(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "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"

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^NT Sf , 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: 

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. 

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- ' 

!^ R62E l£§ 




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-V 1 '! 



^■M' 1 ^^ , 



Gr..*i P'li A | 



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///// / " /////// 

\mmmMM m -- * 

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' f r 




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: 

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. 

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, 
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 • T VP e 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 Arch eol ogist 



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 • T YP e 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, 



Z 1 



/? 



{ ^> 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 nature 1 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 ftu f .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"A T !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