
site in the SE1/4SW1/4. Construction of this facility
should commence in early 1988. We have designed the
main entries of Gibson Business Park on two 3-acre
sites fronting on Gibson Road and Stephanie Street at
their respective intersections with American Pacific
Drive. These major improvements will be located in
part in the SW1/4SW1/4 and in the SE1/4SE1/4 of Section
10. Construction of these improvements is expected to
commence in the Spring of 1988. We can provide any
additional information you may wish respecting all of
the foregoing projects.
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 3
D. Mining Operations in Section 15.
As you are probably aware, extensive mining
operations have now been commenced in Section 15
(N-35779) on lands owned both by our company and by
Basic Management, Incorporated.
2.
Alternatives .
15-3
15-4
We express our very strong support for the
Preferred Alternative elaborated in the captioned documents.
We agree that this alternative best reconciles the tension
between the needs and interests of the surface owners and
the very real need for aggregate material in this area of
rapid growth.
We also agree strongly with the suggestion that
lease renewal be conditioned upon assurances of adequate
reclamation. (Page 26.) The suggested limitations of
mining depth and pit configuration would be helpful. In
addition, we recommend that you consider the flood control
implications of the mining operation. The existing pit is a
very important flood control measure that has averted major
flood damage in previous storms. The pit design should
preserve, and to the extent practicable enhance, this
important benefit.
We urge that you provide a mechanism for
participation by the affected public agencies and private
land-owners in formulating the suggested reclamation
conditions.
We oppose in the strongest possible terms
Alternative B. This alternative would be contrary to the
interests of all affected surface owners. It is wholly
inconsistent with, and would effectively negate, the major
federal, local and private expenditures (totaling in Gibson
Business Park alone over $7 million) that have taken place
to support industrial development to mitigate severe
unemployment in disadvantaged sectors of the Las Vegas
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 4
Valley. Without doubt, the existing Clark County Management
Framework Plan (which would require the non-renewal of
existing leases and the denial of pending lease
applications) has created a wholly-justified set of private
expectations respecting land uses in the affected area that
I would be frustrated by this alternative. We gravely doubt
the legality of this alternative. Apart from its legality,
it plainly would represent a misuse of valuable resources.
Inasmuch as we support the Preferred Alternative
and oppose Alternative B, it follows that we would also
support Alternatives A, C and D, which are, in varying
degrees, more favorable to some or all surface owners than
is the Preferred Alternative. If none of the Preferred
Alternative or Alternatives A, C or D is to be adopted, we
believe the disposition of all pending matters should be in
accordance with the Clark County Management Framework Plan
as now in effect (Alternative E) .
Finally, although we do not believe it to be
material to the conclusions and recommendations of the
captioned document, we direct your attention to the fact
that all of the affected lands in Sections 10 and 15 are
located within unincorporated Clark County rather than the
City of Henderson. The captioned document (page 13) refers
to the conformity of our industrial park project with the
City of Henderson Master Plan. While the statement made is
true, it is immaterial because we are not part of the City
of Henderson. The importance of our location in
unincorporated Clark County is found in the County's major
commitment to our development. We have worked very closely
with the Board of County Commissioners, the County Manager,
and many other County officials in the formulation of our
development plan, and have enjoyed the County's support in
many important ways. It is our understanding that the
so-called "County Island" (which comprises generally the
area bounded by Warm Springs Road (North) , Lake Mead Drive
(South) , Stephanie Street (West) and Boulder Highway and
Water Street (East) is the only substantial industrial land
remaining in the Las Vegas Valley that is governed by the
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 5
County, and is the only substantial M-2 land located
anywhere in the Valley.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these
comments, and express our appreciation for the thoughtful
and thorough analysis presented in the captioned document
Sincere
C. Keith Rooker
Executive Vice President
and General Counsel
CKR/r
cc: Brent S. Bestram
Douglas Bell
RESPONSES TO PACIFIC ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION COMPANY OF NEVADA
Letter No. 15
15-1 Thank you for this additional information. A text change has been
made. On page 5, second paragraph, the third sentence has been deleted
and the last sentence revised to read: "Dirt work and initial
development of a trailer court has been accomplished on the E[NW§ of
Section 16."
15-2 Thank you for this additional information.
15-3 See response to 11-4.
15-4 See response to 11-4. BLM will consider all ideas and suggestions for
reclamation submitted to us by surface owners in the subject area.
15-5 Following the receipt of public comment during the scoping period, a
full range of alternatives was developed in order to provide for a
complete analysis of options available and impacts under each
alternative. Federal regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-5) call for
consideration of all reasonable resource management alternatives and
for development of several complete alternatives for detailed study.
Each of the alternatives analyzed is legal and could feasibly be
implemented.
15-6 See response to 11-3 and text change for page 13.
Letter # 16
Bonanza Materials, Inc.
October 27, 1987
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
47^5 Vegas Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Attn: Mr. Brent Bestrau
RECEIVED
Bureau of Lsod W
OCT 2 #1987
LAS VEGAS
DISTRICT OFFICE
Las Vegss, Nevada
'jnt
Subject
Gentlemen
Draft Plan Amendment/
Clark County MFP
After reviewing the above subject document for the past few weeks, we
offer the following comments:
The draft as presented is an extremely fair and unbiased
assessment of our present situation. We appreciate the
time and dedication spent on the preparation of this draft
plan amendment.
The "Preferred Alternative" as outlined in the draft would
allow Bonanza Materials to continue providing our customers
with construction materials uninterrupted for a number of
years. Under this plan we would be willing to work with
the surface owners to ultimately improve the "lay of the
land" to everyone's satisfaction. Above all we want to be
compatible with other landusers in the area.
"Alternative C" is another good common sense approach to
solving our problem. Under this plan the surface owners
would be assured that in the not to distant future all mining
activities would cease and they would have total use of their
property. During this "phasing out" of our mining activities,
we would be contacting the surface owners individually to
brief them of our intentions. By contacting the owners directly,
we feel that some "fence mending" would be accom polished.
If you would like to have an informal "off the record" meeting for
further discussion, please let me know.
Cordially ,
BONANZA MATERIALS, INC.
Philip Nelson, Estimator
565 Lfllif Ftoad Henderson. Nevada 89015
[702] 565-9956
CLIFFORD A. JONES
HERBERT M. JONES
MELVIN D. CLOSE
JOSEPH W. BROWN
GARY R. GOOOHEART
MICHAEL E. BUCKLEY
WILL KEMP
KIRK R. HARRISON
DOUGLAS G. CROSBY
RICHARD F. JOST
J. RANDALL JONES
ROBERT D. MARTIN
DOUGLAS M. COHEN
SUSAN K. FRANKEWICH
JOHN E. LEACH
KEVIN R. STOLWORTHY
BRIAN E. HOLTHUS
MICHAEL B. WIXOM
MARK LERNER
OF COUNSEL
EDWARD W. LcBARON, JR.
LYLE RIVERA
LAW OFFICES
Jones, Jones, Close & Brown
Chartered
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SEVENTH FLOOR - VALLEY BANK PLAZA
300 SOUTH FOURTH STREET
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101-6026
Letter # 17
TELEPHONE
(702) 385-4202
TELECOPIER
(702) 384-2276
October 27, 1987
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Dear Mr. Collins:
17-1
On behalf of Basic Management, Inc. (B.M.I.), I wish to
thank you for the invitation to comment on the various proposals
to solve the sand and gravel lease problem that exists in the Las
Vegas area as reflected in your Draft Plan received by B.M.I, on
or about September 28, 1987.
I noted with interest that almost all the alternatives
address the economy of the area and its relevance to which
alternative might be adopted. It appears, however, that the
"preferred" alternative focuses on the economic problems of
Bonanza Materials and seems to lean in that direction as a
preferred solution.
B.M.I, would further direct your attention to a situation
that may exist in regard to mining of N-35779. As far as we have
been able to ascertain, there hasn't been a zone change,
variance, or use permit issued for the mining of sand and gravel
on said lease. If that is a fact then Bonanza would be in
violation of its lease because, as provided by Section 4 of the
lease, Bonanza would have to be in conformity with the laws of
the State of Nevada.
