FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT
 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL QUARRY PLAN AMENDMENT
 

DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2012-0009-EA
 

Background 

The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource Area, has analyzed a proposal and one alternative 

to authorize the expansion of the existing perlite quarry at Tucker Hill. The BLM initially approved a 

mining Plan of Operations (PoO) for the quarry, based upon an analysis of about 23 acres of surface 

disturbance described within an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was completed in April of 

1996. 

The attached EA contains an analysis the effects of approving an amendment to the PoO which would 

authorize expanding the existing perlite quarry to include an additional estimated 47 acres of surface 

disturbance over a 15-year period of time. The quarry is located approximately 39 miles northwest of 

Lakeview in central Lake County, Oregon (Figure 1.1.1 of the attached EA). 

Cornerstone Industrial Minerals, Inc. currently operates the perlite quarry. The current operation consists 

of mining perlite from the quarry, crushing the ore on-site, and then transporting the ore to a plant in 

Lakeview for further processing and shipping. Over the years of operation, waste rock has been placed in 

three separate disposal sites including: an old county gravel pit at the base of Tucker Hill, a second 

abandoned borrow pit located in Sections 23-26, 34, and 35 of Township 34 South, Range 19 East, and a 

third borrow site located on private land at Fisk Hill. 

Context and Intensity of Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations state that the significance of impacts must be 

determined in terms of both context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). The proposed project is located 

within the Chewacan Basin. For this reason, the analysis of most impacts in the attached Environmental 

Assessment (EA) is described within the context of the Project area and the surrounding Chewacan Basin. 

However, the cumulative effects analysis also considers the impacts of the minerals program at the 

resource area scale. 

The CEQ regulations also include the following ten considerations for evaluating the intensity of impacts: 

1)	 Would any of the alternatives have significant beneficial or adverse impacts (40 CFR
 

1508.27(b)(1)? ( ) Yes (X) No
 

Rationale: Based on the analysis contained in the attached EA, none of the alternatives would have 

either significant beneficial or adverse impacts on the human environment. There are no areas of critical 

environmental concern, research natural areas, wilderness study areas, designated wilderness areas, areas 

with wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, prime and unique farmlands, floodplains, special 

status plants, forest or woodlands, wetlands or riparian areas, fisheries or aquatic habitats, wild horses, or 

paleontological resources, or livestock grazing use in the project area (Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 in the 

attached EA). 

Impacts to other resource values or issues, including air quality, climate, soils, water quality, vegetation, 

noxious weeds, wildlife (including migratory birds and special status species), cultural resources and 

native American traditional values, geology and minerals, socio-economic conditions, recreation, and 

visual quality, anticipated by the alternatives have been analyzed within the attached EA, have been found 

not to be significant, and have been mitigated to extent practical (Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 and pages 4-1 to 

4-32 of the attached EA). 

2)	 Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on public health and safety (40 

CFR 1508.27(b)(2)? ( ) Yes (X ) No 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale: None of the alternatives analyzed in detail would have significant impacts on public health or 

safety. The proposed mine expansion area is not located near any populated urban area. Further, there 

are no known hazardous waste sites in the Project area. Wastes would be managed through the 

development and implementation of the Spill Contingency Plan located in the Plan of Operations 

(Appendix C). Air quality impacts would be minimal (pages 4-1 to 4-3 of the attached EA). There are no 

perennial streams or surface drinking water sources located in the immediate Project area (Table 3.1-1, 

and pages 3-12 of attached EA) and little or no impacts expected to water resources (pages 4-9 to 4-10 of 

the attached EA). Further, none of the alternatives would have disproportionate impacts to low income or 

minority populations (Table 3.1-1 of the attached EA). 

3)	 Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on unique geographic 

characteristics (cultural or historic resources, park lands, prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, 

wild and scenic rivers, designated wilderness or wilderness study areas, or ecologically critical 

areas (ACECs, RNAs, significant caves)) (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)? ( ) Yes (X ) No 

Rationale: There are no park lands, prime or unique farmlands, wetlands or riparian areas, wild and 

scenic rivers, significant caves, designated wilderness areas, WSAs, or ACEC/RNAs located in the 

project area (area (Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 in the attached EA). Impacts on cultural resources have been 

analyzed, mitigated to the extent practical, and were not found to be significant (pages 2-2 to 2-3, 2-19 to 

2-20, 3-3 to 3-6, 4-3 to 4-4, and 4-31). 

4) Would any of the alternatives have highly controversial effects (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4)?
 

( ) Yes (X) No
 

Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise reviewing and analyzing impacts of proposed mineral 

development actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the attached EA. The 

potential impacts of these actions on air quality, climate, soils, water quality, vegetation, noxious weeds, 

wildlife (including migratory birds and special status species), cultural resources and native American 

traditional values, geology and minerals, socio-economic conditions, recreation, and visual quality can be 

reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. Further, the attached EA 

analyzed these impacts (pages 4-1 to 4-32 of the attached EA). 

While BLM acknowledges there is controversy related to the nature of the cultural and native American 

traditional value impacts from the perspective of some native American interests, they do not rise to the 

level of being “highly controversial”, as there is no substantial dispute within the scientific community 

regarding the nature of these effects (pages 3-3 to 3-6, 4-3 to 4-4, and 4-31 of attached EA). 

The public and interested tribes have been given an opportunity to review and comment on the analysis of 

effects contained in the attached EA. The BLM is not currently aware of any other potential highly 

controversial effects, as defined under 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4), but will review any comments received and 

address any substantive comments prior to signing this FONSI. 

5)	 Would any of the alternatives have highly uncertain effects or involve unique or unknown risks 

(40 CFR 1508.27(b)(5)? ( ) Yes (X) No 

Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise reviewing and analyzing impacts of proposed mineral 

development actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the attached EA. The 

potential impacts of these actions on air quality, climate, soils, water quality, vegetation, noxious weeds, 

wildlife (including migratory birds and special status species), cultural resources and native American 

traditional values, geology and minerals, socio-economic conditions, recreation, and visual quality can be 

reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. Further, the attached EA 

analyzed these impacts (pages 4-1 to 4-32 of the attached EA). The nature of these impacts is not highly 

uncertain, nor does it involve unique or unknown risks. 

6)	 Would any of the alternatives establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts (40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CFR 1508.27(b)(6)? ( ) Yes (X) No 

Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise reviewing and analyzing impacts of proposed mineral 

development actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the attached EA. None of 

the alternative actions represents a new, precedent-setting mineral development technique or would 

establish a precedent for future similar actions with potentially significant effects. 

7)	 Are any of the alternatives related to other actions with potentially significant cumulative impacts 

(40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)? ( ) Yes (X) No 

Rationale: Based on the analysis contained within the Cumulative Effects section of the attached EA, 

none of the alternatives would have significant cumulative effects within the project area, even when 

added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (pages 4-28 to 4-31). 

8)	 Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on scientific, cultural, or historic 

resources, including those listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)? ( ) Yes (X) No 

Rationale: Potential impacts to cultural resources and native American traditional values have been 

analyzed in the attached EA and found not to be significant. The three sites in the area would be either 

avoided or mitigated in accordance with an approved Historic Properties Treatment Plan (pages 2-2, 2-19 

to 2-20, 3-4 to 3-6, 4-3 to 4-4, and Appendix B). Only one site would be directly impacted and it is not 

eligible for listing on the NRHP (pages 3-3 to 3-6, 4-3 to 4-4, and 4-31 of attached EA). The Oregon 

SHPO has been consulted and concurs with this finding (page 3-4). No other resources of scientific 

interest exist in the Project area. 

9)	 Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on threatened or endangered 

species or their critical habitat (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(9)? ( ) Yes (X) No 

Rationale: There are no threatened or endangered plant or animal species or designated critical habitat 

within the project area (Table 3.1-1, and page 3-7 of the attached EA). 

10) Would any of the alternatives have effects that threaten to violate Federal, State, or local law or 

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)? ( ) Yes 

(X) No 

Rationale: The alternatives analyzed in the attached EA comply with all Federal, State, and local 

environmental laws or other environmental requirements, including the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Compliance with cultural resource protection laws is addressed under item 

number 8 above. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that any action that BLM approves must conform 

with the current land use plan and other applicable plans and policies. Conformance with Existing Plans 

The proposed project is consistent with the mineral and other resource management goals in the BLM’s 

Lakeview Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (RMP/ROD; BLM 2003a). Conformance 

with this plan is detailed further in Section 1.3 of the attached EA. 

The proposed project is not consistent with the approved PoO (as currently amended) for the Tucker Hill 

Quarry. Approval of the proposed expansion would amend the PoO to allow the mining of additional 

perlite material. 

Finding 

On the basis of the analysis contained in the attached EA, the consideration of intensity factors described 

above, and all other available information, my determination is that none of the alternatives analyzed 

would constitute a major federal action which would have significant adverse or beneficial impacts on the 
________________________________ _________________ 

 

quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is unnecessary 

and will not be prepared. 

Thomas E. Rasmussen, Field Manager Date 

Lakeview Resource Area 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL QUARRY PLAN AMENDMENT
 

Environmental Assessment
 

DOI-BLM-OR-LO50-2012-0009-EA
 

December 2012
 

U.S. Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Lakeview District Office
 
CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL QUARRY PLAN AMENDMENT
 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page 

ACRONYMS................................................................................................iii
 

1 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION......................... 1-1
 

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1
 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................... 1-1
 

1.3 Conformance with Existing Laws, Land Use Plans, and Policy ............................. 1-2
 

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................ 2-1
 

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2-1
 

2.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 2-1
 

2.3 Proposed Action........................................................................................................... 2-3
 

2.3.1 Quarry Development ............................................................................................. 2-4
 

2.3.2 Waste Rock Disposal.............................................................................................. 2-4
 

2.3.3 Mining Scenario and Cross Sections .................................................................... 2-5
 

2.3.4 Equipment .............................................................................................................. 2-5
 

2.3.5 Work Force........................................................................................................... 2-12
 

2.3.6 Growth Media Management............................................................................... 2-12
 

2.3.7 Haul Road Access................................................................................................. 2-12
 

2.3.8 Access Control...................................................................................................... 2-12
 

2.3.9 General Schedule of Operations ......................................................................... 2-13
 

2.3.10 Surface Occupancy .............................................................................................. 2-13
 

2.3.11 Water Management Plan .................................................................................... 2-13
 

2.3.12 Rock Characterization and Handling Plan ....................................................... 2-13
 

2.3.13 Quality Assurance Plan ....................................................................................... 2-13
 

2.3.14 Spill Contingency Plan ........................................................................................ 2-14
 

2.4 Reclamation Plan....................................................................................................... 2-14
 

2.4.1	 Prevention of Unnecessary or Undue Degradation........................................... 2-14
 

2.4.2	 Project Schedule................................................................................................... 2-14
 

2.4.3	 Post Operational Land Uses................................................................................ 2-15
 

Reclamation of Waste Rock Site (County Gravel Pit)...................................... 2-15
 

2.4.4 2-15 

2.4.5	 Haul Road Reclamation ...................................................................................... 2-15
 

2.4.6	 Two-track Material Storage Access Road Reclamation................................... 2-15
 

2.4.7	 Drainage and Sediment Control Plan ................................................................ 2-16
 

2.4.8	 Revegetation ......................................................................................................... 2-16
 

2.4.9	 Reclamation of Quarry........................................................................................ 2-17
 

2.4.10 Monitoring and Maintenance of Reclaimed Areas ........................................... 2-17
 

2.4.11 Isolation, Removal, and/or Control of Acid-Forming, Toxic or Deleterious
 

Materials ............................................................................................................... 2-18
 

2.4.12 Removal or Stabilization of Building, Structures, and Support Facilities ..... 2-18
 

2.4.13 Drill Hole Plugging .............................................................................................. 2-18
 

2.4.14 Processing Site...................................................................................................... 2-18
 

2.5	 Environmental Protection Measures based on 43 CFR 3809 Regulations and
 

Mitigation Measures Established in the 1996 EIS ................................................ 2-19
 

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................. 2-20
 

i Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

2.6.1 Larger Quarry Expansion................................................................................... 2-20
 

2.6.2 Second Pit Area .................................................................................................... 2-20
 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................ 3-1
 

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3-1
 

3.2 Critical Elements of the Human Environment......................................................... 3-1
 

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 3-3
 

3.4 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 3-4
 

3.5 Native American Traditional Values......................................................................... 3-5
 

3.6 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 3-7
 

3.7 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 3-7
 

3.8 Special Status Wildlife Species................................................................................... 3-7
 

3.9 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 3-9
 

3.10 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Nonnative Species ................................................... 3-11
 

3.11 Water Quality – Surface and Ground..................................................................... 3-12
 

3.12 Geology and Minerals ............................................................................................... 3-12
 

3.13 Land Use/Access ........................................................................................................ 3-12
 

3.14 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... 3-12
 

3.15 Soils............................................................................................................................. 3-13
 

3.16 Visual Resources........................................................................................................ 3-15
 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES............................................................... 4-1
 

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4-1
 

4.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 4-1
 

4.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-1
 

4.2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-1
 

4.3 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 4-3
 

4.3.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-3
 

4.3.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-3
 

4.4 Native American Traditional Values......................................................................... 4-4
 

4.4.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-4
 

4.4.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-4
 

4.5 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 4-4
 

4.5.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-4
 

4.5.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-4
 

4.6 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 4-5
 

4.6.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-5
 

4.6.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-5
 

4.7 Special Status Wildlife Species................................................................................... 4-5
 

4.7.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-5
 

4.7.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-6
 

4.8 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 4-7
 

4.8.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-7
 

4.8.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-7
 

4.9 Noxious Weeds, Invasive Nonnative Species............................................................. 4-9
 

4.9.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-9
 

4.9.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4-9
 

4.10 Water Quality – Surface and Ground....................................................................... 4-9
 

4.10.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 4-9
 

4.10.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-10
 

ii 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

4.11 Geology and Mineral Resources .............................................................................. 4-10
 

4.11.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-10
 

4.11.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-10
 

4.12 Land Use/Access ........................................................................................................ 4-10
 

4.12.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-10
 

4.12.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-10
 

4.13 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... 4-11
 

4.13.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-11
 

4.13.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-11
 

4.14 Soils............................................................................................................................. 4-11
 

4.14.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-11
 

4.14.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-11
 

4.15 Visual Resources........................................................................................................ 4-12
 

4.15.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-12
 

4.15.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4-12
 

4.16 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-28
 

4.17 Irreversible/Irretrievable Impacts........................................................................... 4-31
 

5 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC INPUT.............................................................. 5-1
 

