Renewal of Right-of-Way to Nevada Public Radio (KNPR) - Mt Brock: 2016-0037-CX Categorical Exclusion Documentation Format When Using Categorical Exclusions Not Established by Statute A. Background BLM Office: Tonopah Field Office Lease/Serial/Case File No: N-43235 CX Number: DOI-BLM-NV-8020-2016-0037-CX Name ofPreparer: Wendy Seley Proposed Action Title/Type: Renewal ofexisting communications site right-of-way to Nevada Public Radio (KNPR), located on Mt. Brock. Description of Proposed Action: The Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) Tonopah Field Office (TFO) received a renewal request from Nevada Public Radio for their existing communications site [NV067-EA6-31 (CE)] approved in 1986 and authorized by a grant issued in 1986, on Mt. Brock. A post authorization application was received [(NV065-EA8-63(CE)] in 1988. This renewal application is for the existing communications site at Mt. Brock. No modification to the location or structure is requested. Nevada Public Radio and its I 0-watt FM translator is co-located within the Department of Energy's (DOE) building authorized under Public Land Order, 2803, 1962. The Nevada Public Radio broadcast translator receives an FM radio broadcast signal and rebroadcasts it on a different channel or frequency that originates programming for public broadcasting. A 15-foot antenna/metal pole is located at approximately 20-feet on the existing DOE 80-foot lattice tower. The total acreage· associated with the length and width calculation is 0.022 acres. The renewal is for administrative purposes only. There would be no new disturbance. Location of Proposed Action: T. 2 N., R 42 E., sec. 2; MDBM, Nye County, Nevada. Applicant (if any): Nevada Public Radio. B. Land Use Plan Conformance Land Use Plan Name: Tonopah Resource Management Plan Date Approved/Amended: October 2, 1997 __The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP decision(s): DOI-BLM-NV-8020-2016-037: Renewa] of NV Public Radio (KNPR)-Mt Brock _ X_ The proposed action is in confonnance with the LUP, even though it is not specifically provided for, because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP decision(s) (objectives, tenns, and conditions): Lands and Rights-of-Way Objective, page 18. "To make lands available for community expansion and private economic development and to increase the potential for economic diversity." Page 33. "Unless the land has been dedicated to a specific use or uses, public land within the Tonopah Planning Area is available for consideration for linear rights-of-way for access, and for utility transportation and distribution purposes. Such land is also available for areal rights-of­ way purposes." National Policy - 43 CFR 2801.2 - Rights-of-Way - Objectives (Selected Provisions), Subpart 2801 - General lnfonnation "It is BLM's objective to grant rights-of-way under the regulations in this part to any qualified individual, business, or governmental entity and to direct and control the use ofrights-of-way on public lands in a manner that: (a). Protects the natural resources associated with public lands and adjacent lands, whether private or administered by a government entity." (d). Coordinates to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions under the regulations in this part with state and local governments, interested individuals, and appropriate quasi-public entities." C. Compliance with NEPA The Proposed Action is categorically excluded from further documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 516 DM 11.9, (E). E. Realty. (9) "Renewals and assignments ofleases, pennits or rights-of-way where no additional rights are conveyed beyond those granted by the original authorizations." This categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects that may significantly affect the environment. The proposed action has been reviewed, and none ofthe extraordinary circumstances described in 43 CFR 46.215 applies. However, standard stipulations included in Exhibit B do apply. I considered all pertinent ecological, social and environmental factors which may be impacted by the project. In addition, I have reviewed the plan conformance statement and have determined that the proposed action is in confonnance with the approved land use plan. This right-of-way 2 DOI-BLM-NV-8020-2016-037: Renewal of NV Public Radio (KNPR)-Mt Brock grant is being granted for administrative purposes and does not authorize additional surface disturbance or change in management and that no further environmental analysis is required. D. Signatures Environmental Coordinator: ~ Date: 2, 016 - 07 - 2....( I t -/ Authorizing Official: ~~~ -~ Date: 1 M., /Lb. -- (Signature) ; ' Name: Timothy J. Coward Title: Field Manager, Tonopah Contact Person: For additional information concerning this CX review, contact Wendy Seley, Rea1ty Special ist, Tonopah Fic1d Offi ce, P.0. Box 911, Tonopah, NV 89049, (775) 482-7805. Note: A separate decision document must be prepared for the action covered by the CX. 3 DOI-BLM-NV-8020-2016-037: Renewa1 of NV Public Radio (KNPR)-Mt Brock Screening/or Extraordinary Circumstances: Will th(s project•• Yes No I Have signi ficant adverse effect.-. on public health or safety? Rationale: This rlgh1-or-wa)' renewal req11est is for Issuance of II Tltle V FLPMA hsued gra!lt ofaQ em tlng communlcntlons site located on Ml, Brock to Nevada Public !{adlo. It Is nol anlldpaled that the Proposed Action wlll l1ave 11ny effe els to public heallh and safety. 6 2 Have signifi cant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristic:; as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas: wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers~pr ime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monumcnLo;~ migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas? Rationale: Issuing the amended ROW will not hue significant lmpacls on such resources. .5 3 Have hi ghly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses ofavailable resources'! R111ionale: There is no controversy concerning the proposed action. ..Y" 4 Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks? Rationale: The activity proposed In lhts ex b a long-standing praclice H BLM administered lands. The BLM ID Team orresource specialists reviewed this project 11nd determined there are no ldghly uneertaha, potentially slgnlncanl, unique, or unknown risks. <Y 5 Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects? Rationale: The actlvltles proposed In thJs ex are 1ddressed and authorized under the 1997 Tonopah ROD/RMP, The proposNI activities occur widely on Federal lands lhroughoul NV and there is no evidence thls type oh ctlvlly would eslablish a precedent or decision for future 11ctlons Ihat would have slgnlficanl environmental effects. 6­ 6 Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effecL-.? Rationale: The BLM interdiscipllnary learn reviewed the project 1tnd incorporated Projecl Design Features (PDF1) or stipulalions into the projecl design lo minlmi1.c any polcnlial impacts to resources and prevent off-site effects that would eontrlbu le to I he cu mub1 live effects orother projecls in the area. The ID Team determined thal the project would not result in a cumulative significant effect when added to relevanl past, prescnl, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the are11. lf 7 Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as detennined by either the bureau or office? s-K-­ Rationale: Issuing the ROW would not have slgnlflcanl impacls to an)' properlles either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 8 Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacL-. on designated Critical Habitat for these species? Ralionale: Wlaere appropriate, PDli's/stipulations have been incorpor11ed inlo lhe ROW to protect listed, or proposed lo be listed species and lheir habit11ts, Appropriate buffers and seasonal restrictions will be implementNI ~ lo avoid any adverse effects lo lhreatened or endangered species or designated erilical habilal. 9 Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment? Ralion11le: The proposed 11clM tles conform to the T FO RMP's direclion for management or public l11nds In areas or Jurlsdlcllon and comply with applfcable laws, rules, and regulations, -:j 4 DOI-BLM-NV-8020-2016-037: Renewal of NV Public Radio (KNPR)-Mt Brock 10 Have a dtsproportionatcly high and adverse effect on low income or mino1ity populations (Executive Order 12898). Ralionale: Similar aclions have occurred 1hrou1thoul the BMDO and I here is no evldence lhal lhb lype or ROW d would have a disproporU011ately hiith and adverse effed on said populalions. ll Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity ofsuch