Written comments relative to each of the specific
alternatives follows.
Preferred Al ternat ive
In regard to lease N-35779 the analysis refers to the fact
that B.M.I, did not submit a development plan and that Pacific
Engineer and Product Co. (PEPCO) did not object to the renewal of
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 2
leases Nev . 057863 and N-35779. B.M.I, was required to purchase
the land in Figure 3 along with other industrial land in order to
acquire the plant property and has faithfully paid the taxes on
that land for approximately the last 35 years while the community
was growing out to it. One might assume that when leases
Nev. 057863 and N-35779 were first granted to the lessees the
location was far enough away from the developed portion of the
Las Vegas Valley and yet close enough in to be economically
feasible. This might be questionable, however, as the lease was
granted in 1983 and the Green Valley projects were well on their
way by then.
The fact that the location of the two above-mentioned leases
and the lease application are no longer compatible with the
orderly development of the Las Vegas Valley is illustrated by the
effort to settle the problem as early as 1984 when the Clark
County Management Framework Plan (MFP) decision was made. The
Bureau of Land Management obviously recognized the problem when
it stated in the introduction that "The proposed community pit
sites have since been eliminated by continued suburban growth and
changing land patterns." B.L.M. obviously recognizes that the
community is rapidly growing out to the requested new leases and
to the leases that are proposed to be renewed by some of the
alternatives .
B.L.M. has referred to the economic hardship that would be
incurred by Bonanza Materials and its subsidiaries if the leases
were not renewed. I would like to direct your attention to the
terrible economic hardship that would be foisted on B.M.I, if the
leases were renewed. If you will kindly refer to the attached
Figure 4 you will see the relationship of the B.M.I, fee owned
land to the proposed renewal of lease N-35779. This is already
valuable land and is becoming more valuable every day. Please
note that the parcel is bounded on the east by Gibson Road, which
is rapidly becoming an industrial road. The property is bounded
on the south by Lake Mead Drive (Highway 146), a major
thoroughfare from Los Angeles, and a portion is bounded on the
north by the railroad leading to Henderson. The freeway between
Las Vegas and Henderson (1-515) will have on and off ramps onto
Lake Mead Drive. These on and off ramps will be less than 3/4 of
a mile from BMI ' s property, which Bonanza materials will be in
the process of rendering economically valueless to BMI. This
portion of the freeway will be finished long before the suggested
five-year renewal of lease No. N-35779 would expire.
As indicated in B.L.M.'s Draft Plan, the Economic
Development Administration, Department of Commerce, recently
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 3
approved a $1.5 million grant to Clark County for the
construction of a 36-inch water line from Russell Road to Gibson
Business Park and for public roads. The Gibson Business Park is
either adjacent to or close to B.M.I. 's land situated in lease
No. N-35779 which could benefit from the roads and especially
from the water line. It is difficult to believe that the Federal
Government is funding one and a half million dollars of the
taxpayers money to run roads and water lines to a sand and gravel
operation.
After considering all of the above elements relating to the
B.M.I, land situated in lease No. N-35779, it becomes obvious
that (a) the freeway access to Lake Mead Drive (Highway 146), (b)
the access to water and roads, and (c) the development of the
major thoroughfare of Gibson Road make the B.M.I, property far
more valuable to the community than the sand and gravel
operation. For example, the property fronting on Lake Mead Drive
becomes prime land for businesses, and the land along the
railroad becomes useful for warehouses and manufacturing plants.
B.M.I, objects to the "preferred"
exception that it approves the rejecti
N-41932, and N-41639. B.M.I, disagree
contained in the Plan. Bonanza or its
started digging deep holes in the B.M.
N-35779. The Plan admits that continu
operations will alter and lower the or
large depression after mining has ceas
paragraph 5). B.M.I, has difficulty u
have this as a "preferred" alternative
which Bonanza is operating states in S
must :
alternative with the
on of applications N-41931,
s with the analysis
subcontractor have already
I. portion of lease
ation of the mining
iginal surface leaving a
ed ("preferred" alternative
nderstanding how B.L.M. can
when the very lease under
ection 2(6) that lessee
17-2
[f]ill any sump holes, ditches, and other
excavations, remove or cover all debris, and, so far
as reasonably possible, restore the surface of the
leased land and access roads to their former
condition, including the removal of structures as and
if reguired.
(Emphasis added.)
follows :
Said lease further states in Section 3(d) as
Upon termination of this lease, for any cause, the
lease area will be cleared of all extraneous material
and debris of the operation. Pit slopes will be
smoothed and graded so as to conform with the
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 4
17-3
surrounding terrain to the satisfaction of the
authorized officer. Piled, rejected material will be
leveled and graded so as to not interfere with
possible future operations.
(Emphasis added
there is no sig
that the renewa
use of the surf
Under this alte
which would pro
other developme
mining of the p
is filled and 1
surrounding ter
beneficial use
.) The stat
nificant eco
1 of the lea
ace rights o
rnative the
bably leave
nts as to re
roperty subj
eveled by th
rain, would
to the surfa
ement on page 26 to the effect that
nomic impact on B.M.I, is erroneous in
se will stunt the growth of beneficial
n the land for the next five years,
possibility of other renewals exist,
the B.M.I, land so far behind the
nder the land worthless. Continued
ect to lease N. 35779, unless property
e lessee to conform with the
destroy the property for any
ce owner.
17-4 We submit the "
| discriminatory. By
provide 1.5 million
construction project
B.L.M. prefers to re
Co., American Nevada
lease. In spite of
obvious that those p
develop while Bonanz
entire 1.5 million c
you in the name of j
parties not to adopt
Al ternat ive A
preferred" alternative is
the plan's own statement
cubic yards of material t
(Nelson, 1987). Under t
lease the H. Frey, Arroyo
Corp., and R. Thurmond' s
the rationale set forth i
roperty owners will have
a goes onto the B.M.I, la
ubic yards off the B.M.I,
ustice and consideration
the "preferred" alternat
unconstitutionally
Bonanza intends to
o the frewway
his alternative,
Grande Development
property from the
n the Plan it is
their land free to
nd and takes the
land. B.M.I, urges
of the rights of all
ive plan.
It is B.M.I.'s understanding that Alternative A would have
the effect of renewing both lease Nev . 057863 and lease N-35779
until February 29, 1992. This would eliminate the economic
hardship for Bonanza and all of its subsidiaries referred to in
the Plan by allowing them to continue operations during said
renewal and still give them more than adeguate time to seek and
obtain other sources of material.
17-5
B.M.I, does not approve of Alternative A; however, in the
event that B.L.M. adopts Alternative A we recommend certain
modifications as follows:
(1) The extension of the leases for five years or until
February 28, 1992, would be too long. Bonanza would not need
that many years to find another source of material. The longer
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 5- ,
it goes on the more difficult it will get because the community
would be growing in all directions except on B.M.I.'s property.
It is suggested that a one- to two-year extension would give
Bonanza ample time to find a new source. The site suggested by
the Plan appears to be available and roads can be obtained along
section lines .
(2) During the renewal period active participation by
B.L.M. in the mining operation during the lease extension period
is reguested. Participation seems to be authorized; indeed, if
17-6 43 CFR 3809 as set forth in the MFP is accurate, it seems to be
mandatory: "The surface management regulation (43 CFR 3809)
gives B.L.M. the responsibility to reguire and oversee the
reclamation of lands distributed by mining activities."
(Emphasis added.)
(3) B.L.M. should regulate by the provisions of the
extension of the lease the depth that Bonanza can go in its
mining operations so that Bonanza would be in a position to
comply with Section 2(b) and 3(d) of the lease to ensure that the
pit slopes will be smoothed and graded so as to conform with the
surrounding terrain.
(4) Bonanza should be reguired to post a bond in the amount
of $300,000 with both the B.L.M. and B.M.I, as joint
beneficiaries to ensure that the terms of the lease will be
complied with and that the land will be smoothed and graded as
reguired .