5.1 List of Preparers.......................................................................................................... 5-1
 

5.2 Persons, Groups and Agencies Contacted................................................................. 5-1
 

6 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................. 6-1
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1.1: Project Area, Access, and Location .............................................................. 1-3
 

Figure 1.1.2: Existing and Proposed Mine Activities......................................................... 1-4
 

Figure 1.1.3: Subsurface Ownership within the Project Area.......................................... 1-5
 

Figure 2.1.1: Fisk Hill Disposal Site .................................................................................... 2-6
 

Figure 2.1.2: Quarry Expansion Cross Section Locations................................................ 2-7
 

Figure 2.1.3: Quarry Expansion Cross Section A-A’........................................................ 2-8
 

Figure 2.1.4: Quarry Expansion Cross Section B-B’ ........................................................ 2-9
 

Figure 2.1.5: Estimated Limits Subsurface Potential Thickness of
 

 Commercial Grade Perlite Ores ................................................................ 2-10
 

Figure 2.1.6: Mining Phases.............................................................................................. 2-11
 

Figure 3.9.1: Fire Disturbed Vegetation within the Project Area................................. 3-10
 

Figure 3.15.1: Soil Associations within Project Area....................................................... 3-14
 

Figure 3.16.1: Visual Resource Management Classes and Oregon Outback National
 

Scenic Byway, Highway 31 ........................................................................ 3-16
 

Figure 3.16.2: Visual Resources Key Observation Points ............................................... 3-17
 

Figure 4.7.1: Proposed Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation Area........................................ 4-8
 

Figure 4.15.2a: KOP # 2 Existing Condition Northwest of Project Area ........................ 4-15
 

Figure 4.15.2b: KOP # 2 No Action Alternative at Full Build Out .................................. 4-16
 

Figure 4.15.2c: KOP # 2 No Action Alternative at Full Reclamation .............................. 4-17
 

Figure 4.15.3a: KOP # 3 Existing Condition West of Project Area .................................. 4-19
 

Figure 4.15.3b: KOP # 3 No Action Alternative at Full Reclamation.............................. 4-20
 

Figure 4.15.3c: KOP # 3 No Action Alternative at Full Reclamation .............................. 4-21
 

Figure 4.15.4a: KOP # 4 Existing Condition Northwest of Project Area ........................ 4-22
 

Figure 4.15.4b: KOP # 4 No Action Alternative at Full Built Out ................................... 4-23
 

iii 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.4c: KOP # 4 No Action Alternative at Full Reclamation .............................. 4-24
 

Figure 4.15.5a: KOP # 5 Existing Condition East of Project Area ................................... 4-25
 

Figure 4.15.5b: KOP # 5 No Action Alternative at Full Build Out .................................. 4-26
 

Figure 4.15.5c: KOP # 5 No Action Alternative at Full Reclamation .............................. 4-27
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1-1: Existing and Proposed Disturbance................................................................ 2-1
 

Table 2.2-1: Plan Amendment History for the Tucker Hill Project ................................. 2-1
 

Table 2.3-1: Estimate of Net Recoverable Commercial Grade Perlite ............................. 2-5
 

Table 2.4-1: Monitoring Program and Schedule .............................................................. 2-18
 

Table 3.1-1: Critical Elements of the Human Environment.............................................. 3-2
 

Table 3.1-2: Other Resource Values or Uses....................................................................... 3-3
 

Table 3.4-1: Cultural Sites within or near the Expansion Area........................................ 3-5
 

Table 3.9-1: Plant Species in Project Area ........................................................................ 3-11
 

Table 3.15-1: Soil Series in Project Area............................................................................. 3-13
 

Table 4.2-1: Project Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the U.S. ........................................... 4-2
 

Table 4.2-2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Proposed Mining Equipments................. 4-2
 

Table 4.2-3: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from On-Site Vehicles........................................ 4-3
 

Table 4.16-1: Total Acres of Mining Related Disturbance in the Lakeview Resource Area. 

 ...................................................................................................................... 4-30
 

APPENDIX 

Appendix A: Visual Resources Contrast Rating Sheets 

Appendix B: Memorandum of Agreement among Advisory Council on Historical 

Preservation and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District 

and Oregon State Historic Preservation Office regarding Tucker Hill Mining 

Project 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

ACRONYMS 

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

ANFO ammonium nitrate and fuel oil 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

GHG greenhouse gases 

HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan 

IM Instruction Memorandum 

KOP Key Observation Point 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department 

PGH Preliminary General Habitat 

PPH Preliminary Priority Habitat 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WB&M Willamette Baseline and Meridian 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL QUARRY PLAN AMENDMENT
 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

1 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1 Introduction 

Cornerstone Industrial Minerals, Inc. (Cornerstone) currently operates a perlite quarry on top of 

Tucker Hill. The BLM originally approved a mining Plan of Operations (Plan) for the quarry in 

April of 1996 (BLM 1996a), based upon analysis contained in an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) (BLM 1995; 1996b). Since that time, the Plan has been amended four times. 

Previous amendments dealt with the use of a portable, on-site crusher in 1999, minor changes to 

pit development design, including a blasting schedule revision in 2001, haul road maintenance 

and modification in 2005, and the use of a new waste rock disposal site in 2008 located 

approximately 39 miles northwest of Lakeview. At this time, Cornerstone has proposed an 

amendment to the Plan to expand the existing quarry. Cornerstone’s proposed disturbance would 

increase from approximately 23 acres to 70 acres over an approximately 15-year period (Project). 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) will incorporate information and analysis contained in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (BLM 1995) and the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) approved for Atlas Perlite, Inc.’s Tucker Hill Quarry (BLM 1996b), where 

appropriate. Atlas Perlite, Inc. was the former operator of the Tucker Hill Quarry and 

Cornerstone is the current operator. 

The proposed quarry expansion is located in Lake Country, Oregon, approximately 35 miles 

northwest of Lakeview, Oregon (Figure 1.1.1). Project-related activities would consist of quarry 

expansion; drilling and bulk sampling (including drill roads and pad); and removal and 

stockpiling of growth media (Proposed Action) (Figure 1.1.2) The Project is located entirely on 

public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management Lakeview District Office (BLM) in 

Sections 26 and 35 Township 34 South, Range 19 East (T34S, R19E), Willamette Baseline and 

Meridian (WB&M), in Lake County, Oregon (Project Area). Subsurface ownership within the 

Project Area is shown on Figure 1.3.1 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 

Existing operations at Tucker Hill are being conducted under a Plan finalized in June 1996 and 

approved on November 1, 1996. A Plan amendment was submitted to the BLM by Cornerstone 

on January 31, 2012, which proposed an expansion of the existing mining operation. The 

existing operation consists of mining perlite from a 30-acre quarry and transporting the material 

to a plant in Lakeview for processing and shipping. Waste rock has been deposited at the base of 

Tucker Hill in an old gravel pit site near State Highway 31 and formerly operated by Lake 

County (see Figure 1.1.1; BLM 1996b), as part of the current reclamation plan for the gravel pit. 

Perlite is utilized for the manufacture of ceiling tiles for building construction (improving 

insulation), as a filter aid, and for a variety of agricultural purposes, including potting soil. The 

existing Tucker Hill Quarry provides a close and relatively inexpensive source of perlite for west 

coast markets, but is nearing the end of its productive life. Cornerstone has submitted the Plan 

amendment to expand the existing quarry to meet on-going and future demand for products made 

from perlite in the western United States and Canada. 

1-1 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

The requirements of 43 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 3809, Surface Management 

Regulations, the Mining Law of 1872 (30 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 22-24, 26-28, 29-30, 33-35, 

37, 39-42 and 47, May 10, 1872, as amended 1875, 1880, 1921, 1925, 1958, 1960, and 1993.), the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Mining and Minerals Policy 

Act of 1970 mandate that BLM review and respond to a Plan or Plan amendment within 30 days of 

receipt (43 CFR 3809.411). As per §3809.411, BLM must review the Plan amendment, determine if 

it is complete, respond to the proponent, and complete the environmental review required under 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for carrying 

out this policy in administering programs under the Secretary's authority (30 U.S.C. § 21a). As per § 

3809.1, the primary purpose of the subpart is to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public 

lands by operations authorized by the mining laws. Anyone intending to develop mineral resources 

on the public lands must prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the land and reclaim disturbed 

areas. This subpart establishes procedures and standards to ensure that operators and mining 

claimants meet this responsibility. 

Following completion of BLM’s review of the plan, including the analysis under the NEPA and public 

comment, the BLM may: 

1) Approve the Plan as submitted (43 CFR 3809.411(d)(1)); 

2) Approve the Plan subject to changes or conditions necessary to meet the performance 

standards at 43 CFR 3809.420 and to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation (43 CFR 

3809.411 (d)(2)); or 

3) Disapprove or withhold approval of the Plan because the Plan: 

(a) does not meet the applicable content requirements of 43 CFR 3809.401; 

(b) proposes operations that are in an area segregated or withdrawn from the 

operation of mining laws, unless the requirements of 43 CFR 3809.1000 are met; or 

(c) proposes operations that would result in unnecessary or undue degradation of 

public lands. 

Approval of a mine Plan does not authorize the start of operations. The operator must also obtain all 

necessary state and federal permits before beginning mine plan activities. They must also obtain a 

reclamation bond sufficient to pay a third party contractor for reclamation of the proposed 

disturbances (43 CFR 3809.412). 

1.3 Conformance with Existing Laws, Land Use Plans, and Policy 

This EA was prepared in conformance with the policy guidance provided in the BLM NEPA 

Handbook (BLM Handbook H-1790-1). The BLM Handbook provides instructions for 

compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA and the Department of the Interior’s manual on NEPA (516 

DM). This EA complies with this guidance. 

This EA was written in conformance with BLM regulations for surface mining on public lands under 

the General Mining Law of 1872, which is implemented through the Surface Management 

Regulations 43 CFR 3809 as mandated by the FLPMA of 1976. Reclamation of mining activities 

under the Plan level of activity, creating over five acres of disturbance, in the State of Oregon are 

regulated by the BLM and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) as 

mandated by 43 CFR 3809 Regulations for the BLM. 

1-2 
34S 20E

35S 20E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34S 19E 

35S 19E 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Proposed Pit Expansion

Existing Pit

Existing Roads

BLM Lands 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORT LAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

Haul Road

Access 

Project Area 

Waste Rock

Site 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

11/16/2012 

Figure 1.1.1 

Project Area, Access, and Location 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

!(31 
25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T34S R19E 

35 

26 

34 

27 

36 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Existing Permit Area

Proposed Pit Expansion

Growth Media Berms

Existing Pit

Existing Roads 

0 250 500 750 1,000

Feet 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

Existing and Proposed Mine Activities 

11/16/2012 

Figure 1.1.2 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34S 19E 

34S 20E 

26 

25 

36

35 

27 

30 

34 

31 

23 22 

24 19 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Existing Permit Area

Land Status (Subsurface)

BLM

State 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Feet 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

11/16/2012 

Figure 1.1.3 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

Subsurface Ownership within

the Project Area 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

This Proposed Action is consistent with the mineral management goals in the BLM Lakeview 

Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (RMP/ROD) (BLM 2003a). Specifically, 

the Energy and Mineral Resources section of the RMP/ROD states that, “within legal constraints, 

all federal mineral estate locatable, leasable, and salable mineral will be available for 

exploration, development, and production, subject to existing regulations and standard 

requirements and stipulations” (pages 88 to 89). Mineral management goal 1 of the RMP/ROD is 

to “provide opportunity for the exploration, location, development, and production of locatable 

minerals in an environmentally sound manner” (page 89). Map M-10 shows Tucker Hill and 

lands located immediately to the northeast are open to locatable mineral activity, but are subject 

to certain restrictions. Appendix N-3, Attachment 1, further describes the guidelines and 

stipulations that would be applied to locatable mineral development activities as appropriate and 

would be incorporated in the final decision (pages A-177 to A-179). Guidelines specifically 

applicable to the Tucker Hill Project include standards for topsoil salvage and storage, road 

construction, drill sites, dust and erosion control, safety and public exclusion, occupancy, special 

status species, and cultural resources. Guidelines for reclamation are also listed and include 

standards for concurrent reclamation, topsoil salvage and placement, earthwork, road 

reclamation, seedbed preparation, and revegetation. 

In addition, the RMP/ROD contains management direction for other resources or management 

concerns that are present in the Project Area, including noxious weeds (pages 37 to 38), cultural 

resources (pages 74 to 79), air quality (page 80), and visual resources (page 88) management 

goals, and best management practices (BMPs) (Appendix D, pages A-2 to A-7) that are may be 

applicable to the proposed Project Area. 

In addition, the RMP/ROD contains management goals and direction for other resources or 

management concerns that are present in the Project Area, including noxious weeds (pages 37 to 

38), cultural resources (pages 74 to 79), air quality (page 80), and visual resources (page 88) 

(BLM 2003b). Best management practices (BMPs) that BLM may choose to apply to the Project 

in the final decision are listed in Appendix D (pages A-4 to A-7) and in Instruction 

Memorandum No. OR-2011-074. 

The proposed operations analyzed in this EA incorporate the following Plan of Operations and 

amendments: 

Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan for the Tucker Hill Perlite Project (July 1996); 

Tucker Hill Portable Jaw Crusher Amendment January 1998) (January 1998); 

Tucker Hill Occupancy/Plan of Operations Amendment (June 2001); 

Haul Road Modification to Tucker Hill Perlite Project Amendment (2006) (temporary 

emergency amendment); and 

Cornerstone Industrial Minerals, Inc. Tucker Hills Quarry Plan of Operations Amendment 

Environmental Assessment (January 2008). 

The 1996 Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan for the Tucker Hill Perlite Project was 

approved for from developing a 15- to 20-acre perlite quarry and associated waste material dump 

and haul road over a ten-year time period. Total disturbance proposed was 37.7 acres. This Plan 

1-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

of Operations was considered an amendment to the original exploration Plan of Operations that 

covered Tucker Hill. The 1998 amendment was approved for locating a portable jaw crusher at 

the mine site. The 2001 amendment was approved for the addition of two travel- trailers and 

modifications to blasting operations. The 2006 amendment was approved for minor 

modifications to the haul road. The 2008 amendment approved the development of a new waste 

material disposal area in an abandoned gravel pit in close proximity to the original waste 

material dump analyzed by the EIS. 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy (ODFW 2005), provides one 

conservation guideline related to energy and mineral development which states that mineral and 

fossil fuel exploration and extraction sites should avoid surface occupancy within 3.2 km 

(two miles) of known/occupied greater sage-grouse habitat. While the BLM subsequently 

adopted most of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) guidelines into the 

Lakeview RMP/ROD through plan maintenance in September 2009, the BLM found that this 

specific guideline could not be adopted without first completing a plan amendment. There is no 

feasible means of authorizing locatable mineral development without surface occupancy. Such a 

requirement would effectively close an area to locatable mineral development and that can only 

be accomplished through a formal withdrawal of the subsurface mineral estate from the mining 

laws. 

