2009-06-02_REVISION - M1980146 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Montoya Gravel Expansion EA a suitable use of the land. Economic demand for less expensive gravel product (due to pit location) and for support of an area business will be met through the Proposed Action. There were some concerns raised during initial public scoping on the project. Issues that were considered substantial are analyzed in the EA. Primary issues included impacts to recreation, local economic benefits of the proposal, access to Highway 160, and reclamation plans. Many of the issues were addressed through mitigation measures. Comments were received during a pre-decisional EA review period from three sources. Two of the commenters were concerned about impacts to wildlife and recreation. These impacts have already been analyzed in the EA. The third party was especially concerned that the BLM was proposing a non-competitive sale, when they contend BLM should have opened the sale to competitive bid. BLM regulations allow for renewal of competitive contracts within the contract site (43 CFR 3602.47(a)). The contract site was partially defined under the original competitive bid as T34N R9W, SW'/4 of section 3, and NW'/4 of section 9; however, this was obviously a typographic error given that the NW '/4 of section 9 is not BLM property. The contract legal was later corrected to read T34N, R9W, NW'/4 section 10. The corrected legal description corresponds to the legals described in the original environmental analysis and work done on the ground. The contract renewal being authorized under this decision falls within the definition of renewal and within the corrected legal location of the contract site. Therefore all further arguments that the sale is improperly characterized as a contract renewal or that it exceeds BLM's authority for noncompetitive sales are inaccurate; the sale was originally conducted competitively, and this is a renewal within the contract site as allowed under regulations. Other concerns were raised about the BLM's authority to authorize ancillary activities such as office buildings, an asphalt plant, and storage or disposal of materials from off-site. BLM may authorize, under 43 CFR 3601.2, such uses as site offices or asphalt plants, and they are common and accepted industry practice for gravel pit operations. BLM has included mitigation measures addressing hazardous materials and tracking of stored materials from off-site. BLM also recognizes that storage or disposal of off-site materials is unrelated to the gravel contract, and would require a separate authorization document; nonetheless, the analysis of impacts for those actions has been completed in this EA. An assertion was made that an alternative should have been included that would have provided for a competitive sale and may have provided better protection for recreational and environmental amenities, and that this alternative may have required an amendment to the Resource Management Plan. This assertion again fails to recognize that a competitive sale was conducted in 2001. The sale did not require an amendment to the RMP because the RMP already recognized the value of extracting the gravel resource and designated the area as a Minerals Emphasis Area. Furthermore, alternatives and discussions of their impacts in NEPA documents should not focus on which administrative tool would be used to accomplish a project, but rather, should focus on the impacts to the environment (36 CFR §1502.16). These impacts would be the same whether the gravel was mined under a competitive contract or a non- competitive contract. Therefore, the range of alternatives, including the No Action and one considered but not carried forward, was appropriately addressed in the EA. Furthermore, the EA analyzed and disclosed that the impacts of this renewal to recreation and environmental resources will be minimal and non-significant. 4