Al ternat ive B
17-7
B.M.I, objects
B being adopted. Th
orderly development
the faster growing a
freeway being constr
the land value is va
because it makes dev
cognizance of the ec
without discriminati
impact to the surfac
authority to protect
and its subsidiaries
MINERALS 1.1, page 3
strenuously to the possibility of Alternative
is alternative could possibly prevent the
of several hundred acres of land in one of
reas in the Las Vegas Valley. With the
ucted and the water line going into the area,
stly increased without any development
elopment feasible. The Plan appears to take
onomic detriment to Bonanza but also should
on take into consideration the economic
e owners. Apparently B.L.M. has the
surface owners as well as one plant owner
as I guote from MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN,
0 as follows:
[T]o accommodate this exploration and development of
mineral resources, and to minimize or mitigate
adverse impacts on other surface resource values,
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
October 27, 1987
Page 6
several laws and regulations have been set in place.
The surface management regulation (43 CFR 3809) gives
B.L.M. the responsibility to require and oversee the
reclamation of lands disturbed by mining activity.
7-9 In advance of such activities, B.L.M. has an
opportunity to review mining operations' plans and
recommend changes to plan elements which would unduly
cause adverse impacts to other resources.
(Emphasis added.) The beneficial use of surface land owners in
fee is surely a resource B.L.M. should consider. B.M.I, opposes
Alternative B with the exception that it approves the
recommendation of the denial of the lease applications. This
alternative does not set a time limit and therefore could go on
for many years. The other objections and/or lease requirements
as set out above are also adopted in regard to that alternative.
Al ternat i ve C
B.M.I, is adamantly opposed to Alternative C for the reason
there is not a stated termination date for the renewed leases.
In the event Alternative C is adopted, a time certain should be
specified within which Bonanza Materials is moved to an
alternative site. In addition, in the event Alternative C is
adopted, B.M.I, would urge B.L.M. to require Bonanza Materials to
post a bond in the amount of $300,000 to assure that the terms of
the lease will be complied with and that the land will be
properly restored.
Alternative D
This Alternative is more palatable to B.M.I, than the
"preferred" Alternative and Alternatives A, B, and C. However,
B.M.I, would urge B.L.M. to require conditions which will
satisfactorily safeguard the property, which is owned by B.M.I.
Specifically, that Bonanza Materials be required to restore the
property to a condition similar to its existing condition upon
the expiration or sooner termination of leases Nev-057863 and
N-35779. Secondly, to assure compliance with the hereinbefore
described condition, Bonanza Materials should be required to post
a bond in the amount of $300,000.
Al ternat i ve E
B.M.I, is in favor of Alternative E and would urge B.L.M. *s
adoption of this alternative. Again, B.M.I, would urge B.L.M. to
require sufficient conditions to safeguard B.M.I.'s property. As
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
October ,27, 1987
Page 7
stated before, Bonanza Materials should be reguired to restore
the property upon the expiration or sooner termination of the
leases and should further be reguired to post a bond in a
sufficient enough amount to assure that such restoration is
completed.
B.M.I, further respectively reguests a properly noticed
public hearing in regard to the draft plan amendment and
■|7_-j-| environmental assessment for the Clark County Management
Framework Plan prior to the review and consideration in the
development of the proposed plan amendment so that further public
input can be submitted for your consideration.
JONES, JONES, CLOSE
& BROWN, CHARTERED
By C2Lr~t^2=^:
HERBERT M. JOI
5^^-Z-
JONKS,//ESQ
700 Valley Bahk'Plaza
300 So. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101-6026
ATTORNEYS FOR
BASIC MANAGEMENT, INC. (B.M.I.)
HMJrdgf
Attachments
cc : Bob Richey, President
Basic Management, Inc.
Glen Taylor, General Manager
Basic Management, Inc.
68.1/0178B
Proper!)
orp Rrmi
FIGURE 4. LAND USE POLICY PLAN
CITY OF HENDERSON
Residential
Playgrounds, Public Utilities
] Light Industry
Heavy Industry
:yy~-\ Limited Service Area
I 1 Tourist Co mm erica!
fe;-Vl Community , Neighborhood Shopping
14 (fJoJifieJ jr*m //enc/erJon /Ifasttr P/an, 1161.
RESPONSE TO JONES, JONES, CLOSE Z, BROWN
Letter No. 17
17-1 Section 4 of lease N-35779 requires the lessee to provide for (1)
.reasonable diligence, skill and care in operation of the leased
property, (2) the prevention of waste, and (3) the safety and welfare
of miners, unless the laws of the State of Nevada otherwise provide, in
which case, such State laws control. The lessee is complying with all
State and County laws/ordinances, etc., where Federal statutory
authority exists. The Bureau, as a matter of law, does not believe the
State/County can impose its zoning laws and use permit requirements on
Federally authorized mining activities absent this authority. However,
the Bureau will not oppose local zoning laws provided such laws do not
unduly hinder, interrupt or preclude the Bureau in its disposal of
mineral materials, in this instance, sand and gravel. If the local
zoning laws substantially interfere, interrupt or preclude the Bureau's
disposal of mineral materials, the local zoning laws are inoperative
with respect to such disposals.
17-2 See response to 11-4.
17-3 The economic analysis of the Preferred, as well as the other
alternatives, was based on the existing economic activity taking place
within the subject land area. The lessee was the only economic
activity generating real income within the area analyzed. The
operation generates an income which affects the daily livelihood of an
estimated 318 individuals and their families. The BLM feels that the
Proposed Amendment mitigates, to the extent possible, the effects upon
all concerned parties, and achieves a practicable compromise between
the economic livelihood of the lessee and its employees and the
development potential available to surface owners. The Proposed
Amendment presents no significantly adverse economic impact in
comparison with the present, existing situation. As paragraph four on
page 26 of the draft amendment points out, present land values and
development potential already reflect the existence of sand and gravel
mining. Federal ownership of sub-surface mineral rights has been an
encumbrance affecting the value of these lands since their original
transfer to the State. With the information available to us, no
estimate of development opportunities foregone could be realistically
quantified. In addition, it is BLM's intention to assure that lease
stipulations and the mining plan provide conditions for proper
reclamation, as discussed in item number 5 of the specific consequences
of the Preferred Alternative, on pp. 25-26 of the Draft Plan Amendment.
17-4 See response to 15-5.
17-5 Relocating a plant of the lessee's size would be a major undertaking.
Allowing a period for relocation that will not extend past February 28,
1992, is deemed to be an adequate timeframe to relocate.
17-6 The 43 CFR 3809 regulations apply only to operations under the General
Mining Laws of the United States and are not applicable in this
situation. The regulations at 43 CFR 3586, the lease terms, and
requirements of the plan of operations apply to this operation. Again,
these are unique sand and gravel leases, not saleable or locatable
minerals.
17-7 See response to 11-4.
17-8 The applicable regulations and lease provide that bonding is only
posted to and managed by BLM, which has the responsibility to determine
if reclamation has been completed.
17-9 See response to 17-6.
17-10 See response to 17-8.
17-11 Public comment opportunities have been sufficient to allow for full
identification of issues, alternatives and input regarding the draft
plan amendment and environmental assessment. This level of public
comment, along with the existing analysis will allow a reasoned choice
between the available alternatives. An informational public meeting
concerning the draft plan amendment and EA was held on March 23, 1988.
Further public meetings or hearings, at this point, would delay the
decision-making process due to the requirement for a 30-day prior
notification before a meeting could be held. Additional delays in the
decision-making process would probably also accrue as a result of time
delays due to review and analysis of those public comments.
^cluing <bou.thi.in <cNavada <Sin.ce. IQ46
Letter # 18
"<M«£ Quality fAWk"
October 29, 1987
Mr. Brent Bestram
Bureau of Land Management
P. 0. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Dear Mr. Bestram:
Las Vegas Building Materials, Inc., respectfully requests a public
18 — -i hearing on the proposed renewal of Bonanza Materials leases Nev-057863
and N-35779. In addition, we wish to go on record as opposing said
renewals.