In December 2011, the BLM issued interim management policies and procedures for the greater 

sage-grouse through Instruction Memorandum (IM)-2012-043 (BLM 2011a). This represents the 

current BLM management policy for greater sage-grouse habitat until such time as plan 

amendments can be completed throughout the range of the species that address a comprehensive 

conservation strategy. This policy addresses locatable minerals management for proposed 

authorizations/activities as follows: 

“Require that new notices and plans of operation include measures to avoid or minimize 

adverse effects to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and its habitat. Ensure that new 

notices and plans of operation comply with the 43 CFR 3809 to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation. Such compliance may assist in avoiding or minimizing adverse 

effects to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and its habitat.” 

1-7 
 

 

 

 

 

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter provides a description of Cornerstone’s Proposed Action, which is to expand the 

existing Tucker Hill Perlite Quarry from 23 to 70 acres within the existing Project Area 

(Table 2.1-1). The BLM is also required to analyze the No Action Alternative, which describes 

the environmental consequences that would result if the Proposed Action is not implemented. 

Table 2.1-1: Existing and Proposed Disturbance 

Disturbance Component Land 

Status 

Existing/Authorized 

Acres* 

Final/Proposed 

Acres 

Total 

Disturbance 

acres 

Quarry Area Public 22.0 45.0 67.0 

Growth Media Stockpile Public 1.0 2.0 3.0 

Total 23.0 47.0 70.0 

*Existing surface disturbance associated with previously authorized Project-related activities also includes 

7.7 acres for the main haul road, 1.7 acres for the Fisk Hill private land haul road, 6.0 acres for the waste 

rock dump, and 9.2 acres associated with the waste area (County Pit). 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not approve the proposed Plan amendment 

and Tucker Hill would continue to be subject to mining activities as authorized under prior plans 

of operation (45.9 acres associated with all of the surface disturbance) for the Tucker Hill quarry 

site, as previously approved by the BLM. A summary of plan of operation amendments affecting 

mining activities at Tucker Hill is summarized in Table 2.2-1 below. 

Table 2.2-1: Plan Amendment History for the Tucker Hill Project 

Plan 

Amendment Approval Date Acreage Areas of disturbance Disturbance Activity 

Plan of 

Operations 

(July 16, 1996) 

July 16, 1996 29.3 Tucker Hill 

Perlite quarry, waste 

rock dump, growth 

media stockpiles, drill 

access, exploration 

roads, and bulk sample 

sites. 

Portable Crusher 

Plan Amendment November 1997 0 Existing pit area Set up portable crusher 

in existing disturbed pit. 

Occupancy and 

Pit/Blasting 

Modification 

Plan Amendment 

April 2001 0 Existing pit area Adjust timing of blasting 

operations. 

Haul Road 

Modification 

Plan Amendment 

January 2006 0 Existing haul road Repair and maintain 

existing haul road. 

New Waste 

Material 

Disposal Area 

Amendment 

January 2008 9.2 Gravel pit along Highway 31 Backfill gravel pit 

2-1 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Design features and requirements, and mitigation measures implemented as a result of the 1996 

EIS include the following (BLM 1996b; pages 12 -13): 

•	 An initial one-week (seven day) blasting period, not necessarily consecutively, would be 

permitted immediately after project approval, which is expected in the spring of 1996. 

This would provide sufficient perlite to meet market demands during the spring period of 

the first year of operations. The blasting operations would be coordinated with the BLM’s 

Lakeview Resource Area Biologist to minimize possible impacts to wildlife, and would 

utilize blasting techniques that minimize impacts on wildlife. After the first year, the 

following requirements would be followed (see DEIS Appendix IV for the Blasting 

Schedule): 

o	 No blasting during raptor nesting season (February 1 through June 30) to protect 

nesting raptors, late wintering bald eagles, and potential bat nurseries; 

o	 Blasting between December 1 and January 31 would be coordinated/authorized by 

the BLM Lakeview Resource Area biologist to protect wintering bald eagles and 

maintain the No Effect Determination; and 

o	 Blasting during the month of July would be coordinated/authorized by the BLM 

biologist to minimize impacts to late fledging raptors. 

•	 Sufficient water for dust abatement would be provided on the haul road to reduce any 

dust plumes and minimize impacts on air quality and visual quality; 

•	 Implementation of the project would be in accordance with provisions of the Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) to mitigate, to the extent possible, impacts to cultural 

resources; 

•	 Should an additional archeological discoveries be encountered during ground disturbing 

activities, all such activities shall halt within a 50-meter radius of the discovery, and the 

BLM shall be contacted to determine the nature of the find, evaluate its significance, and 

if necessary, suggest preservation or mitigation measures; 

•	 The haul road would be relocated near the corral on private lands to minimize potential 

impacts on the livestock operation; 

•	 Long-term management of the Tucker Hill access road would be determined as a 

component of the Reclamation Plan; 

•	 The Project Area would be monitored for noxious weed invasions throughout the life of 

the mine operation and reclamation activities; 

•	 If Native American tribes or individuals express a desire for an archaeological monitor to 

help prevent unnecessary site disturbance, then the BLM would work with Atlas to 

review the need for, and possibly obtain an archaeological monitor; 

2-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

•	 If the Native American tribes or individuals wish to use Tucker Hill for cultural activities, 

and if they can provide periods when they would like to use the area along with sufficient 

advance notice, the BLM would work with the mining company to avoid blasting on 

those days; 

•	 If Native American tribes or individuals wish the BLM to pursue acquisition of legal 

access to the site (via an easement across private land on an existing private road), BLM 

would initiate an easement across private lands on an existing private road), BLM would 

initiate an easement acquisition, but cannot guarantee the outcome of the process; 

•	 If visual impacts associated with the highwall of the quarry results in a sharp color 

contrast with the surrounding vegetation, consideration would be given to using a varnish 

or staining material to reduce the visual impacts; 

•	 The seed source to be used for final reclamation would be certified weed free and 

approved the BLM prior to the seeding operation. A monitoring program would be 

established for noxious weed invasion which would include inventory every year during 

the life of the project and for three years after closure of the project. If noxious weeds are 

found, the preferred treatment would be physical or manual extermination with selective 

chemical treatment as the least preferred method of eradication. This would take place in 

accordance with Environmental Assessment #OR-013-93-03. 

•	 Fugitive dust emission at the processing plant would be controlled by water sprays, 

cyclones, and a baghouse. 

Once all the desired ore has been removed from the site, reclamation would be completed in 

accordance with the existing reclamation plan (BLM 1996a; pages 6-11). 

2.3 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action includes a 47-acre perlite quarry expansion and two-acre expansion to the 

growth media stockpile within the Project Area (Figure 1.1.2). The expansion activities would 

lead to a total surface disturbance of 70 acres over a 15-year period (Table 2.1-1). Mining 

activities, including blasting and in-pit crushing, would occur on a year-round basis. Based on 

available drilling information, the existing depth of the pit is approximately 100 feet from the top 

of Tucker Hill and approximately 80 feet from the peak. Blasting operations to expand the pit 

would occur three or four times a year. The quarried material would be stockpiled in place on the 

quarry floor for hauling. The stockpiled ore would be hauled each day by trucks from pit to 

processors via the existing upgraded access road to Highway 31 and then south to the town of 

Lakeview for processing. Hauling would occur year around. Trucks would depart from the 

quarry at a rate of one truck load every thirty minutes between of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Each 

haul would be approximately 32 tons at a rate of 40 loads per day. Processed perlite product 

would then be shipped in bulk to manufactures or end users by rail or truck, with an average of 

six to seven truckloads or two rail cars being shipped per day. 

2-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

2.3.1 Quarry Development 

The existing Tucker Hill mine would be expanded using conventional methods that consist of 

drilling, blasting, loading, and hauling. Drilling would be conducted with diesel-powered drills 

using ten- to 12-foot drill hole centers, depending on material type. The holes would be loaded 

with a blasting agent composed of a mixture of ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) and fuel oil 

(ANFO), and blasted in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA). 

During blasting activity, flammable material storage and rolling equipment would be removed 

from the blast area, a water truck would be standing by, and the pit area would be cleared and 

closed by mine personnel. The ANFO would be brought on site immediately prior to the blasting 

periods and would be stored in sealed containers. Blasting would occur three or four times per 

year. Bench heights (i.e., vertical levels of the quarry) range from 20 to 25 feet high during 

active mining. Blasting would be designed to minimize production of flyrock, which has 

historically been minimal and limited to the pit area. Blasting operations would be controlled to 

minimize flyrock by utilizing drill cuttings known as stemming that is calculated to ensure the 

blast does not exceed the intended shot area. 

The Lakeview Interagency Fire Center would be notified of the Tucker Hill blasting schedule a 

minimum of two days prior to any blasting activities. The blasted rock would be loaded with 

front-end loaders into haul trucks (22- to 25-ton capacity). Quarried material would be stockpiled 

in the pit. 

Shallow development and production drilling would be completed, as needed, prior to mining in 

portions of the expanded pit area. Drilling would also be utilized to determine optimum mine 

bench designs and to better define the lower boundary of minable reserves in areas where they 

are currently poorly defined, for sampling in ore zones being mined, and for quality 

assurance/quality control sampling and testing prior to mining. Drill holes not consumed by the 

pit would be abandoned in accordance with Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) 

regulations and standards for well abandonment. 

Mining, blasting, and in-pit crushing is conducted on a year-round basis. Broken material from 

the mine benches would then be transported from the active mining area, using mechanized 

loaders, to the portable crusher/screening plant on site, where the material is crushed and 

screened to a top size of 1 1⁄2 inches. Crushed and sized ore is then stockpiled in a staging area in 

the mine pit per the 1998 Plan Amendment. Crushed ore would continue to be hauled 

approximately 43.3 miles to Cornerstone’s mill in Lakeview, Oregon, via the existing access 

road to State Highway 31, and then south to the town of Lakeview for further processing, 

classification, and shipment to customers. 

2.3.2 Waste Rock Disposal 

Waste rock consists of perlite that does not meet specifications for market demand. Waste rock 

would be dumped in the northwest corner of the existing Lake County gravel pit, as approved in 

2008 by the BLM. The estimated disposal life of the Lake County gravel pit (shown on 

Figure 1.1.1) for excavation of mineral materials is approximately 1.5 years. Additionally, 

Cornerstone would continue to utilize the Fisk Hill disposal site located on private land northeast 

2-4 
 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

of Lakeview, Oregon (Figure 2.1.1). As the life of the mine progresses, unused post-process 

waste material would be transported back to the mine and used as backfill to reclaim mined out 

portions in the pit area. Mine waste would be mixed with finer mill tailings to add coarse size 

rock to finer grained material returned to the mine for use in reclamation, to meet reclamation 

objectives set for the 1996 EIS and approved reclamation plan (BLM 1996a). The backhauling of 

the waste materials from the Lakeview processing plant was approved in the 1996 Plan of 

Operations and the 2008 Plan amendment (BLM 1996a; BLM 2008). 

2.3.3 Mining Scenario and Cross Sections 

Conceptual drawings and cross sections have been prepared for the Project; however, the exact 

layout could change based on development drilling and avoidance of the sensitive cultural 

resources adjacent to the Project Area. Figures 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 show cross sections of the 

quarry expansion. The potential thickness of the perlite is shown on Figure 2.1.5. 

Figure 2.1.6 depicts the four potential phases of mining. The number of years that the mine 

would be in operation would depend on the amount of material that is mined each year and this 

would be determined by market demand. Detailed mine design would be finalized following 

further development drilling. Table 2.3-1 shows the estimate of net recoverable commercial 

grade perlite based on the current understanding of the geology at the mine site, and dependent 

on the depth of the overburden. 

Table 2.3-1: Estimate of Net Recoverable Commercial Grade Perlite 

Gross Tonnage Soil/Growth Media 

(yds/tons) 

Overburden (cubic 

yds/ton) 

Internal Waste 

Rock (20%) 

(cubic yds/ton) 

Estimated 

Net 

Tonnage 

1,043,600 96,600/57,844 23,513/13,631 

Minimum 5 feet thick 348,562/208,720 638,405 

Maximum 

1,043,600 96,600/57,844 463,026/277,261 

Minimum 10 feet thick 348,562/208,720 499,775 Minimum 

2.3.4 Equipment 

The following types of equipment could be utilized for the Project: 

• Four 25-ton dump trucks; 

• One D9 or equivalent dozer; 

• One 980 or equivalent front end loader; 

• One drill rig (Cat MD5090 Hydraulic Rock Drill); 

• One 3,000-gallon water truck; 

• One 2,000-gallon fuel tank; 

• Up to four light vehicles (pickup trucks); 

• One office trailer; 

• One generator (V12 Detroit); 

• Four conveyors; 

• One jaw crusher unit; 

• One cone crusher unit; and 

• Two road graders. 

2-5 
")

!

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $

Explanation

Project Area

! Fisk Hill Disposal Site

") Cities

Highways

0 2 4 6 8

Miles

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND

SALEM

EUGENE

MEDFORD

TILLAMOOKPORTLAND

GRANTS PASS

SPRINGFIELD

KLAMATH FALLS

TUCKER HILL PROJECT

11/16/2012

Figure 2.1.1

Fisk Hill Disposal Site

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

!(31

£¤395

!(140

!(140

Project Area

Lakeview

Fisk Hill
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A ! A !

A !

A !

A ! A !

A !

A !

A ! A !

A !

A !

A 

A' 

B 

B' 

BS#3 

CP-3 

CP-1

87-21 

87-20 

87-19 

87-18

87-17 

87-16 

87-15 

87-14 

87-13 

34S 19E 

35 

26 

34 

27 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Proposed Pit Expansion

Existing Pit

Cross Section Line 

A ! Surface Sample Sites and Drill Sites 0 250 500 750 1,000

Feet 

Quarry Expansion Cross Section Locations 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

11/16/2012 

Figure 2.1.2 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Quarry Expansion Cross Section A-A' 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Explanation

Pit Backfill Alternative 

! ! ! ! ! ! Partial Backfill Alternative 

Perlite Deposit 

87-15 

87-18 

5000' 

4900' 

4800' 

Plan Boundary

Plan Boundary 

2011

Tucker Hill Mine 

A Pre-1996 Topography A' 

LOOKING NORTH 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

400 Feet 

100 Feet 

11/16/2012 

Figure 2.1.3 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Quarry Expansion Cross Section B-B' 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

B B' 

5000' 

4900' 

4800' 

Plan Boundary 

Plan Boundary 

2011

Tucker Hill Mine 

87-15

87-20 

87-21

Explanation 

Pit Backfill Alternative 

! ! ! ! ! ! Partial Backfill Alternative 

Perlite Deposit 

LOOKING NORTHEAST 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

400 Feet 

100 Feet 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

11/16/2012 

Figure 2.1.4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20' 

40' 

60' 

80' 

20' 

40' 

T34S R19E 

35 

26 

34 

27 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Proposed Pit Expansion

Existing Pit

Thickness Contour

Existing Roads 0 250 500 750 1,000

Feet 

Estimated Limits Subsurface

Potential Thickness of

Commercial Grade Perlite Ores 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

11/16/2012 

Figure 2.1.5 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase 3 

Phase 2

Phase 1 

Phase 4 

Phase 2 

T34S R19E 

35 

26 

34 

27 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Proposed Pit Expansion

Existing Pit

Phases

Existing Haul and Access Roads 0 250 500 750 1,000

Feet 

Mining Phases 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

11/16/2012 

Figure 2.1.6 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

2.3.5 Work Force 

The proposed work force would consist of a maximum of four people in the quarry four or five 

days a week. There would be up to four trucks averaging ten trips per day per truck working a 

daily shift from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. The hauling would occur yearround. Weather shutdowns are possible mostly due to precipitation events softening the road, 

which could deteriorate the haul road with heavy truck use. Snow removal would occur if 

necessary. 

2.3.6 Growth Media Management 

Prior to expansion of the quarry, the available growth media of limited loose soil, gravely 

material and overburden that can feasibly be obtained with standard equipment would be 

removed separately and stockpiled. Stockpiles would be placed along the pit expansion area. 

Stockpiles may be re-handled when necessary along the boundary of the pit expansion area. 

Growth media would be removed from the expansion area by a bulldozer and stockpiled as a 

berm around the perimeter of the open pit to provide visual screening of mining activity and to 

stockpile all available growth media for later use for mine reclamation. Growth media removed 

during the quarry expansion would be salvaged to cover the reclaimed pit areas and pit floor. 

Growth media would be stored on stable slopes adjacent to the pit. Because of the location of 

two archaeological sites on the north and south boundaries sides of the proposed project area, a 

buffer zone of 100 feet would be clearly delineated between the two sites and the berm of 

stockpiled growth materials. The sites and buffer zone would be permanently marked “avoidance 

area”. No vehicle traffic within this buffer zone would be allowed. The stockpiled material 

would be stabilized during the operational phase by seeding with the seed mix determined by the 

BLM. The application of seed would occur at a time conducive to seed germination. The growth 

media stockpile surface disturbance would increase from the existing one acre to three acres. 

Monitoring of growth media stockpiles would include the detection and appropriate removal of 

any invasive or noxious weed species. Weed control would be determined by consultation with 

representatives of the Lakeview BLM. 

2.3.7 Haul Road Access 

The Project would continue to be accessed using the existing 3.3-mile long haul road. The road 

has been resurfaced with crushed stone or gravel, where necessary, to provide for an all-weather 

travel surface. Turn-outs have been constructed where appropriate to provide for safety. During 

operations, the road would be graded and watered by Cornerstone to maintain the surface and 

control fugitive dust. The existing road has been expanded to an approximate running width of 

18 feet and total disturbance width has not exceeded 32 feet. There is a maximum cutbank height 

of approximately six feet. An existing two-track road has been upgraded on the private lands 

directly south of Highway 31. 

2.3.8 Access Control 

Public access to the quarry area is restricted, as the haul road entrance is located on private land 

that is gated. Cornerstone is provided access by a right-of-way easement lease allowing 

Cornerstone to cross the private ranch property and is subject to renewability on a five-year 

2-12 
 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

basis. Warning signs are posted at strategic locations, advising of the danger associated with the 

operations. Access is provided to individuals or groups requiring access to or through the quarry 

for such purposes as education, research or cultural/religious practices. However, there is no 

legal public access on the portion of the haul road that crosses private land. The quarry may 

potentially be accessed by cross-country All-Terrain Vehicles or by foot. An old exploration road 

northwest of the Project Area may provide access on foot or by motorized vehicles to the haul 

road. During periods of mining, Cornerstone would control access to the mine during blasting 

and ensure security in the pit expansion area by utilizing gate closure. During periods of nonoperation, Cornerstone would post appropriate signage. 

2.3.9 General Schedule of Operations 

Cornerstone would continue to conduct mining activities under the existing approved plan of 

operations. Following BLM approval, Cornerstone would commence work to expand the pit as 

outlined in the Plan amendment. The proposed mining activities under this Plan amendment 

would last over the life of the mine (estimated at 15 years), but would depend upon market 

conditions and the delineation of additional reserves. 

2.3.10 Surface Occupancy 

Occupancy is defined as full or part-time residence on the public lands (43 CFR 3715.0-5). 

Activities that involve residency include: the construction, presence, or maintenance of 

temporary or permanent structures that may be used for such purposes; the use of a watchman or 

caretaker for the purpose of monitoring activities. Residence or structures include, but are not 

limited to, barriers to access, fences, tents, motor homes, trailers, cabins, houses, buildings, and 

storage of equipment or supplies. No additional structures to the project site are proposed under 

the Plan amendment. 

2.3.11 Water Management Plan 

The Project does not require a water management plan because there are no surface water bodies 

located in the arid Project Area. The nearest surface water is in the Chewaucan Marsh, located 

approximately one mile east of the base of Tucker Hill. There are no perennial drainages or 

springs located on Tucker Hill, and ground water is reported in water wells at a depth greater 

than 300 feet below surface of the playa lake surface, approximately 600 feet below the summit 

of Tucker Hill. No ground water has been found in exploration drill holes, which have been 

drilled to a depth of 100 feet along the upper surfaces of Tucker Hill. 

2.3.12 Rock Characterization and Handling Plan 

No rock handling plan is required for this perlite operation based on the analysis contained in the 

1996 EIS that was prepared for the mine since there are no sulfides present in the ore or waste 

rock to contribute to acid rock drainage in the event of standing impounded water. 

2.3.13 Quality Assurance Plan 

Quality assurance for reclamation would be addressed under the Reclamation Plan. 

2-13 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

2.3.14 Spill Contingency Plan 

A Spill Contingency Plan is located in the Plan amendment in Appendix C. Additionally, a 

plastic-lined pit is utilized for secondary containment and storage of fuel and oil. 

2.4 Reclamation Plan 

Reclamation would begin within the mine areas when mining is complete or the disturbance is 

no longer needed for mining or development activities. Reclamation would continue as approved 

in the 1996 Plan, and would include the following: recontouring; redistribution of stockpiled 

growth media; reseeding; use of drainage control ditches; installation of water bars and culverts, 

as necessary; and rock armor for erosion control. Reclamation would be completed for haul and 

access roads and would include recontouring and seeding. The pit floor would be reclaimed 

through growth media and then seeded. In coordination with the BLM, Cornerstone would 

evaluate the need to rip the pit floor where areas of compaction have occurred. Seeded areas 

would be monitored for stability and revegetation success, during the spring or fall, for three 

years or until revegetation is determined successful by the BLM and DOGAMI. Reclamation 

activities would be coordinated with the BLM, as necessary. 

In addition, perlite mill waste from the processing plant may be backhauled to the Tucker Hill 

pit. Revegetation of exploration roads and pads not located within the mining component 

boundary would take place during the mining of the Project. The BLM and DOGAMI would 

consider reclamation successful when the disturbed sites are stabilized, secondary plant 

succession is established, and the conditions are met to realize the land use objectives. This finer 

material would be interbedded with the mine waste to reduce fugitive dust. Once the quarry has 

been filled with waste material and growth media, the surface of the reclaimed area would be 

regraded and seeded. The processed perlite has the same chemistry as the mined mineral, and no 

chemicals are added during processing, which makes it suitable for reclamation use. The 

proposed reclamation would be initiated as soon as practicable. 

2.4.1 Prevention of Unnecessary or Undue Degradation 

As detailed in the 1996 Plan of Operations, the Reclamation Plan has been developed in 

accordance with BLM Handbook 3042-1, “Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook.” 

Components of the Reclamation Plan would be monitored and administered by DOGAMI and 

the BLM. Design and construction of the Project facilities would incorporate performance 

standards per 43 CFR 3809.420 to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment. 

2.4.2 Project Schedule 

The Project activities would last over the life of the mine and would depend on market 

conditions. The schedule could be affected if conditions change. As a result of the modest size 

and nature of the Project, concurrent reclamation for the waste rock site and haul road is not 

practical. Reclamation would be performed upon termination of operations. Reclamation of 

existing exploration/development-related disturbances outside of the proposed quarry area would 

be reclaimed during the life of the Proposed Action. 

2-14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Timing of revegetation activities is critically important to the overall success of the program. 

Seeding activities would be timed to take advantage of optimal climatic windows and would be 

coordinated with other reclamation activities. In general, seedbed preparation would be 

completed in the fall, either concurrently with or immediately prior to seeding, after regrading of 

disturbed areas. Seeding would be completed in late fall to take advantage of winter and spring 

precipitation and optimum spring germination. Early spring seeding may be utilized for areas not 

completed in the fall. In either case, seeding would be avoided when the ground is frozen or 

snow covered. 

2.4.3 Post Operational Land Uses 

As detailed in the Plan Amendment, the objectives of the Reclamation Plan include preventing or 

minimizing safety hazards, stabilizing disturbed areas, and providing for a post operational 

surface condition that would be consistent with the long-term multiple uses of surrounding lands 

managed by the BLM. 

2.4.4 Reclamation of Waste Rock Site (County Gravel Pit) 

The County would reclaim this gravel pit in accordance with BLM permit stipulations and 

DOGAMI requirements upon its closure. Cornerstone would be responsible for the reclamation 

of the gravel pit approved in the 2008 Tucker Hill Quarry Plan of Operations Amendment that 

lies adjacent to the County Gravel Pit (BLM 2008) 

2.4.5 Haul Road Reclamation 

Long-term management of the haul road after mining operations have ceased and reclamation 

has been completed at the mine would be determined by the BLM prior to the reclamation 

process. Possible options include the following: 

• Permanently close the road, bring the road bed back to the original contour as closely as 

possible, and revegetate the road corridor. Fill material, enhanced with available growth 

media, would be pulled onto the roadbed to restore the slope to its existing contour. 

Compaction would be relieved during excavation by ripping and smoothing the surface 

with the excavator bucket. This process would help inhibit soil loss from runoff and 

provide a suitable seedbed. Revegetation of the regraded area would be consistent with 

methods described under Revegetation; or 

• Regrade and recontour the haul road to return the road bed to approximately its 

preexisting configuration. 

2.4.6 Two-track Material Storage Access Road Reclamation 

Final reclamation would include the reclamation of the two-track material storage access road 

along Highway 31. The reclamation process would be similar to those options provided for the 

haul road in Section 2.4.5. 

2-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

2.4.7 Drainage and Sediment Control Plan 

The goal of the Drainage and Sediment Control Plan is to convey runoff from reclaimed areas 

and up-gradient undisturbed areas through the Project Area in a manner that would protect the 

reclaimed areas and prevent degradation of down-gradient water quality. The Drainage and 

Sediment Control Plan is designed to require no maintenance. 

The main method of drainage and sediment control at the Project site would consist of 

revegetating all disturbed areas, with the exception of the quarry. Roads would be maintained by 

Cornerstone to prevent degradation from erosion. Drainage on roads would be by ditching, 

installation of waterbars and, where appropriate, culverts. If any of these activities go outside of 

areas of existing disturbance, an archaeological/cultural survey/evaluation would be required. 

Running surfaces of the road would be rocked to reduce sediment runoff. Drainage facilities 

would be designed to accepted road engineering standards. Reclamation would be considered 

acceptable if there are no rills over six inches in depth and/or width after three years. 

During operation, the quarry would be a topographic depression and all precipitation falling onto 

the quarry surface area would be contained on-site. Construction by this method would help 

control potential erosion from site runoff. Since the quarry is located on the top of Tucker Hill, 

no watershed exists up-gradient of the quarry, and only the precipitation directly falling onto the 

quarry area could be impounded. However, the site is arid, annual evaporation exceeds 

precipitation, and the perlite is fractured allowing infiltration of the water. These factors lead to 

rapid infiltration or evaporation of precipitation. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that any 

water would be impounded. The Tucker Hill quarry lies within a 2.6- to 2.8-inch isopluvials of a 

100-year 24-hour precipitation event. Impoundment under the circumstance of a 100-year event 

would be short term. 

2.4.8 Revegetation 

The revegetation methods described at this time are generally based on common industry 

practices. Seeds from a native seed bank, if possible, would be obtained for reclamation. The 

seed mix utilized from the seed bank for reclamation of this Project would be based on known 

soil and climatic conditions and would be selected to establish a plant community that would 

support post-mining land uses such as disbursed recreation and wildlife habitat as prescribed by 

the BLM. The seed mix would be designed to provide species that are able to become established 

in the environment of south central Oregon, are proven species for vegetation, and/or are native 

species found in the plant communities prior to disturbance. Potential seed mixes are included in 

Appendix L of the Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003a). 

The seed source to be used for final reclamation would be certified weed free and approved by 

the BLM prior to the seeding operation. A monitoring program would be established for noxious 

weed invasion, which would include inventory every year during the life of the Project for three 

years after closure of the Project. If noxious weeds are found, the preferred treatment would be 

physical or manual extermination with selective chemical treatment as the least preferred method 

of eradication. This would take place in accordance with the Oregon BLM’s 2010 ROD for 

2-16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon and other more site-specific 

weed plan/EAs (such as BLM 2004) 

Timing of revegetation activities is critically important to the overall success of the program. 

Seeding activities would be timed to take advantage of optimal climatic periods and would be 

coordinated with other reclamation activities. In general, earthwork and drainage control would 

be completed in the summer or early fall. Seedbed preparation would generally be completed in 

the fall, either concurrently with or immediately prior to seeding. Seeds would be sown in late 

fall to take advantage of winter and spring precipitation and optimum spring germination. Early 

spring seeding may be utilized for areas not seeded in the fall. In either case, seeding would be 

avoided when the ground is frozen or snow covered. 