Our opposition is based in part on the facts of redevelopment of
mined property, for we own our own reserves and are abundantly aware of
the costs involved in reclaiming mined pits. By granting a lease
extension, we feel that, in effect, a subsidy has been granted to a
competitor, for they are under no obligation to leave the pits in a
reclaimed condition. We, on the other hand, must mine our area with
reclamation in mind and cannot just remove all materials to their
lowest possible depth.
We believe a public heaving is the best way to adequately serve
the public, and look forward to the opportunity to more fully expand
our views.
Very Truly Yours,
LAS VEGAS BUILDING MATERIALS, INC.
^
Phillip T. Henderson
President
PTH:cds
RESPONSE TO LAS VEGAS BUILDING MATERIALS, INC.
Letter No. 18
18-1 See response to 17-11.
Letter # 19
October 28, 1987
Mr. Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
P. 0. Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for the
Clark County Management Framework Plan
Dear Mr. Collins:
We have reviewed the Draft Plan Amendment mailed under cover letter dated
September 28, 1987. The Introduction sets forth the reasons why the Clark
County MFP of 1984, which prohibits the issuance or renewal of sand and gravel
leases, is being amended. It is our opinion that the reasons given are not
sufficient to justify the amendment. The conclusions are not supported by any
evidence. For example, it is stated that large scale operations require
"exclusive rights" which are not available in community pits. Where is the
evidence? Also offered as a justification for the amendment is a mere
regulation (A3 CRF 3610.2), itself subject to amendment. Obviously, the MFP
of 1984 is going to be amended and it is advisable to focus on the facts set
forth in the study and the various alternatives.
The land use plan objective as stated in the Clark County MFP is far too
broad. It permits the mining of public lands wherever leasable, locatable and
salable minerals may be found. Conceivably, even sites where the surface has
already been improved with casinos, hotels and houses could be mined. The
objective should be amended to reflect that sites owned by private parties can
be mined only when the surface owners have consented. Apparently, such
consent is not difficult to obtain since purportedly a couple of surface
owners in the lease renewal area have done so. In short, requiring consent
will eliminate conflicts.
Of the six alternatives identified, only one would approve new applications.
Approving new mines in the center of a rapidly developing residential and
business park area would be improper administration of the federal public
lands and cannot be given serious consideration. It is simply inconceivable
that the one alternative allowing the new lease application will be selected.
Consequently, the rest of these comments are in regard to the existing leases.
Mr. Ben F. Collins
October 28, 1987
Page 2
Several random points about the existing leases are:
- Lease NEV-057863 is the lease covering our property. The study
states that Bonanza has ceased mining on our property and has
no plans to resume mining. Further, its processing equipment
is not on our land. This being so, it is obvious that NEV-057863
cannot legitimately be renewed for the portion covering our forty
acres. Issuance of a ground lease presupposes the applicant is
going to mine gravel. If access to NEW-35779 is needed by Bonanza,
then it should negotiate access with the various surrounding sur-
face owners. If PEPCON truly supports the mining operation, let
it provide access across its ownership in sections 10, 15, and 16.
Incredibly, the UPRR has never been approached regarding the
relocation of access under its tracks. Or, Bonanza can relocate
its processing plant and eliminate the access problem. In short,
we strongly object to that portion of the Preferred Alternative
allowing for renewal of NEV-057863 covering our parcel, particu-
larly when our parcel is for access only and other access, although
perhaps more costly, is available.
- One of the justifications for renewing the existing leases is that
»9~ 2 J three of the affected land owners did not submit specific develop-
ment plans. This is not a reasonable standard. For instance, in
our case, the land has been mined for twenty-five years with no
indication when the BLM will terminate the program. Moreover, we
have no idea what the topography of the parcel will be, if and when,
it is returned. The dynamics of the real estate market, at the
time of development, will dictate what is developed. What would
be the point of creating a detailed and specific development plan
at the present time? Some type of residential project will be
created, but until we know a time certain for return of the land
and its condition, it would be poor business practice to incur the
large expense of planning the project in detail. Accordingly, this
justification for renewing the leases is invalid. Suffice it to
say, that if the lease program were terminated now, the property
is located in an area being developed right now (Arroyo Grande
Development Company) and detailed planning could begin.
- The study would appear to indicate that three of the surface
owners in the existing lease area are either not opposed to
renewal of the leases (Traurig Foundation and Sullivan) or
strongly supports renewal (PEPCON). The Traurig Foundation
has apparently sold to the City of Henderson, which has a very
Mr. Ben F. Collins
October 28, 1987
Page 3
19-3
unique use for the gravel pits (baseball park). None of the
other objecting surface owners are likely to find a buyer who
can use an exhausted gravel pit. The Sullivan situation is not
understandable. The study indicates that Sullivan, by means of
a private agreement, is allowing (my emphasis) Bonanza to mine
on his property for a period of ten years. Where did Sullivan
get any authority or standing to allow or disallow? If Sullivan
is a "mere" surface owner similar to ourselves, where and how
did he acquire the BLM's rights to enter such an agreement. Is
the BLM bound by such an agreement? Did the BLM agree to stand
behind Sullivan so that he could be in a position to bargain for
such an agreement? Why hasn't the BLM, from the beginning of this
program twenty-five years ago, transferred its authority to us to
bargain with the lessee? PEPCON's position is highly suspicious.
Since it originally owned the lease and assigned it to the present
owners, it may not be in a position to object. The fact that it
"strongly supports" renewal suggests it is benefitting in some
manner and so is not in the same position as the objecting surface
owners. What is critical is that it objects to the issuance of
new applications because it interferes with its plans for the
development of its other property. In other words, when PEPCON
finds itself in the same position as the objecting surface owners,
it objects in the same manner and for the same reasons. The analysis
of the Preferred Alternatives leaves the impression that all the
surface owners in the existing lease area are in the same position
and some just happen to be against lease renewal and some just
happen to be for it. This is very misleading and permits the
Preferred Alternative to look more reasonable than it really is.
The report emphasizes the BLM's concern for Bonanza Materials and
the economic impact of the operation. Bonanza's annual revenue
is $16.8 million generating $10.4 million in personal income and
318 jobs. The ultimate consumers of the production are receiving
the benefit of "low cost aggregate". Any alternative which disturbs
this structure or causes any inconvenience is rejected by the BLM.
Bonanza Materials and its employees and customers are all benefit-
ting, in part, by victimizing a few of their fellow citizens.
While the BLM recognizes that the non-consenting surface owners
are being sacrificed, the Preferred Alternative does not strive
to balance the situation. Merely limiting the depth and regulating
the shape of the pit is insufficient mitigation. Because of the
size of the operation and its numerous beneficiaries, the BLM could
reasonably require a reclamation effort that leaves the surface
level and at the same elevation as the surrounding lands.
Mr. Ben F. Collins
October 28, 1987
Page 4
In conclusion, the principal d
does not require surface owner
available wherein the BLM owns
consent is not unreasonable,
developing the new site versus
at the old site. The ultimate
fractionally, but since it is
able to accommodate the change
change will bring fairness and
old or new site. Bonanza will
efect in the Preferred Alternative is that it
consent. Since there is an alternative site
both the surface and mineral estate, requiring
Bonanza will then be able to weigh the costs of
the cost of gaining the surface owner's consent
price of the aggregate may have to be raised
already at a low price, the operation should be
A price increase is justified if such a
balance into the situation and whether at the
still be in business.
If surface owner consent is not made a part of the Preferred Alternative, then
Alternative E would be the choice.
Yours truly,
ANtfUS McLEOD
30 Condor Circle
Carson City, NV 89701
AMcL : mlw
cc: Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich
Senator Chic Hecht
RESPONSES TO ANGUS MCLEOD
Letter No. 19
19-1 Mining of the public lands for leasable, locatable and salable minerals
is based on the requirements of the various mineral laws and FLPMA, as
well as the land use plan. The requirements for surface consent for
mineral operations on public lands are established by law and
regulation. The Congress did not pass any law applying to surface
owner consent in the sand and gravel lease situation. Mining of sites
with surface improvements in place, e.g. casinos, hotels and houses,
has not occurred under the provisions and requirements of the laws,
regulations and land use plans.