2.4.9 Reclamation of Quarry 

The quarry walls would be left with benched slopes approximately 20 to 25 feet vertical by 

approximately 20 to 25 feet horizontal. This would provide a very stable final slope. 

There would be no surface water discharge from the quarry. The relatively small amount of 

runoff from the surrounding land surfaces, and precipitation directly into the quarry would either 

evaporate or percolate into the exposed bedrock in the quarry bottom. 

The proposed operation involves the quarrying of a uniformly high-grade perlite deposit. The 

geologic setting of the deposit allows for the extraction of ore from a single open pit quarrying 

operation. In addition, mill tailings from the processing plant may be backhauled to the Tucker 

Hill pit. Mill tailings material would be interbedded with the mine waste to reduce fugitive dust. 

Once the quarry has been filled with mill waste material and waste (perlite material that does not 

meet specifications for market demand), the area would be covered with growth media and 

seeded. 

Prior to final reclamation, public safety concerns would be evaluated with the BLM and the 

DOGAMI. If determined to be necessary by the agencies, Cornerstone would construct a safety 

berm using rock or waste material approximately five feet high with a one-foot top and 

1.5 horizontal to one vertical ratio side slopes along the margin of the pit approximately 25 feet 

back from the highwall edge. Growth media would also be incorporated into sections of the berm 

in order to be utilized during reclamation of the pit areas and pit floor. The safety berm would be 

constructed with a dozer and a loader when highwalls are established. This berm would be 

posted with warning signs located in front of the berm and spaced every 200 feet. The permanent 

waste material berm or weather resistant metal signs would provide for public safety following 

mining. Safety berms would be seeded with approved seed mix to help reduce visual impacts of 

the quarry due to color contrasts. 

2.4.10 Monitoring and Maintenance of Reclaimed Areas 

Environmental monitoring of the Project Area would consist of both operational and postreclamation monitoring. Operational monitoring would extend for the duration of operations and 

would cease when operations are terminated. Post-reclamation monitoring would commence on 

any reclaimed area following operational monitoring until reclamation has been determined by 

the BLM and DOGAMI to be complete and permanent vegetation has been established. Once 

2-17 
 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

reclamation has been determined complete, including vegetation, the Project’s reclamation bond 

would be released to Cornerstone. Annual reports on the progress of the reclamation would be 

submitted to the BLM and DOGAMI. 

The BLM and DOGAMI would consider reclamation successful when the disturbed areas are 

stabilized, secondary plant succession is established, and the conditions are set to realize the land 

use objectives. The type and frequency of monitoring applicable to the Project is found in 

Table 2.4-1 below. 

Table 2.4-1: Monitoring Program and Schedule 

Type of Monitoring* Operational Frequency Post-Operational Frequency 

Condition of drainage and sediment 

control Monthly Annually until released 

Condition of reclaimed areas Annually Annually until released 

*The Project would be monitored for noxious weed invasions throughout the life of the mine operation and 

reclamation activities. 

2.4.11	 Isolation, Removal, and/or Control of Acid-Forming, Toxic or Deleterious 

Materials 

There are no natural occurring acid-forming, toxic or deleterious materials associated with 

perlite. Mining operations are conducted 12 months per year; however, should there be a 

temporary shutdown, all fuels, lubrication oil, and waste oil tanks located within the Project Area 

would be emptied. All valves in the fuel and lube island containment structures would be left in 

the closed positions. All chemical agents, such as WD-40, or Brake Kleen would be secured 

inside the flammable containers cabinet located inside the trailer that remains locked when the 

mine area is not occupied. Grease and other lubricants would be stored either inside the locked 

storage container or the locked trailer. No other toxic chemicals or deleterious materials are kept 

on site. 

2.4.12	 Removal or Stabilization of Building, Structures, and Support Facilities 

Several structures would be utilized during the life of the Project. All equipment and supplies 

would be decommissioned and removed following completion of the Project. Other materials, 

including scrap, trash, and unusable equipment, would be removed on a daily or weekly basis 

and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations and laws. 

2.4.13	 Drill Hole Plugging 

Drill holes would be abandoned in accordance with established OWRD standards and 

regulations. 

2.4.14	 Processing Site 

The processing site for the perlite ore is on the north end of Lakeview in an existing industrial 

site on private property. The processing site would continue to be used under the Proposed 

Action as in current operations. The site is located just west of U.S. Highway 395 and adjacent to 

2-18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

the Goose Lake Lumber Company to the south. Access to the property is provided by County 

Road 2-18C and the Dusenbury Logging Road. The ore would continue to be stockpiled on the 

site where it would be crushed and then loaded on either railroad cars or trucks for delivery to 

markets in the northwest. Fugitive dust emission at the processing plant would be controlled by 

water sprays, cyclones, and a baghouse. 

2.5	 Environmental Protection Measures based on 43 CFR 3809 Regulations and 

Mitigation Measures Established in the 1996 EIS 

Cornerstone commits to the following environmental protection measures to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation during construction, operation, and reclamation of the Project. The 

measures are derived from the general requirements established in BLM Surface Management 

Regulations at 43 CFR 3809, as well as other water, air quality, and environmental protection 

regulations. 

Air Quality/Visual Resources 

• Sufficient water for dust abatement would be provided on the haul road to reduce any 

dust plumes and minimize impacts on air quality and visual quality; and 

• If visual impacts associated with the highwall of the quarry results in a sharp color 

contrast with the surrounding vegetation, consideration would be given to using a desert 

varnish or staining material to reduce the visual impacts. 

Cultural Resources 

• Implementation of the Project would be in accordance with provisions of the Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) to mitigate, to the extent possible, impacts to cultural 

resources. This plan was developed during environmental analysis of potential impact 

from development of the original mine at Tucker Hill; and 

• If Native American Tribes or individuals express a desire for a tribal monitor to help 

prevent unnecessary site disturbance, then the BLM would work with Cornerstone to 

review the need for, and possibly obtain an archaeological monitor. BLM does not 

require a monitor nor does BLM pay for monitors. The obligation of the BLM is to 

provide an opportunity for Tribes to provide monitors if they so desire. This does not 

prevent Cornerstone from paying for monitors if they wish; and 

• If the Native American Tribes or individuals wish to use Tucker Hill for cultural 

activities, and if they can provide specific periods when they would like to use the area 

along with sufficient advance notice, the BLM would work with the mining company to 

avoid blasting on those days; and 

• If Native American Tribes or individuals wish the BLM to pursue acquisition of legal 

access to the site (via an easement across private lands on an existing private road), the 

BLM would initiate an easement acquisition, but cannot guarantee the outcome of that 

process; 

2-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

• Should any additional archaeological discoveries be encountered during ground 

disturbing activities, all such activities would halt within a 50 meter radius of the 

discovery, and the BLM would be contacted to determine the nature of the find, evaluate 

its significance and if necessary, suggest preservation or mitigation measures; and 

• Cornerstone would coordinate with the BLM to construct a permanent barrier for the 

100-foot buffer. Coordination efforts would consider appropriate fence reflectors, spacing 

between stakes, and suitable fencing material (i.e., steel posts). 

General 

• Long-term management of the Tucker Hill access road would be determined as a 

component of the Reclamation Plan; and 

• Cornerstone would follow the Spill Contingency Plan located in Appendix C of the Plan 

amendment. 

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

2.6.1 Larger Quarry Expansion 

This alternative is similar to the Proposed Action except that the quarry would be expanded to a 

larger size than in the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, lands to the north and south 

would be included in the Plan Amendment totaling approximately 72 acres. However, there are 

several sensitive cultural sites surrounding the current Project Area that would be negatively 

affected by this proposal. This alternative would create irreversible impacts to known cultural 

resources and may require substantial time delays and costs to fully mitigate. For these reasons, 

this alternative was not considered economically feasible at this time. 

2.6.2 Second Pit Area 

This alternative would include an additional pit expansion area located east of the existing 

Project Area. The additional pit area would create approximately 110 acres of new surface 

disturbance. This surface disturbance would include irreversible impacts to cultural resources. 

These impacts may require substantial time delays and costs to fully mitigate. For these reasons, 

this alternative was not considered economically feasible at this time. 

2-20 
 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

The affected environment for the proposed quarry expansion area covers Sections 26 and 35, 

T34S, R19E, located on public lands administered by the BLM approximately 35 miles 

northwest of Lakeview, Oregon (Figure 1.1.1). The Proposed Action disturbance would consist 

of 47 additional acres of public lands for a total of 70 acres of proposed and presently authorized 

disturbance within the Project Area (Table 2.1-1). This chapter will incorporate by reference and 

tier, in accordance with the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 (Section 5.2) to the affected 

environment section in Chapter 3 of the EIS for Atlas Perlite, Inc.’s Tucker Hill Perlite Project 

(BLM 1995), where applicable. 

3.2 Critical Elements of the Human Environment 

Critical elements represent requirements specified by statute or executive order (EO) that must 

be considered in all BLM decisions. These are listed in Table 3.1-1. The table lists the elements 

and their status as well as the rationale describing whether an element present would be affected 

by the Proposed Action. 

In addition to the critical elements of the human environment, the BLM considers other 

resources and uses that occur on public lands and may result from the implementation of the 

Proposed Action. Other resources or uses of the human environment that have been considered 

for this EA are listed in Table 3.1-2 below. Resources or uses that may be affected by the 

Proposed Action are analyzed further in Chapter 4. 

The remainder of this chapter describes current conditions of resource values or uses that are 

present in the Project Area 

3-1 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Table 3.1-1: Critical Elements of the Human Environment 

Critical Element Not 

Present 

Present/ 

Not 

Affected 

Present/ 

Potentially 

Affected 

Rationale/Reference Section 

Air Quality X See Sections 3.3 and 4.2. 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) 

X 

The Red Knoll ACEC is located to the south, 

but outside the Project Area. For this reason 

ACECs are not further addressed in this EA. 

Cultural Resources X See Sections 3.4 and 4.3. 

Environmental Justice X 

Low income and minority populations are 

present in Lakeview and Lake County. 

However, they would not be 

disproportionately impacted by any of the 

alternatives considered. Not further 

addressed in this EA. 

Farm lands (Prime or Unique) X Critical Element is not present, therefore it is 

not further addressed in this EA. 

Fish and Aquatic Habitat X Critical Element is not present, therefore it is 

not further addressed in this EA. 

Floodplains X Critical Element is not present, therefore it is 

not further addressed in this EA. 

Forests and Woodlands 

(HFRA Projects only) X 

This Project does qualify as an HFRA 

project. This resource is not addressed 

further. 

Migratory Birds X See Sections 3.7 and 4.6. 

Native American Traditional 

Values X See Sections 3.5 and 4.4. 

Noxious Weeds, Invasive 

Non-native Species X See Sections 3.10 and 4.9. 

Recreation X See Sections 3.6 and 4.5. 

Special Status Plant Species X 

This critical element is not present; 

therefore, it is not further addressed in this 

EA. 

Special Status Wildlife 

Species X See Sections 3.8 and 4.7. 

Wastes, Hazardous or Solid X 

This is addressed through the development 

and implementation of the Spill Contingency 

Plan located in the Plan of Operations 

(Appendix C). 

Water Quality - Surface and 

Ground X See Sections 3.11 and 4.10. 

Wetlands and Riparian Zones X 

This critical element is not present; 

therefore, it is not further addressed in this 

EA. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers X 

This critical element is not present; 

therefore, it is not further addressed in this 

EA. 

Wilderness/WSAs X 

This critical element is not present; 

therefore, it is not further addressed in this 

EA. 

3-2 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Table 3.1-2: Other Resource Values or Uses 

Other Resources or Uses Present/ 

Not Affected 

Present/ 

Potentially Affected Reference Section 

Geology and Mineral Resources X See Sections 3.12 and 4.11. 

Land Use/Access X See Sections 3.13 and 4.12. 

Livestock Grazing X 

This resource use currently 

does not occur in the Tucker 

Hill area Therefore, none of 

the alternatives would have 

an impact to grazing use and 

this issue is not addressed 

further in this EA. 

Socioeconomics X See Sections 3.14 and 4.13. 

Soils X See Sections 3.15 and 4.14. 

Vegetation X See Sections 3.9 and 4.8. 

Visual Resources X See Sections 3.16 and 4.15. 

Wildlife X See Sections 3.7 and 4.6. 

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics X 

This resource is not present; 

therefore, it is not further 

addressed in this EA (BLM 

2011c). 

3.3 Air Quality 

Air Quality 

Ambient air quality emissions of air pollutants are regulated under both federal and state laws 

and regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed classifications for 

distinct geographic regions known as air quality management areas. Under these classifications, 

for each federal criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion) of an air quality management area 

(or “planning area”) is classified as in “attainment” if the air quality management area has 

“attained” compliance with the adopted National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

that pollutant, or is classified as “maintenance” if the monitored pollutants have fallen from 

nonattainment levels to attainment levels. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(ODEQ) Air Quality Division is delegated the responsibility for implementing a state 

implementation plan to set emission limits and allocated pollution control responsibility to meet 

the NAAQS among other tasks. 

The Project Area lies within an EPA NAAQS “unclassified” attainment area. The ODEQ 

considers the Project Area within state standards for attainment (BLM 1995; page 56). 

Greenhouse Gases 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from anthropogenic (human-induced) activities contribute to 

the phenomena of climate change. The four principle GHGs, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 

3-3 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

oxide, and halocarbons affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared 

(thermal) radiation that are part of the Earth’s energy balance (Forster et al. 2007). 

3.4 Cultural Resources 

The Project is located within the Chewaucan Basin. Evidence shows that humans have occupied 

this area for thousands of years. The Tucker Hill landform was an integral part of the Chewaucan 

Basin system of resources used by aboriginal peoples. 

Tribal consultation associated with the development of the original mine established that tribal 

members of the Klamath Tribes, the Burns Paiute Tribe, and the Fort Bidwell Tribe used the 

Tucker Hill formation and surrounding land from prehistoric times until the 1950’s. Consultation 

with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs indicated that individuals from that Tribe also 

used the area. At some time in the fifties, use tapered off and ceased due to lack of road access to 

the top of the Tucker Hill EA and a perception that tribal members were not allowed to cross 

private land. 

Cultural surveys of the Tucker Hill area were completed prior to the development of the original 

mine and identified 35 cultural sites located at Tucker Hill or along the access road from 

Highway 31. The majority of these have not been formally evaluated for eligibility for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (BLM 1995; pages 40–42). However, sites that 

were impacted by the original mine development were either mitigated or avoided. 