19-2 Available development plans were considered in issue identification as
part of the public scoping period. The existence or non-existence of
specific development plans was not used as a justification to renew or
not renew existing leases. Rather, they were considered in analyzing
impacts under the alternatives identified in the draft plan amendment
and environmental assessment.
19-3 The management responsibilities for mineral leasing being considered in
this amendment have not and cannot be assigned by BLM. By virtue of
lease N- 3 5779, the lessee can choose to mine or not to mine anywhere
within their lease boundary. There is nothing in the lease terms or
regulations which prevents the lessee from entering into a private
agreement with surface landowners to reach a compromise over the
competing land uses, nor do they need Bureau approval. Bureau
involvement/approval was not needed because the agreement did not
change any of the involved parties' surface rights or mineral rights
nor did it violate the terms and conditions of the lease.
Letter # 20
LEONARD I. GANG
FREDERIC I. BERKLEY"
•ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
Gang & Berkley
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE IOI
415 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89IOI
(702) 385-3761
October 28, 1987
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
RUDIAK, OSHINS, SEGAL & LARSEI+-T
720 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, SUITE 3SD
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
UJ
t-
<
n
Mr. Ben Collins
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
4765 Vegas Drive
Post Office Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Dear Mr. Collins:
20-1
This office has been retained by Teamsters Local 631 to
review and respond to the "Draft Plan Amendment and
Environmental Assessment for the Clark County Management
Framework Plan, Sand and Gravel Leasing in the Las Vegas
Valley Sub-Unit," herein "Draft Plan." We have reviewed the
Draft Plan and provide the following comments and
objections:
The Draft Plan, by its title, purports to be an
amendment to the Clark County Managment Framework Plan,
herein "CCMFP." However, the draft is not in reality an
amendment to the existing plan, but rather an aberration
from the plan. It only proposes to renew Bonanza
Materials' lease, herein "Bonanza." The primary reason
given for renewing the lease is that failure to do so will
cause a financial hardship to "Bonanza". The Draft Plan
does not propose a plan or procedure to renew all or any
other leases nor does it indicate any reason why the
existing plan, which is only three years old, should be
amended. Because of this, the Draft Plan constitutes and
is, in fact, special action on behalf of Bonanza similar to
"spot zoning," an alternative that is unacceptable and not
allowed.
According to the Draft Plan, the CCMFP states that no
new sand/gravel leases and material sales contracts will be
authorized and no existing sand/gravel leases will be
renewed on lands in the Las Vegas Valley. The intent of the
CCMFP is clear from its very language; no new leases and no
renewal of existing leases. The reason for this is that
residential and industrial expansion now conflicts with the
land use authorized by Bonanza's existing leases. In
eliminating sand/gravel leases, the Draft Plan also says
residential and industrial expansion needs hardrock
aggregate for continued expansion. To meet this need, the
Gang & Berkley
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Ben Collins
October 28, 1987
Page 2
CCMFP authorized no less than four "community" pits. The
Draft Plan says community pits are of short duration, that
is, typically one year. By authorizing community pits of
only short duration, this provision implicitly supports the
explicit intent of the CCMFP to eliminate hard rock mining
in the Las Vegas Valley. However, renewal of the Bonanza
lease would not eliminate hardrock mining, but would
authorize the existence of mining other than of limited
duration and, thus, would be contrary to the intent and
purpose of community pits concept and the CCMFP. No reason
is given for reaching this result other than to benefit
"Bonanza" .
The Draft Plan says changed circumstances, that is the
continued residential and industrial expansion, have now
eliminated the proposed community pit sites. The next step
in this syllogism is that by eliminating the community pits,
the source for hardrock aggregate would also be eliminated,
with the exception of Bonanza. The Draft Plan notes that
although the community pit sites have been eliminated, the
demand for hardrock aggregate has not. Thus, the Draft Plan
infers that if Bonanza's lease is not renewed, hardrock
aggregate will not be available. This is not correct. If
the CCMFP is obsolete and needs to be amended, the reasons
should be clearly set forth so that the public can voice its
views on the reasons given for changing the existing plan.
There has been no dramatic change of circumstances
since the CCMFP was approved three years ago to render it
obsolete. At that time, residential and industrial growth
was known, anticipated and forecast to eventually expand to
the sites set aside as community pits. It was the intent
and desire of the CCMFP that these community pits as well as
hard rock mining be eventually eliminated. However, renewal
of the Bonanza lease will cause hardrock aggregate mining to
continue. Continued hardrock mining is inconsistent with
the intent of the CCMFP and cannot be justified.
Furthermore, without the necessary proof that the hardrock
aggregate will not be available from other sources and that
the CCMFP should therefore be amended, the Draft Plan should
be rejected.
43 CFR 3586 permits renewal of leases only on terms and
conditions determined to be reasonable. Because the Draft
Plan proposes only the renewal of Bonanza's lease and does
Gang & Berkley
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Ben Collins
October 28, 1987
Page 3
20-2
20-3
20-4
not propose a plan or a procedure for considering renewing
other leases in the Las Vegas Valley. The Draft Plan is not
reasonable and is not supported by any rational basis other
than once again it would be of financial benefit to Bonanza.
Accordingly, the Draft Plan discriminates against other
lessees similarly situated. 43 CFR 3586 also says a lease
not producing sand and gravel will not be renewed. The
Draft Plan says mining on Bonanza's lease Nev-057863 has
ceased, yet proposes that it be renewed. Because mining
ceased, Bonanza's lease should not be renewed.
The only conditions under which the hardrock aggregate
mining should be allowed to continue is under competitive
bidding as set forth in 43 CFR 3610.2. Under this
subsection, competitive bids are required when volume sales
exceed 300,000 tons or 200,000 equivalent cubic yards.
According to the Draft Plan, in 1985, Bonanza produced 1.08
million tons and in 1986, it produced 1.11 million tons.
Further, the Draft Plan says Bonanza currently produces
120,000 tons of gravel and sand per month. Because
Bonanza's production exceeds 3 00,000 tons, the lease should
not be renewed, but bid competitively. Additional
requirements are set forth in 43 CFR 3564, "Competitive
Leasing." If prospecting or exploratory work is unnecessary
to determine the workability of valuable hardrock, then it
should be leased only through competitive bid. In this
instance, prospecting or exploratory work is not necessary
to determine the workability of valuable hardrock on site
currently leased to Bonanza. Therefore, the land must be
leased competitively. However, no bids have been requested,
considered or accepted. The Draft Plan does not recommend
competitive bidding. It recommends renewal for Bonanza.
The question arises whether the BLM is proposing a
bonanza for "Bonanza."
Finally, BLM policy under 43 CFR 3600 is for disposal
of minerals at fair market value. For this reason, the Code
requires the sale and disposal of these minerals to be by
competitive bid. To ensure the interest of the Government
of the United States in securing the fair market price for
both the lease and sale of hardrock aggregate or other
minerals, the Code requires competitive bid. Fair market
value is assured if leases are awarded on the basis of
competitive bid. However, the Government will not be
Gang & Berkley
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Ben Collins
October 28, 1987
Page 4
assured of fair market value for the sale of these minerals
if the Bonanza lease is merely renewed and not competitively
bid.
In conclusion, the "Draft Plan," although it purports
to be an "amendment" to the existing plan, it is not. In
reality it is a proposal to benefit Bonanza at the expense
of the Government and the people of the United States and
Clark County. No reasons are given why the existing plan
needs to be amended. No reasons are given why the lease
should not be competitively bid. For the reasons stated, we
I object to the approval of the proposed draft plan. We urge
that a public hearing be scheduled where all interested
parties can voice their views.
ruly yours,
LIG/dl
RESPONSES TO GANG $ BERKELEY
Letter No. 20
20-1 See response to 11-1. The primary issue of this plan amendment (as
stated on page 7 of the draft) is the consideration of new lease
applications (3) filed prior to the revocation of 43 CFR 3563.2 and
renewal of existing leases (2) for sand and gravel on lands within the
boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley Sub-Unit in Clark County. See also
the "Purpose and Need For Action" section of this document, beginning
on pages 1 and 2.