Class III archaeological surveys have been conducted in the proposed pit expansion area on two 

occasions. Review of the previous surveys for cultural and archaeological resources at Tucker 

Hill determined that three cultural sites exist within or near the Project Area (Table 3.4-1). Two 

large sites 35 LK 3048 and 35 LK 3056 are thought to be significant, but have not formally been 

evaluated for inclusion on the NRHP, and are located north and south of both the existing pit and 

the proposed expansion. 

The Project Area was recently resurveyed by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (2011). They resurveyed the 

borders of sites 35 LK 3048 and 35 LK 3056 and marked them with steel posts specifically so 

the mine operators could tell where the sites were located. (These two sites would be avoided 

through creation of a 100-foot buffer zone between the sites and any surface disturbance). 

A third cultural site, 35 LK 3065, a less than two-acre lithic obsidian debitage site, is located 

within the proposed quarry expansion area. Kautz carried out mitigation of this site, which 

included surface collection and subsurface testing, in 1996 (Kautz 1996). During the 

environmental evaluation process for the initial development of the original mine at Tucker Hill 

this site was evaluated for NRHP eligibility and determined to be ineligible. This determination 

was reviewed by the Oregon SHPO who agreed that the site is not eligible and did not warrant 

further testing (Oregon SHPO 1996). The SHPO reaffirmed this finding in 2011 (telephone 

conversation between BLM Archaeologist and Oregon SHPO dated November 12, 2011). 

3-4 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Table 3.4-1: Cultural Sites within or near the Expansion Area 

Site number Site Type1 NRHP Eligibility Located within APE 

35LK3048 Large lithic scatter No formal evaluation for eligibility Yes 

35LK3056 Large lithic scatter No formal evaluation for eligibility Yes 

35LK3065 Two-acre lithic obsidian 

debitage site Evaluation concluded ineligible Yes 

1 Source: Kautz Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1996. 

As a result of previous consultation with Native American Tribes and the Oregon SHPO, a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed and signed on December 31, 1996, covering 

mitigation of impacted cultural sites within the existing quarry and all operation areas of the 

original mine. The MOA was signed by the BLM District Manager, the Oregon Deputy SHPO, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The Klamath Tribes, The Burns Paiute Tribe and 

Atlas Corporation (Appendix B). A Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) was subsequently 

developed and implemented. The HPTP contains the names of those Native American Elders, 

Cultural Specialists and Advisors whom were consulted on the original mine project. The HPTP 

remains in effect. 

3.5 Native American Traditional Values 

The existence of archeological and religious sites at Tucker Hill, as discussed in Section 3.4, is 

of direct interest and concern to Native American communities, both for historic preservation 

purposes and of socio-cultural values. Native American concerns for these values and 

archaeological sites have been established through direct consultation with Tribes both for the 

original mine development and the proposed pit expansion. A report on the importance of the 

area to Native Americans entitled Tucker Hill Quarry Project, Tribal Consultation (1995) by 

Robert Winthrop, Ph.D., describes the ethnographic setting in the Chewaucan River Basin. 

The proposed pit expansion Project Area is located on the geologic formation known as the 

Tucker Hill formation. Tucker Hill is a relatively small feature consisting of 1,300 acres. The 

identification of 35 archaeological sites which include obsidian quarry areas, lithic scatters, a 

burial site, rock art sites, caves with cached material and rock cairn sites confirms the past use of 

Tucker Hill by Native Americans (BLM 1995; pages 35-38). 

The MOA which was signed by the parties involved in the original mine development as 

mentioned in Section 3.4 remains in effect. BLM consultation with the tribes has been ongoing 

since the Tucker Hill EIS (BLM 1995; pages 7, 8; 1996b; page S-2) was prepared for the 

development and operation of the original perlite mine. 

During development of the EIS for the original mine, interviews were conducted with Tribal 

Elders and Cultural Resource Specialist from Tribes associated with the area, including the 

following: The Klamath Tribes; Burns Paiute Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; and 

the Fort Bidwell Tribe. Information gathered from these Tribes and related archeological records 

were compiled to assess Native American concerns relating to the Project. A summary of issues 

identified are as follows (BLM 1995; pages 38-39). These concerns and issues generally remain 

the same today. 

3-5 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

•	 Tucker Hill lies within the Lake Abert/Chewaucan Marsh area that many Paiute groups in 

post-reservation period utilized for plant gathering and hunting; 

•	 Tucker Hill was used traditionally for hunting bighorn sheep; 

•	 Thirteen culturally important plants have been identified at Tucker Hill (Section 3.9); 

•	 Archeological evidence suggests Tucker Hill was used for the procurement of obsidian 

and the manufacture of stone tools over a 10,000-year time period; 

•	 A relatively high concentration of sites, site types, and artifacts indicates semi-sedentary 

occupation of the Tucker Hill formation and area; 

•	 The Burns Paiute Tribe, Fort Bidwell Tribe, The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

and The Klamath Tribes have recognized that Tucker Hill as a site of spiritual 

importance; 

•	 Tribal consultants have recognized various rock cairns located at Tucker Hill as religious 

sites. Tribal consultants have recognized the importance of their long-term maintenance; 

and 

•	 Tribal consultants consider the perceived lack of access as the leading reason for the lack 

of use of Tucker Hill by Tribal Members. During development of planning for the 

original mine, while Tribal Members had access to the Tucker Hill formation, new rock 

stacks began to appear. Archeological evidence suggests Tucker Hill was previously used 

for religious purposes based on the presence of pictographs/petroglyphs, stacked stone 

features, cache caves, burials, and the general setting of the formation. 

On June 30, 2011, letters were sent from BLM District Manager, Carol Benkosky, to the Tribal 

Chair of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Chairman of the Klamath Tribes, Tribal 

Chair of the Burns Piute Tribe, and the Chairman of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council 

informing each tribe of the Proposed Action and BLM’s position that no additional archeological 

work would be needed to process the Plan amendment. The Confederated Tribes of Warm 

Springs responded on July 25, 2011, expressing that they believed further review was needed 

with tribes and the SHPO. The BLM responded on October 14, 2011, restating that no further 

cultural survey work was required and that SHPO had been contacted and had agreed 

(specifically to the ineligibility determination of site 35LK3065). A final telephone call was 

made between Bill Cannon of the BLM, and the SHPO regarding concurrence with the new 

proposal. Tribal consultation facsimile is available at the BLM Lakeview office. 

Additionally, Tribes have expressed concerns regarding whether rock cairns are located within 

the proposed pit expansion Project Area. No rock stacks are known to be located within the area 

of site 35 LK 3065 or the quarry expansion area (personal communication of Carol Benkosky, 

BLM, to Tribal Chair, Burns Paiute Tribe, June 30, 2011). No additional issues regarding the 

proposed Project expansion have been identified as a result of consultation. However, it should 

be recognized that the various Tribal groups who have been involved with consultation have 

repeatedly stated that they desire all archaeological and cultural sites and materials be preserved 

and protected. 

3-6 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

3.6 Recreation 

Recreation within Tucker Hill is limited based on land resources present and limited access. 

Activities include hunting for big game species and upland game birds. There are no developed 

trails or campsites on Tucker Hill. Some off highway use might occur at the base of Tucker Hill. 

There is potential for dispersed non-motorized activities as well (BLM 1995; page 45). 

3.7 Wildlife 

Habitat in the Project Area has been extensively altered as a result of wildland fire in 2002. 

Available wildlife habitat within the Project Area is marginalized and consists primarily of 

grasses and nonnative cheatgrass. 

Raptor species that potentially could utilize the Project Area include American kestrels (Falco 

saprverius), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and northern harriers (Circus cyaneus). Other 

birds that have the potential to occur in the Project Area include common ravens (Corvus corax), 

prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus), barn owls (Tyto alba), western meadowlarks (Sturnella 

neglecta), sage thrashers (Oreoscoptes montanus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), Brewer’s 

sparrow (Spizella breweri), Mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides), Townsend’s solitares 

(Myadestes townsendi), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and northern flickers (Coaptes 

auratus). Cliff faces near the Project Area can be occupied by Canadian geese (Branta 

canadensis), rock doves (Columba livia) and cliff swallows (Hirunrdo pyrrhonota) (BLM 1995; 

page 57; BLM 1996b). 

Various small mammals, and small and medium-sized carnivores might frequent the area as well. 

Coyote (Canis latrans) and bobcat (Felis refus) skeletons have been found in the vicinity of the 

Project Area. Weasels (Mustela sp.), desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 

sp.), Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus 

californicus), and the mountain lion (Felis concolor) are known to frequent the Project Area as 

well. 

Large game species that are known to occur in the Project Area include mule deer. Pronghorn 

antelope and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are known to occasionally frequent the Project 

Area. 

Amphibians and reptiles that may occur within the Project Area include the northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens), Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), and the western pond turtle (Clemmys 

marmoratata) (BLM 2001; page 2-39). 

3.8 Special Status Wildlife Species 

Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species 

No known threatened or endangered species occur in the Project Area or the immediate vicinity. 

One candidate species has the potential to occur within the Project Area or the vicinity: the 

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

3-7 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

The nearest greater sage-grouse lek is located approximately 5.5 miles to the south of the Project 

Area. The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat (ODFW 2011) represents the most current and 

comprehensive greater sage-grouse management guidelines for Oregon and recommends 

management actions at the local and project-level scales. The Project Area is located within 

greater sage-grouse “low density” habitat (ODFW 2011). Low density habitat is defined by 

sagebrush types or other habitats that support greater sage-grouse in areas where: a) low density 

strata overlapped with seasonal connectivity corridors; b) local corridors occurred outside of the 

all lek density strata; c) low lek density strata occur outside of connectivity corridors; and d) 

seasonal connectivity corridors occur outside of all lek density strata. 

In December of 2011, the BLM issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2011-043, entitled 

Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011a). This 

direction addresses BLM activities within two types of sage-grouse habitats including 

Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH. These habitat 

descriptions, PPH and PGH, generally correspond to the same habitats in the Oregon SageGrouse Strategy as Core Habitat and Low Density Habitat respectively. Approximately 107 acres 

of the Project Area is located in PGH or low density habitat. Conformance with this IM is 

discussed in Section 1.3. 

Threats within the Project Area were factored from pertinent information provided in Greater 

Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats (Connelly and 

Knick 2011) and from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered (USFWS 2010). Habitat 

within the Project Area is marginalized as a result of wildland fire in 2002. Wildland fire is 

considered a contributing factor to the declining habitat availability of sage-grouse sagebrush 

habitats: “Many of the native vegetative species of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem are killed by 

wildfires, and recovery requires many years...fire is one of the primary factors linked to 

population declines of greater sage-grouse because of long-term loss of sagebrush” (USFWS 

2010). 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Golden and Bald Eagles 

Golden (Aquila chrysaetos) and Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are protected by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

of 1940 (as amended) (USFWS 1918; USFWS 1940), both of which prohibit taking of migratory 

birds, their parts, nests, eggs, and nestlings without a permit. 

Roosting and foraging habitat for the bald eagle have been observed in the Project Area. The 

nearest roosting site is located several miles northwest of the Project Area on U.S. Forest Service 

lands. Golden eagles are known to occur in the general area of the Project. Two golden eagle 

nests are located approximately one mile northeast of the Project Area on Tucker Hill. Both of 

these nests are located outside of the line of sight of the Project and are alternate nests for one 

3-8 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

nesting pair. Golden eagles are year-round residents in the general area of Tucker Hill (personal 

communication, Todd Forbes, BLM Assistant Field Manager, December 13, 2011). 

Peregrine Falcon 

Peregrine Falcon’s (Falco peregrinus) are known to nest near Tucker Hill. Peregrine falcons 

have been hacked (raised and released to the wild) approximately 25 miles northwest of Tucker 

Hill and have been known to occasionally forage over the Chewaucan Marsh (BLM 1995; 

page 59). 

Bats 

The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii); 

fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes); and spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) have some suitable 

habitat within the Project Area (BLM 2011c). 

Pygmy Rabbit 

Pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) occur in tall or dense sagebrush and rabbitbrush 

growing in deep soils. Such habitat occurs around the base of Tucker Hill. However, pygmy 

rabbits have not been recorded in the area (BLM 1995; page 59). 

Burrowing Owls 

The burrowing owl (Athene cuniculaira), has marginal habitat within the Project Area and 

vicinity (BLM 2011c). 

Other Special Status Species 

The Chewaucan Marsh, near the Project Area, includes habitat for candidate and special status 

species including greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis); white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi); the 

Oregon Lake tui chub (Gila bicolor oregonensis); and the interior redband trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss gibbsi) (BLM 1995; page 60). 

Other special status species that may potentially occur within the Project Area and vicinity 

include Preble’s shrew (Sorex preblei), Marriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami), northern sagebrush 

lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciousus), the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and 

the kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) (BLM 2011c). 

3.9 Vegetation 

The vegetation of Tucker Hill has been extensively altered as a result of a wildland fire in 2002 

(Figure 3.9.1). A complete list of plant species found on Tucker Hill during a 2011 survey, 

including the Project Area, is listed in Table 3.9-1 (BLM 2011d). The 2002 wildland fire resulted 

in the removal of most of the sagebrush vegetation that previously existed within the Project 

Area. The post-fire vegetation consists of native grasses as a result of reseeding and extensive 

amounts of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (personal communication, Todd Forbes, Assistant 

Field Manager, December 1, 2011). 

3-9 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T34S R19E T34S R20E

26 27 

25 

30 

22 23 

36 35 

31

34 

24 

28 

33 

21 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Fire Perimeters (2000-2011) 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORT LAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

11/16/2012 

Figure 3.9.1 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet 

Fire Disturbed Vegetation 

within the Project Area 
 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Culturally Important Plant Species 

Several plant species found in the Project Area are important to Native Americans for the 

maintenance of their culture. Based on ethnographic documentation of the Project Area, the 

following species are culturally important for food and fiber and may occur within the the 

Project area: gray desert parsley/biscuit root (Lomatium macrocarpum); desert celery (Lomatium 

nevadense); Canby’s desert parsley (Lomatium canbyi); spiked wheat grass (Agropyron 

spicatum); Indian onion (Allium parvum); big sagebrush; Great Basin wildrye; juniper (Juniperus 

sp.); Indian asparagus (Orobanche fasciculata); squaw currant (Ribes cereum); white-stemmed 

stickleaf (Mentzelia albicaulis); and tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) (BLM 1995; page 

54). 

Table 3.9-1: Plant Species in Project Area 

Trees and Shrubs Forbes Grasses/Sedges/Rushes 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

wyomingensis) 

Menzies’ fiddleneck 

(Amsinckia menzesii) 

Cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) 

Rubber rabbitbrush 

(Ericameria nauseosa) 

Pussytoes 

(Antennaria sp.) 

Squirreltail 

(Elymus elymoides) 

Antelope bitterbrush 

(Purshia tridentata) 

Basalt milkvetch 

(Astralagus filipes) 

Needle and thread 

(Hesperostipa comate) 

Rough eyelashweed 

(Blepharipappus scaber) 

Sandberg bluegrass 

(Poa secunda) 

Desert paintbrush 

(Castilleja chromosa) 

Thurber’s needlegrass 

(Stipa thurberiana) 

Desert larkspur 

(Delphinium parishii) 

Intermediate wheatgrass 

(Thinopyrum intermedium) 

Sulphur-flower buckwheat 

(Eriogonum umbellatum) 

Whitedaisy tidytips 

(Layia glandulosa) 

Lewis flax 

(Linum lewisii) 

Stemless dwarf lupine 

(Lupinus caespitosus) 

Silver lupine 

(Lupinus albifrons) 

Alpine lake false dandelion 

(Nothocalais alpestris) 

Threadleaf linearis 

(Phacelia linearis) 

Longleaf phlox 

(Phlox longifolia) 

Shasta clover 

(Trifolium productum) 

3.10 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Nonnative Species 

A recent survey conducted within the Project Area identified a small infestation of one noxious 

weed species, nodding plumeless thistle (Carduus nutans) within the Project Area (BLM 2011d). 

The nodding plumeless thistle is classified as a “B” weed by the Oregon Department of 

3-11 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Agriculture. Control of “B” weeds may vary depending on site-specific and case-by-case factors. 

The goal of “B” weed management is control and prevention of new infestations within the State 

of Oregon (ODA 2011). 

3.11 Water Quality – Surface and Ground 

The Project Area and vicinity are relatively arid and receive approximately 10 inches of 

precipitation per year. The water table is relatively deep. Ground water is reported in water wells 

at a depth greater than 300 feet below surface of the playa lake surface, approximately 600 feet 

below the summit of Tucker Hill. Additionally, no surface waters, other than intermittent waters 

from storm events exist at the site (BLM 1995; page 68). The nearest source of surface water is 

the Chewaucan River located north and east of the Project Area, approximately 12,000 feet from 

the quarry and 1,900 feet from the waste material site. 

3.12 Geology and Minerals 

The geology of the Project Area consists of basalt and andesite, rhyolite core, inner glass 

envelope of onion-skin perlite, and outer glass envelope that is mostly of granular and vesicular 

perlite. The Tucker Hill rhyolite dome complex is a package of cooling units related to several 

rhyolitic vents that originated from a single volcanic event. The Tucker Hill complex 

demonstrates distinct lateral and vertical zonation. Two major cooling units are recognized, an 

outer chill margin and an inner rhyolitic core. Vesicle (air pocket) abundance within the rock 

increases outwards from the rhyolite core through the chill margin as a result of degassing and 

quenching of the once molten lava. The chill margin was originally obsidian that was converted 

to perlite as the result of secondary hydration through continued contact with meteoric waters. 

Obsidian that remains is found as local zones of Apache Tears. The chill margin contains various 

sub-units of perlite. The perlite sub-units are based on textural differences that resulted from 

variable degassing. Differential erosion of the Tucker Hill lava dome has removed portions of 

the outer glass envelope, exposing the rhyolite core (Cornerstone 2012). 

3.13 Land Use/Access 

Access to the Tucker Hill Quarry crosses 0.8 mile of private land owned by the Simplot 

Company, which operates as a cattle ranch. Cornerstone acquired permission to use and/or 

improve the road where it crosses private land (BLM 1995; page 60; BLM 1996b). 

3.14 Socioeconomics 

As of 2010, the population for the State of Oregon has grown to 3,831,074. Lake County 

increased by 6.4 percent from 2000 to 2010 with a population of 7,895. The population trend 

since 1960 in the area has been relatively stable (BLM 1995; pages 60 and 61). 

In 2000, 57.3 percent of the Lakeview population 16 years and over were in the labor force 

compared to 63.9 percent for the country (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Per capita income between 

2005 and 2009 for Lake County was $19,817, below the State of Oregon average of 

$25,893 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

3-12 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

The median value of Lakeview homes between 2005 and 2009 was $114,500 compared to 

$244,200 for the State of Oregon. A total of 3,248 households were accounted for in the 2005­

2009 survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

Cornerstone is the fifth largest employer in Lake County, Oregon, and is the largest shipper on 

the Lake County Railroad, moving the highest volume of rail cars on the Lakeview Branch Line 

(greater than 60 percent) (BLM 2008; pages 3-4). At the present time, Cornerstone has 30 

employees. 

3.15 Soils 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has classified soils in the proposed Project 

Area as Lorella Gravelly Sandy Loam (soil 145C) and Redcanyon-Rock Outcrop Complex (soil 

222F) (Figure 3.15.1). 

The Lorella Gravelly Sandy Loam (soil 145C) occurs in areas of low precipitation on slopes of 

two to 15 percent (98.2 acres). The Lorella series consists of shallow, well drained soils formed 

in colluviums and residuum from tuff and basalt. Typically the surface is very dark brown 

gravelly sandy loam approximately eight inches thick. The subsoil is dark brown very cobbly 

clay loam approximately four inches thick over bedrock (BLM 1995; page 49). 

The Redcanyon-Rock Outcrop Complex (soil 222F) is found on south slopes of 30 to 50 percent 

(9.6 acres). The Redcanyon series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils formed in 

colluvium from basalt and tuff. They are on sideslopes of hills and mountains. Typically the 

surface is a brown and dark brown extremely bouldery loam and is 18 inches thick. The upper 

part of the subsoil is a pale brown extremely bouldery loam that is 11 inches thick over a 

calcareous light yellowish brown extremely bouldery loam that is two inches thick 

(BLM 1995; page 49). None of these soil types are classified as prime and unique farmlands. 

Table 3.15-1: Soil Series in Project Area 

Soil Type 

Erosion Hazard Flooding 

Frequency Permeability Suitability as Roadfill 

Suitability as 

Water Wind Topsoil 

Lorella Gravelly 

Sandy Loam (145C) Very High High None 

Rapid to slow 

as depth 

increases 

Poor, due to 

depth to 

rock, 

shrink-swell 

Poor, due to 

depth to rock and 

small stones 

Redcanyon-Rock 

Outcrop Complex 

(222F) 

Moderate Low None Slow 

Poor, due to 

depth to 

rock and 

slope 

Poor, due to 

small stones and 

slope 

3-13 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T34S R19E 

145C 

222F 

222F 

35 

26 

34 

27 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

NRCS Soil Survey or636

145C, Lorella gravelly sandy loam, low precipitation, 2 to 15 percent slopes (98.2 acres)

222F, Redcanyon-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 50 percent south slopes (9.6 acres) 

0 200 400 600 800

Feet 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORTLAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

Soil Associations 

within the Project Area 

11/16/2012 

Figure 3.15.1 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

3.16 Visual Resources 

The Project Area is located east of Highway 31 on Tucker Hill. The area falls within an area 

designated as visual resource management (VRM) Class III (BLM 2003b, Map VRM-3) 

(Figure 3.16.1). Management objectives for Class III are to “partially retain the existing character 

of the landscape. Moderate levels of change are acceptable. Management activities may attract 

attention, but should not dominate the view of a casual observer. Within a VRM Class III, 

changes should conform to the basic elements of the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape” (BLM 2001; Appendix M3, page A-290). 

The Project Area is also located within a designated scenic buffer associated with the Oregon 

Outback National Scenic Byway along Highway 31 (Figure 3.16.1). Management direction 

requires “all developments, land alterations, and vegetation manipulations within a three-mile 

buffer...of all major travel routes and recreation use areas will be designed to minimize visual 

impacts. All projects will be designed to maximize scenic quality and minimize scenic 

intrusions” (BLM 2003b; page 88). This standard applies to only those portions of the Project 

Area that are visible from the highway (Figure 3.15.2). 

When approaching the Project Area from Highway 31 heading east, Tucker Hill is the 

predominant skyline feature. Incised canyons and rock outcrops on the hill provide contrast to 

the uniform grey-green-golden vegetation found on visible slopes. Visible juniper trees are 

located in sporadic locations on the top of Tucker Hill. The more immediate landscape between 

the highway and Project Area is dominated by agriculture lands and associated features. The 

existing mine can be seen from locations along the scenic byway or Key Observation 

Points1

(KOPs). While it is possible to see the topsoil salvage berms along the rim of the quarry 

(KOPs #2, #3, #4) and waste storage area piles near the highway (KOPs #1 and #5), these berms 

and piles would likely be unnoticed by the casual observer. KOPs of the Project Area are shown 

on Figure 3.16.2 and were selected as representative locations from the surrounding landscape. 

Photographs were taken by the BLM from these KOPs to show the existing condition. In 

addition, contrast rating sheets for each of the KOPs. These sheets are located in Appendix A. 

Photo simulations of KOPs 2 through 5 were prepared to show full build out of the Project and 

following reclamation. These photos and photo simulations are included in Section 4.15. 

1 KOPs or critical viewpoints are usually established along commonly traveled routes or at likely observation points. 

Factors considered in selecting KOPs include: angle of observation, number of viewers, length of time the project is 

in view, relative project size, season of use, and light conditions. 

3-15 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 30 29 

33 

33S 19E 35 36 31 32 33 33S 20E 35 36 32T LLAMOOK 33S 21E 34 35 31 I PORT LAND 33S 18E 32 33 34 (! (! !( (! 35 36 

31 34 SALEM Project Area !( 

(Lake County) EUGENEBEND !! 4 (( !( 3 2

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 SPRINGFIELD (!

6 5 4 3 2 !(

2 1 MEDFORD !( GRANTS PASS !(

KLAMATH FALLS10 11 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 

7 8 9

11 12 

!( 

13 18 17 16 15 14

13 18 17 16 15 14 LAKE ABERT

18 17 16 15 14
 

14 13 34S 21E 34S 20E

34S 19E 34S 18E 24 19 20 21 22 23

24 19 20 21 22 23

23 19 20 21 22

23 24
 

27 26

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28

25 30

30 29 28 27 26
 

26 25
 

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 

34 35 36

32 33 31 35 36 

4 3 2 

1 6 5 3 2 1 6 5 

6 5 4 3 2 

3 2 1 

9 10 11

7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 

10 11 12

7 8 9

10 11 12 

35S 19E 35S 20E 35S 21E

35S 18E 16 15 14

13 18 17 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
 

18 17 16

14 13 

15 

24 19 20 21 22 23 

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

25 30 29 28 27 26

Explanation LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 1301 S. "G" Street

Project Area Highway 31 Lakeview, OR 97630 TUCKER HILL PROJECT Three-mile wide scenic highway corridor Area along Oregon Outback Scenic Byway from which

VRM Class Growth Medium Berms and Waste Storage Pits are Visible Visual Resource Management Classes and

Class I Area along Oregon Outback Scenic Byway from which Oregon Outback National Scenic Byway,

Class II Growth Medium Berms and Waste Storage Pits are Not Visible Highway 31 

Class III No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original 

0 1 2 3

Miles Figure 3.16.1 Class IV data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was
 $ developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 11/30/2012 
34S 21E

11 12

14 13

7

18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

34S 19E 34S 20E 

35S 20E 35S 19E 

34S 18E 

35S 18E 

35S 21E

5 

9 

4 

7 

8 

2 

7 8

8 

6 

9 

9 

9 

8 

3 

7 

3 5 

1

2 1

2 6 

7 

3 1 

36 

11

11 

11 

11 

11 

36 

30 

26 

2 

15 

33 

13 

34 

20 

17 

12 

35 

22

24 

27 

25 

28 

10 

18 

35 

31 

29 

29 

13 

21 

34 

20 

14 17 

12 

31 

18 

16 

16 

21 

23 

10 

28 

22 

32 

12 

27 

17 

10 

14 

33 

23 

15 

25 

15 

32 

26 

14 

23 

1 

10 

14 

13 

23 

26 

24 

16 

17 16 15 

19 

35 36 

18 

22 

14 

12 

25 

24 

24 21 

13 

15 

18 

30 

20 

10 

19 

13 

19 

12 

22 23 24

34 

21 

27 

22 

20 

3 

15 

19 

10 

6 

23 24

5 

22 

4 3 2 

19 

1 6 5 4 3 2 

6 

30 

31 

1 

7 

25 

6 

26 

Projection: UTM Zone 10 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area 

!( Key Observation Point 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORT LAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

11/16/2012 

Figure 3.16.2 

Visual Resources

Key Observation Points 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

0 1 2 3

Miles 

!(31 
 

 

 

 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on 

resources present in the area are discussed in this section. Cumulative impacts are discussed 

separately in Section 4.16. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). 

4.1 Introduction 

The impacts of the development and subsequent operation of the original 23-acre perlite mine on 

top of Tucker Hill were previously analyzed in an EIS completed in 1996. This chapter will 

focus on describing the site-specific impacts of expanding the Tucker Hill quarry by 47 acres, as 

described in Chapter 2. Where appropriate, the analysis will incorporate and/or tier off of the 

analysis of environmental consequences in Chapter 4 of the EIS for Atlas Perlite, Inc.’s Tucker 

Hill Perlite Project (BLM 1995; 1996b). The reviewer should refer to the EIS for additional 

information. Page numbers referring to the specific sections of the EIS are included in resource 

impact discussions, as applicable (BLM 1995; 1996b). 

It is assumed for this analysis that under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not expand 

any further. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would continue current operations until 

the perlite ore is exhausted and it is no longer economically feasible to mine. 

4.2 Air Quality 

4.2.1 No Action Alternative 

The potential impacts to air quality as a result of the No Action Alternative would have direct 

short-term and long-term impacts to air quality in the general area of Tucker Hill. Fugitive dust 

emissions would result from the quarrying process, including the use of haul roads. Hauls roads 

would continue to use water sprays, to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Haul trucks would 

contribute to fugitive dust emissions as a result of fuel combustion. Impacts to air quality from 

haul trucks are considered negligible. Long-term impacts would include fugitive dust emissions 

as a result of general surface disturbance within the Project Area that would subside as a result of 

the successful reclamation of the waste rock dump and haul road, as outlined in the 1996 EIS 

(BLM 1996a; pages 6-7). 

The annual estimate of carbon dioxide emission from all quarry operations and road maintenance 

activities is about 0.001623 million metric tons. This represents no more than 0.000091 percent 

of all annual U.S. transportation related emissions and no more than 0.000028 percent of all U.S. 

human-related emissions (Table 4.2-1) (EPA 2012). 