20-2 The draft plan does not consider renewing other leases in the Las Vegas
Valley simply because there are no other existing leases in the valley
to consider. It does not discriminate against other lessees similarly
situated because there are none. The draft plan was written, in part,
to analyze the conflict arising between the right of the lessee to
continue mining, as allowed by law and regulations, versus the right of
the surface owners to develop their property.
20-3 43 CFR 3586.2, in its entirety, states that BLM shall not renew any
lease that is not producing sand and gravel or is not part of an
existing sand and gravel mining operation. While it is true that no
gravel is being mined from Nev-057863, it is an integal part of an
active sand and gravel operation occurring on lease N-35779.
Nev-057863 contains maintenance, office and processing facilities and
is also needed for access to the mining area.
20-4 The regulations governing sand and gravel leases, 43 CFR 3563.2 and
3586, make no provisions for competitive leasing. The leasing system,
before revocation of the regulations, was on a first come, first serve
basis. Non- competitive mineral disposal on certain lands in Nevada,
including those lands on which the lessee is presently mining, is
permitted by 43 CFR 3563.2. The Code of Federal Regulations, at 43 CFR
3586, revokes the aforementioned regulations and makes mineral
materials on such lands, including sand and gravel, subject to disposal
only under 43 CFR 3600, which implements the Material Sales Act of
1947. However, 43 CFR 3586 regulations recognize existing leases and
provide for their continuance. Subsequently, and contrary to popular
belief, Bonanza's leases are not subject to 43 CFR 3600, but are
grandfathered rights under 43 CFR 3563.2. If the area being mined by
the lessee was not subject to 43 CFR 3586, sand and gravel disposal
would be by competitive bid pursuant to 43 CFR 3600.
Not applicable to this case, is 43 CFR 3564, which provides for the
competitive leasing of hardrock minerals. Those regulations allow
disposal of minerals to occur primarily on National Park Service lands,
lands patented to the State of California and acquired lands. Tne term
"hardrock" generally applies to all those minerals which would be
locatable under the general mining law if the above lands were open to
mining entry. Sand and gravel have never been considered as hardrock
minerals by the Department of Interior, but as mineral materials or
common variety materials as described in the Material Sales Act of 1947
(61 Stat. 681) as amended by the Common Varieties Act of July 23, 1955
(69 Stat. 367).
20-5 See response to 17-11 and the "Purpose and Need for Action" section of
this document.
Western Union telegraph is being sent
This message was taken by Carol McDermott over the phone
Letter # 21
21-1
Western Union - 800-325-6000 - Ref : 1-016-052 I 303
From: William Wagner, Business Manager, I.V.O.E. Local #12
Operating Engineers Local #12 wishes to go on record opposing any
deviation from 198U master plan for Bonanza Material. The proposed
changes are totally unfair to the long term rock suppliers in the
Las Vegas area who have not been afforded the same consideration
in the past. The other supplies use local labor and pay union
negotiated wage\rate. Whereas Bonanza Material is an out of state
contractor who pay employees less than the prevailing wages of
the area and use out of state workers who do not reside in Las Vegas
For these reasons we feel that their plan to expand for the next
five years is totally unacceptable for the Nevada workers.
RESPONSE TO I.V.O.E. LOCAL NO. 12
Letter No. 21
21-1 The various regulations for leasable and saleable sand and gravel
provide the same considerations and opportunities to all the public
with regard to the disposal of public land minerals.
STATE OF NEVADA
Letter # 22
RICHARD H. BRYAN
Governor
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 885-4420
JEAN FORD
Director
October 29, 1987
Mr. Ben F. Collins
District Manager
Las Vegas District Office
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Re
SAI NV #88300034
Project: Draft Plan Amendment and
E.A. for Sand/Gravel Lease
in Las Vegas Valley
Dear Mr. Collins:
Attached are the comments from the Nevada Divisions of
Historic Preservation/Archeology and State Parks concerning the
aoove referenced project.
These comments constitute the State Clearinghouse review of
this proposal as per Executive Order 12372. Please address these
comments or concerns in your final decision.
John B. Walker, Coordinator
State Clearinghouse, NOCS/SPOC
JBW/11
Enclosures
■ ■ »■ » tj * ■'
NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
• OCT 6 198/
T0. DW»»«on*JW *rtaPr««v««on
,U* gad AwSMKrtfl'g*
Govornor' s Off Ice
Attorney General X_
Adnl n I strati on
Agr Icul ture
Commerce
Community Services
"State Job Training Office X_
Economic Development
Education
Employment Security Department
"X~ Dept. of Minerals X X
Equal Rights Commission
Hunan Resources
Indian Commission
FROM: John B. Walker, Coordinator
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
1100 EAST WILLIAM. SUITE 117
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 89710
883-4420
Labor Commission
Legislative Counsel Bureau
Library
Prisons
Public Service Commission
Taxation
Transportation
UNR-Bureau of Mines
UNR-Dept. of Range, Wildlife,
and Forestry X
Wlldl He
Press Room-Capttol Building
Nuclear Waste Project Office
SO ICC
Stato Communications Board
Conservation and Natural Resources
X State Lands
Conservation Districts
X Environmental Protection
Forestry
X Hist. Preservation
& Archeology
X State Parks
Water Planning
Water Resources
SAI nv 9 88300034
project: Draft Plan Amendment and E.A.
for Sand/Gravel Leases in Las
Vegas Valley
Attached for review and comment Is a copy of the aforementioned project. Please evaluate It with respect to:
1) the program's effect on your plans and programs;
2) the importance of its contribution to State and/or areawlde goals and objectives;
3) its accord with any applicable law, order or regulation with which you are familiar and/or
4) additional considerations.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN 10/27/87 • TVPe y°ur comments If applicable, check
the appropriate box below and roturn the form to this office. PLEASE DO SO EVEN IF YOU HAVE M0 COMMENT on
this particular project so that we nay complete our processing. If you are unable to comment by the prescribed
date, please notify this office. Reviewers may substltue this form with agency letterhead. If letterhead Is
used, please site the SAI number listed above In your comment.
THIS SECTION TO BE CfJMPLETED BY REVIEWING AGENCY:
No comment on this project
Proposal supported as written
Additional information (see below)
Conference desired (see below)
Conditional support (outlined below)
Disapproval of funding
(must specify reason below)
22fl
Cor.nents: (use additional sheets if necessary)
The Division has reviewed the draft plan amendment and E.A. Although
the project area has been identified as having low archeological sensitivity,
efforts to identify historic properties must still be undertaken in accordance
with 36 CFR 800.4. A reduced level of inventory is justifiable but consultation
with the Division should be conducted after an alternative is selected and
prior to survey work beginning.
If you have any questions regarding this process please call us.
JfcTTTT&Jc
r). ____ Staff Archeologist
885-5138
10/26/87
Date
OCT 2 9 1987
NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TO:
OFFICE OF
COMMUNITY SERVICES
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVlCEST
1100 EAST WILLIAM. SUITE 117
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 89710
885-4420
FROM:
Governor's Office
Attorney General X
Administration
Agrlcul ture
Commerce
Community Services
"state Job Training Office X_
Economic Development
Education
Employment Security Department
X~ Dept. of Minerals X X
Equal Rights Commission
Hunan Resources
Indian Commission
John B. Walker, Coordinator
Labor Commission
Legislative Counsel Bureau
Library
Prisons
Public Service Commission
Taxation
Transportation
UNR-Bureau of Mines
UNR-Dept. of Range, Wildlife,
and Forestry X
Wlldl Ife
Press Room-Cap I tol Building
Nuclear Waste Project Office
SO ICC
State Communications Board
Conservation and Natural Resources
X State Lands
Conservation Districts
X Environmental Protection
Forestry
X Hist. Preservation
& Archeology
X State Parks
Water Planning
Water Resources
sai N» t 88300034
PROJECT: Draft Plan .Amendment and E.A.
for Sand/Gravel Leases in Las
Veaas Valley
Attached for review and comment Is a copy of the aforementioned project. Please evaluate It with respect to:
1) the program's effect on your plans and programs;
2) the Importance of Its contribution to State and/or areawlde goals and objectives;
3) Its accord with any applicable law, order or regulation with which you are familiar and/or
4) additional considerations.
PLEASE SUBMIT TOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN 10/27/87 • TYPe vour comments if applicable, check
the appropriate box below and return the form to this office. PLEASE DO SO EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO COMMENT on
this particular project so that we may complete our processing. If you are unable to comment by the prescribed
date, please notify this office. Reviewers may substltue this form with agency letterhead. If letterhead Is
used, please site the SAI number listed above In your comment.
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BT REVIEWING AGENCY:
\/ lio comment on this project
Proposal supported as written
Additional Information (see below)
Conference desired (see below)
Conditional support (outlined below)
Disapproval of funding
(must specify reason below)
gn i :..,., r>
-±^>.
P£c£A\&>r
AS70
Date
**CEi
feo
MEMO
OCT 29
ON
TO
FROM
John Walter
m
«**2£?<*
DIVISION
OF
STATE
PARKS
Jim Najima
^■-^' DATE 10-27-87
SUBJECT Sand and Gravel Leasing in the Las Vegas sub-unit.
SAI NV * 88300034
The review of the Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment
has been reviewed for effects to recreational resources and opportuni-
ties, as well as open space. The review of this document does not
conflict with this criteria.
Thank-you for the opportunity to review this document.
801.6b(7)
a division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
RESPONSES TO STATE OF NEVADA, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
Letter No. 22
22-1 Upon your receipt of this proposed plan amendment and Final EA, further
consultation with the SHPO will take place.
Letter
October 29, 1987
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
4765 Vegas Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89108
ATTN: Ben Collins
District Manager
De ar Ben ,
23-1
23-2
I am writing your letter in response to the applica-
tions for mineral leases, specifically for "gravel
extraction" on my property on the east half of the
northwest quarter of Section 922 South, Range 62
East.
Please be advised that I am in protest of issuing of
any new leases for mineral extraction on my property.
I speak for myself on this property as well as my
partners and can provide additional protest letters
on surrounding property owners if necessary.
Please be furthur advised that in your report you
mentioned that we the property owners were contacted.
I'm not sure how you went about contacting the owners
of the properties where the lease applications are
involved, however, I was not noticed and would like
to hereby make notice to the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment that in no way were we contacted.
We are as we speak in the process of applying for an
application of new zoning and development on our
property as a residential development and would like
to continue to pursue our interests without the
aggravation of fighting a lease for gravel extraction
i.e. a gravel pit.
Please be advised that we appreciate any furthur no-
tification that you have on any meetings or any other
submissions that may be necessary on our part to
overt this situation.
Sincerely yours,
Z1
/?
{^> ffitn
Jack Binion
RESPONSES TO JACK BINION
Letter No. 23
23-1 See response to 14-1.
23-2 See response to 14-1. It was not possible to update your address on
our mailing list as your letter did not contain an address on it.
Subsequent letters were sent to you with instructions that they be
forwarded.
W BRUCE BECKLEY (1915-19861
DRAKE OE LANOY
REX A JEMISON
ROBERT LIST
MARK C SCOTT. JR
JACK C CHERRY
J MITCHELL COBEAGA
RENE C ARCENEAUX
ALAN J LEFEBVRE
SHERMAN B MAYOR
ROLAND K MARTIN JR
B ALAN MC KISSICK
DAVID BARRON
FRANNY A FORSMAN
BRUCE A LESLIE
GREG W MARSH
C ERIC FUNSTON
WILLIAM B PALMER II
BRUCE SCOTT DICKINSON
DANIEL F POLSENBERG
JOSEPH J VAN WALRAVEN
WILLIAM C TURNER
ROBERT AARON CALLAWAY
STEPHEN S KENT
ELLEN J WINOGRAD
CAROL R DAVIS
RANDAL A DeSHAZER
judith l lamson
keith j tierney
j michael oakes
g roderick booker
r vaughn gourley
erven t nelson
joseph j bongiovi iii
nile leatham
elizabeth g gonzalez
terrence p McCarthy
Beckley, Singleton, De Lanoy, Jemison & List, Chtd.
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
411 EAST BONNEVILLE AVENUE
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89101
<702) 385-3373
TELECOPIER (702) 385-9447
November 18, 19 87
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
Post Office Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Re: Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental
Assessment for the Clark County Management
Framework Plan
Dear Sir:
fce/&<*
Letter # 24
RENO OFFICE
50 WEST LIBERTY STREET
SUITE 210
RENO. NEVADA 89501
(702)3234866
TELECOPIER (702) 323-5523
WILLIAM SINGLETON
ROBERT J MILLER
VINCENT M HELM
OF COUNSEL
This letter is written in behalf of Partners For Profit,
a group of Las Vegas businessmen comprised of Messrs. Jerry
Herbst, Dick Thurmond, Phil Cohen, Tony Toscan, Jeffrie
Light, Gary Thurmond and Peter Fig, which owns eighty (80)
acres indicated on the plat attached hereto.
Examination of the Draft Plan Amendment and Environmental
Assessment for the Clark County Management Framework Plan dated
July 16, 1987, (the "Examination") reveals that any amendment
which would permit Lease N-35779 to be extended beyond its
present expiration date of September, 1988, would be unfair and
inequitable if such extension included the eighty (80) acre
property of surface owner, Partners For Profit.
The basic rationale for the ultimate conclusions and
recommendations of the Bureau of Land Management is admittedly
Beckley, Singleton, De Lanoy, Jemison & List, Chtd.
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
November 18, 19 87
Page Two
'socio-economic in nature1 coupled with a 'balancing of
equities' between the gravel lessees and the affected surface
owners. All the stated alternatives in the Examination appear
to recognize that the extraction of gravel in the area of
Lease N-35779 will terminate in 1992. As a result, any pro-
vision for continued gravel extraction during this limited
period should be limited to areas where there will be a minimum
affect upon property of objecting surface owners.
An examination of Figure 3 Surface Ownership (copy annexed
for convenience) shows that excavations on properties affected
by Lease N-35779 have been confined to: (a) the McLeod property;
(b) a portion of the Pepcon property; (c) the Sullivan, et al
property; (d) the Traurig property; and (e) the northerly portion
of the Partners For Profit property. Insofar as the McLeod and
Sullivan, et al properties, the proposed lease extension will
have little, if any, effect for the reasons stated in the
Examination. Of the remaining three properties affected, two of
them, Pepcon, as to its own property, and the City of Henderson,
as to the Traurig property, have no objection to the lease exten-
sion and the continued gravel extraction process by Bonanza
(See p. 15 of the "Examination"). Partners for Profit does object
to the extension of Lease N-35779. It should be noted that the
said Lease which covers 780.0 acres requires only a $10,000.00
bond to assure restoration by leveling and grading the property
at the termination of the Lease.
Again, examination of Figure 3 appears to indicate that
there remains additional property in the Traurig and Pepcon
parcels to which Bonanza has ready access for future sand and
gravel excavation. The areas of the Pepcon and Traurig pro-
perties available to them appear to be greater than the areas
excavated over the years since the leases were initiated.
There is no showing in the Examination that there is any neces-
sity for further excavation upon the land of a surface owner
who objects; namely, the land of Partners For Profit.
Beckley, Singleton, De Lanoy, Jemison & List, Chtd.
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
November 18, 19 87
Page Three
In behalf of Partners For Profit, it is requested that
the writer receive notice of all proceedings in the premises
Very truly yours,
BECKLEY, SINGLETON, DE LANOY,
JEMISON & LIST, Chartered
'-' Williafn Singleton
WS : ppc
Attachment
FIGURE 3. SURFACE OWNERSHIP
T22S-R62E
Ci'/v of HtnUri**
^-<//?32.^
-<//?32.'
He flpln.
/
7A<-«* -A/i**teeo in
J 1 1 I L — j
|(/3 H- Zaiierixr^
1
10
~3aiic masia.ijzmeit I*c.
/H. Xushner
SanJ tGfai/el Operations
'di of ftuf.Jf86
■V:
V/93/
Lie Rpln.
(PEPOW)
timer ic&n tftra.da.Corf>.
R. Thurmond
ISStU '<£££„ I **■** &7- i **>■■ C.
^±2?''^]'^^-
tf- 35 77 9
Sccl/g. I = 20oo'
Ownership data obtained from Clark County
Assessor s Office as of October 2/. 1986.
RESPONSES TO BECKLEY, SINGLETON, DELANOY, JEMISON $ LIST, CHTD.
Letter No. 24
24-1 See response to 11-4.
24-2 See response to 19-1.
STATE OF NEVADA
Letter # 25
RICHARD H. BRYAN
Governor
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 885-4420
JEAN FORD
Director
November 13, 1987
Mr. Ben F. Collins
District Manager
Las Vegas District Office
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, Nevada 89126
Re
SAI NV #88300034
Project: Draft Plan Amendment and
E.A. for Sand/Gravel Lease
in Las Vegas Valley
Dear Mr. Collins:
Attached is an additional comment from the Nevada Department
of Transportation that was received after our previous letter
you. Please incorporate this comment in
process.
previous letter to
your decision making
John B. Walker, Coordinator
State Clearinghouse, NOCS/SPOC
JBW/11
Enclosure
25-1
L
STATE OF NEVADA RECEIVED. ON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1263 South Stewart Street NfW ^ °' '"£ ^
Carson City, Nevada 89712
OFFICE OF
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Governor COMMl^^H^Wlft^D/recfor
November 6, 1987
In Reply Refer to:
John Walker, Coordinator
State Clearinghouse Program PSD 7.19
Office of Community Services
1100 East William Street, Suite 117
Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear John:
The Nevada Department of Transportation has reviewed the Draft
Plan Amendment and E.A. for Sand/Gravel Leases in Las Vegas Valley. SAI
NV. #88300034.
Based on the information submitted, we have the following comments
on the proposed project.
The Department is supportive of any action the BLM proposes to
create material site operations in the Las Vegas Valley. Allowing
commercial pit operations in the Las Vegas Valley could enhance the
bidding environment for NDOT.
The M & T Division concurs with the above statement. Aggregate
supplies for highway construction are becoming harder to find and
obtain in the Las Vegas Valley. Close, adequate supplies are
desperately needed for the continued construction of the roads demanded
by expansion.
The preferred alternative attempts to limit sand and Gravel Mining
25 — o I *n tne area and place more restrictive uses on the current lease holder
Bonanza Materials. This is indirect conflict with the statements in
the October 29, 1986, memo.
Alternative B is the least restrictive of the alternatives and
serves the purpose of promoting gravel mining in this area.
Find enclosed a letter sent to Bureau of Land Management
concerning the amendment to the land use plan in October 29, 1986.
John Walker
November 6, 1987
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
IIS 0. BARRY
;sistant Director
Planning
D0B:RRR:nc
Attachments
cc: Ledo Quilici, Materials & Testing
Kent Mayer, Asst. District Engineer
Dean Bliss, Right-Of-Way
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE
P.O. Box 170 - Las Vegas, NV 89125-0170
October 29, 1986
TRANSPO"AT!ON BCAS2
RICHARD H BRYAN Governor Cfairman
BRIAN McKAY. Atto-rey General
DARREL R DAINES State Cor.roHer
c<-
70'/
GARTH F DULL. Director
In Reply Reler to
Ben F. Collins, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Dear Mr. Collins:
The Department of Transportation wishes to thank you for your
notice of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for the Clark County Planning area that is being considered.
The Department is very supportive of any positive program by the
Bureau of Land Management and the Clark County Planning agencies
that would place the subject 11 square mile study area in a category
that would be condusive to the extraction of sand and gravel
materials. The Department has been interested not only because of
its existing Free Use Permit //NV-056-FU 6-03, but because if
private enterprise were allowed to operate in this area, a direct
result would be an enhancement to the competitive bidding environ-
ment for the Department's upcoming construction projects.
We would also like to be placed on your mailing list so that
we may keep abreast of the various issues on this matter. Please
send any such notices to Eugene F. Weight, P.E., District Engineer,
P.O. Box 170, Las Vegas, Nevada 89125-0170.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Eugene F. Weight, P.E.
District Engineer
EFW/sb
cc: Ron' Hill
Dean Bliss
Materials & Testing
RESPONSES TO STATE OF NEVADA, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES/
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Letter No. 25
25-1 The original land use plan objective is to manage public lands in Clark
County so as to facilitate exploration and development of leaseable,
locatable and salable minerals. We understand your concerns about
restrictions on private enterprise.
25-2 See response to 11-2. The proposed plan amendment has been developed
to be responsive to the issues and planning criteria identified during
the planning process.
mVERSWIED
[fMTERESTS
BARRY R. MOORE, CCIM
Letter # 26
26-1
November 24, 1987
Mr. Ben F. Collins
District Manager
United States Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District
4765 Vegas Dr.
P.O. Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
RE: Warm Springs Investment Fund
Please be advised that my correspondence sent to you
on October 26, 1987 was in error in relation to the
legal description. The proper legal description
should be the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 9, T-22S,
R-62E. Please amend any future correspondence to
reflect as such. Also be advised that Warm Springs
owns the Wl/2 and Jack Binion and Eric Drake etal own
the El/2 of the above description.
We would like to make sure The Bureau is aware that
we are presently rezoning our property for a
residential development which we plan to start early
next year.
The Bureau's proposal concerning gravel leases and
asking input to the proposal about issuing new
leases, stated that we were properly contacted. We
were not contacted and did not have a proper
opportunity to input our position (to let the
Department know of our new residetial development).
Please accept this on the behalf of all the Land
Owners of the Warm Springs Investment fund and Eric
Drake etal which includes more than 25 Land Owners.
Moo re
Co-£eneral Partner
Warm Springs Investment Fund
Representative for Eric Drake, Jack Binion, Etal
BRM/nl
BRM06
Diversified Realty / Diversified Equities Group / Diversified Leasing & Management / Diversified Development
Flamingo Fountains 3885 S. Decatur Suite 3000 ra
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103 (702)737-7777
RESPONSE TO DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS
Letter No. 26
26-1 Please see the "Coordination, Consistency and Public Participation"
section of the proposed amendment which deals with notification of
interested publics. Thank you for the information furnished and also
for furnishing your current address which enables our mailing list to
be updated.
dewing Southern <J\e.ua.da. <^>incc 1946
Letter # 27
"<M«£ Quality <PxzoalL"
December 15, 1987
Brent Bestram
Bureau of Land Management
P. 0. Box 26569
Las Vegas, NV 89126
Dear Mr. Bestram:
We would like to expand on our comments in our letter of October 29,
1987. In that letter, we had mentioned our feeling of a "subsidy"
being granted in effect if the Bonanza Material leases Nev-057863 and
N-35779 were renewed. We realize that the BLM receives a royalty
payment from Bonanza Materials, which hardly constitutes a subsidy.
Our concern, however, is that all material producers are not being
treated equally and that is not acceptable to us.
There are other producers who have been working material leases in the
valley and in talking with one of them, Southern Nevada Paving, we have
been told that they could not get a lease either transferred or
renewed. This appears to be a clear contradiction to the policy being
set forth in the Draft Plan in regards to Bonanza Materials. We firmly
believe that all material producers in the valley should have a clear
picture of how government regulations will affect us, and that we can
plan our business futures only if we know we will all be treated
equally. The Draft Plan appears to be changing the rules presented in
the Clark County Management Framework Plan (CCMFP) , and changing them
for only one producer. For that reason, we believe a public hearing
should be held so we can fully understand the direction and intent of
the BLM.
Very truly yours,
'^^eSO LAS VEGAS BUILDING MATERIALS, INC.
gft&t*
/
0^
PTH:cdb
-Q CO
Phillip T. Henderson
President
C
TD 195 .S3 L37 1988
U. S. Bureau of Land
Management. Las Vegas
Proposed plan amendment and
final environmental
BLM LIBRARY
RS150ABLDG.50
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 25047
DENVER, CO 80225
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11