4.2.2 Proposed Action 

Proposed activities at the quarry pit are expected to have air quality impacts within the Project 

Area that are comparable to, but more than, the No Action Alternative . Specifically, existing 

levels of fugitive dust and hydrocarbon emissions from haul and water trucks would continue for 

an additional 15 years. During the Project, fugitive dust from haul roads would be controlled 

4-1 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Table 4.2-1: Project Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the U.S. 

Activities Carbon Dioxide Emissions Units 

U.S. all human-related* 5,730.31 million metric tons 

U.S. Transportation* 1,776.40 million metric tons 

Project 0.001623 million metric tons 

Project’s contribution to the U.S. all 

human-related 0.000028 percent 

Project’s contribution to the U.S. 

Transportation 0.000091 percent 

*Note: Information from 2010 EPA data 

using water sprays. Growth media stockpiles would be seeded to reduce fugitive dust. Following 

reclamation, all areas but the highwalls would be revegetated, minimizing fugitive dust 

emissions. Long-term impacts, which would continue until reclamation is complete and 

approved, to the air quality of the quarrying site would be minimized by the reclamation of the 

waste rock site and haul road to eliminate the majority of fugitive dust emissions. 

Greenhouse Gasses 

Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane would be generated during quarry operations 

primarily by equipment use (generators, dozers, track drill rigs, excavators, graders, loaders etc.) 

and vehicle travel (haul trucks, water trucks, etc.). Generation of carbon dioxide would occur 

during blasting operations utilizing ANFOs. This Project would have no effect on carbon 

storage/sequestration processes and cause no measurable increases in U.S. or global nitrous 

oxide and methane emissions. For this reason, the remainder of this impact discussion focuses on 

estimating carbon dioxide emissions. 

Table 4.2-2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Proposed Mining Equipment 

Emission Unit 

Emission 

Factors1 

(lbs/gal) 

Fuel 

Consumption 

(gal/hr) 

Operational 

Hours 

(hr/yr) 

No. of 

Units 

CO2 

Emissions 

(lbs/yr) 

CO2 

Emissions 

(tons/yr) 

Loader 938911 CAT 22.23 4.50 1200 1 1.20E+05 60 

Loader 980H CAT 22.23 8.10 1500 1 2.70E+05 135 

Dozer D9T CAT 22.23 19.50 1200 1 5.20E+05 260 

Grader 12M CAT 22.23 4.50 700 1 7.00E+04 35 

Excavator 320 CL CAT 22.23 3.70 700 1 5.76E+04 29 

Skidsteer 226 B2 CAT 22.23 2.02 700 1 3.14E+04 16 

Driller 22.23 6.00 120 1 1.60E+04 8 1 40 CFR 600.113-78 gives carbon content values of 2,778 grams C/gallon for diesel fuel. Heat Contents from the 

Annual Energy Review 2002, DOE/EIA 0384 (2002), US Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, DC, October 2003. Unit Conversion, Emission Factors and Other Reference Data, 

EPA 2004. 

Based on the above calculations, the total carbon dioxide emissions associated with mining 

equipment would be about 492.6 metric tons annually and the total carbon dioxide emissions 

associated with the on-site vehicles would be about 996 metric tons annually. 

4-2 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Table 4.2-3: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from On-Site Vehicles 

Emission Unit 

Emission 

Factors2 

(lbs/gal) 

Fuel Rate 

(miles/gal) 

VMT 

(miles/yr) 

Fuel 

Consumption 

(gal/yr) 

No. of 

Units 

CO2 

Emissions 

(lbs/yr) 

CO2 

Emissions 

(tons/yr) 

Haul Truck 22.23 5 115,400 23,088 4 2.05E+06 1,026 

Service Truck 19.37 5.5 23,400 4,255 1 8.24E+04 41 

Pickup Truck 19.37 18 18,200 1,011 1 1.96E+04 10 

Water Truck 22.23 5 9,100 1,820 1 4.05E+04 20 2 40 CFR 600.113-78 gives carbon content values of 2,421 grams C/gallon for gasoline and 2,778 grams C/gallon for diesel fuel. 

Heat Contents from the Annual Energy Review 2002, DOE/EIA 0384 (2002), US Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, DC, October 2003. Unit Conversion, Emission Factors and Other Reference Data, EPA 2004. 

The total diesel fuel consumption for the Detroit V12 Diesel Generator of the project is about 

45 gallons per hour with 1,500 hours of annual operation. Carbon dioxide emissions from the 

generator would be about 78 metric tons annually. 

The annual ANFO used for the blasting operations for the project is 75,000 pounds per year. The 

explosive is estimated to release about 1.67 pounds of carbon dioxide per one pound of ANFO 

(Climate Mitigation Services 2007). Carbon dioxide emissions from the blasting operations 

would be about 57 metric tons annually. 

4.3 Cultural Resources 

4.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to cultural resources were mitigated in accordance 

with the HPTP to the extent possible. Archeological sites of cultural importance would be 

avoided as discussed in the 1996 EIS (BLM 1996b; pages 74-76) and approved in the 1996 ROD 

(BLM 1996a). 

4.3.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, one site, 35 LK 3065 would be destroyed. During the development 

of the original mine, this site was evaluated and found not to be eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP. It was determined to be within the buffer zone for the original quarry and as such, had 

been cleared for potential destruction. All required mitigation on the site has been conducted. 

The Oregon SHPO agrees that the site is not eligible for the NRHP inclusion. No adverse 

impacts to archaeological resources are expected with the destruction of this site. There are two 

other archaeological sites within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action, sites 35 LK 

3048 and 35 LK3056. These sites have been resurveyed to determine their borders and 

permanent markers have been placed along their borders. During development of the Proposed 

Action, these sites would be avoided. A buffer zone of 100 feet would be established around the 

borders of sites 35 LK3048 and 35 LK3056. Both of these sites would remain unevaluated and 

would be avoided under the Proposed Action. Therefore, no impacts would occur to cultural 

resources. 

4-3 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

4.4 Native American Traditional Values 

4.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, many of the impacts to Native American Traditional Values 

would be similar to those discussed under Cultural Resources above. Visual impacts from the 

quarry to the spiritual values of the area would be reduced following reclamation activities, but 

would not be fully mitigated as the result of the permanent loss of a part of the Tucker Hill 

Formation. Impacts to Native American Traditional Values would be avoided or mitigated to the 

extent feasible according to the HPTP, and as discussed in the EIS (BLM 1995; pages 72-76) 

and approved in the 1996 ROD (BLM 1996a). 

Culturally important plant species, if present, would likely be permanently removed from the 

existing quarry site and access road, even after reclamation (BLM 1995; page 78). 

4.4.2 Proposed Action 

Cultural sites within the quarry expansion area have been resurveyed, and boundaries of the 

quarry expansion have been demarcated on the ground specifically to avoid sites 35 LK 3048 

and 35 LK 3056, which are located along the edge of the Project Area. The Oregon SHPO has 

concurred that site 35 LK 3065, which is within the Project Area, is not eligible for inclusion in 

the NRHP (Oregon SHPO 1996 and telephone conversation between BLM Archaeologist and 

Oregon SHPO dated November 12, 2011). The Project would not result in any adverse impacts 

to eligible archaeological sites within the Project Area. 

During consultation, Native Americans have repeatedly expressed the belief that all 

archaeological sites should be preserved and protected and that any impacts to sites, even with 

mitigation, or destruction of sites, regardless of their significance, is a violation of their beliefs. 

Native Americans consider mitigation to be futile in reducing the impacts of the Project. 

Culturally important plant species, if present, would likely be permanently removed from the 

expanded quarry site, even after reclamation. 

4.5 Recreation 

4.5.1 No Action Alternative 

Recreational opportunities within the Project Area under the No Action Alternative would 

continue to be limited by low quality habitat for big game and upland game bird hunting, and 

surrounding private lands (BLM 1995; page 91). In addition, recreation would continue to be 

limited by the lack of legal road access across private land into the Project Area. These 

opportunities would be further reduced as the result of the 2002 wildlife that occurred within the 

Project Area. 

4.5.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would increase surface disturbance within the Project Area by 47 acres, 

which would subsequently reduce potential habitat for big game and upland game bird species 

4-4 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

and associated hunting opportunities. However, these impacts would occur within relatively poor 

quality game habitat, and would therefore, not significantly impact existing recreational 

opportunities on Tucker Hill or immediately adjacent BLM administered lands. 

4.6 Wildlife 

4.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the impacts would be similar to those addressed in the DEIS. 

Approximately 29.3 acres of native habitat within the Project Area would be unavailable as 

breeding habitat for small birds, mammals, and reptiles and as foraging habitat for raptors and 

larger mammals (BLM 1995; page 80). 

4.6.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an additional 47 acres of habitat disturbance within the 

Project Area. However, due to a recent wildland fire in 2002, habitat within the Project Area has 

been extensively marginalized. This habitat would be unavailable as breeding habitat for small 

birds, mammals and reptiles and as foraging habitat for raptors and larger mammals. The direct 

loss of 47 acres of habitat would represent a temporary loss in duration of the life of the mine 

and subsequent reclamation, relative to the available surrounding habitat. Impacts to wildlife 

would be minimized by reclaiming disturbed areas as quickly as practicable. The long-term (i.e., 

for the life of the Project) impacts to wildlife habitat (as a result of the pit area) would be off-set 

since reclamation and reestablishment of native species would likely take place within a few 

years of the Project’s completion. Wildlife habitat in the Project Area would be improved 

somewhat as a result of reseeding the area with native species. 

4.7 Special Status Wildlife Species 

4.7.1 No Action Alternative 

No impacts to threatened or endangered species would occur under the No Action Alternative. 

The small amount of permanent and temporary sagebrush habitat loss associated with the 

existing mine was determined to have a minimal impact on sage-grouse habitat, relative to the 

available surrounding habitat (BLM 1995; page 80-81). 

Blasting activities would occur outside of raptor breeding season that could potentially impact 

Bald and Golden eagles or roosting bats (BLM 1995; pages 80-81). In addition, on-site 

monitoring by the BLM of previous blasting activities associated with the current quarry 

operations did not result in any eagle nest abandonment or other impacts (personal 

communication Glenn Lorton, October 25, 2012). 

No impacts would occur to other special status species under the No Action Alternative. 

Peregrine falcons, pygmy rabbits, burrowing owls, Preble’s shrew, Marriam’s shrew, northern 

sagebrush lizard, western fence lizard, and kit fox are unlikely to occur in the immediate Project 

Area (BLM 1995; pages 59-60, 81). Therefore, continued operation of the mine would not likely 

impact these species. 

4-5 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

4.7.2 Proposed Action 

Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species 

No threatened or endangered species would be impacted as a result of the Proposed Action. The 

only candidate species potentially affected by the proposed mine expansion is the greater sagegrouse. 

Greater Sage Grouse 

In a letter dated December 19, 2011, the Oregon ODFW determined that the current mine and 

expansion area is located in low density greater sage-grouse habitat. However, the letter also 

acknowledges that as a result of a wildland fire in 2002, greater sage-grouse habitat within the 

Project Area has been extensively marginalized, and the potential occurrence of greater sagegrouse in the Project Area is unlikely. The ODFW recommended a 1:1 habitat mitigation ratio 

based on the current Oregon greater sage-grouse conservation policy. As a mitigation measure, 

Cornerstone would remove 47 acres of young invasive juniper trees south of the Project Area to 

benefit greater sage-grouse habitat (Figure 4.7.1). This mitigation would be implemented 

subsequent to the approval of this EA and would offset impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat. 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Golden and Bald Eagles 

Impacts to Bald and Golden eagles have the potential to occur as a result of Project-related 

activities. Two Golden eagle nests are located northeast of the Project Area on Tucker Hill, both 

nests are on cliff faces that are out of sight of the Project Area. The nests are located 1.2 miles 

and 1.4 miles respectively from the proposed mine expansion. 

Bald and Golden eagles may be temporarily disturbed by blasting activities relating to the 

expansion of the quarry pit. However, these activities are unlikely to affect either species. No 

bald eagle nests are located within the vicinity of the Project Area. Golden eagle nests are 

located in areas that would not be impacted by blasting activities such as fly-rock, pressure 

waves, or excessive noise. Therefore, impacts to Bald and Golden eagles, including a taking of 

either species, are not expected to occur. 

Project activities such as crushing and blasting related to the expansion of the quarry would 

potentially impact Bald and Golden eagles wintering in the area. Infrequent, seasonal blasting 

impacts would occur away from nesting sites that would potentially impact Bald and Golden 

eagles and other raptor species. 

Peregrine Falcon 

The occasional frequency of Project-related blasting activities and the infrequent occurrence of 

this species in the Project Area makes it unlikely this species would be impacted by the Proposed 

Action. Therefore, expansion of the mine would not impact this species. 

4-6 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Bats 

Impacts to the pallid bat, Townsend’s Big-eared bat, fringed myotis, and the spotted bat would 

have potential to occur as a result of Project-related activities. However, habitat for these species 

is extremely marginal, and no roost sites have been located within the Project Area (BLM 

2011c). Furthermore, the infrequency of blasting would unlikely lead to an impact to bat 

colonies. 

Pygmy Rabbit 

Habitat for pygmy rabbit has been marginalized within the Project Area as a result of a 2002 

wildland fire that had altered the vegetative community structure of Tucker Hill. Therefore, 

further impacts to habitat for this species are not likely to occur. 

Burrowing Owls 

Burrowing owls have marginal habitat within the Project Area. No known nesting areas have 

been located for this species within the Project Area (BLM 2011c). Therefore, further impacts to 

habitat for this species are not likely to occur. 

Other Special Status Species 

Shorebird species that utilize the Chewaucan Marsh would not be negatively impacted by the 

Project. There is no suitable wetland habitat located within the Project Area and no impacts from 

the Project would affect the larger Chewaucan drainage or habitat contained therein. Suitable 

potential habitat for other special status species (Preble’s shrew, Marriam’s shrew, northern 

sagebrush lizard, western fence lizard, and kit fox) is limited within the Project Area. Therefore, 

impacts to these species are not likely to occur. 

4.8 Vegetation 

4.8.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to vegetation would be associated with the permanent 

loss of vegetation associated with up to 23 acres of the quarry, and the temporary loss 17 acres to 

native vegetation associated with the temporary storage of ore deposits within the Project Area. 

Reclamation and revegetation would reestablish some native species after mining operations are 

completed (BLM 1995; page 78). The development of the quarry would result in a permanent 

loss of up to 20 acres of vegetation (BLM 1995; page 78). A list of species and distribution of 

revegetation seed mixture can be found in Table 2-4 of the Draft EIS (BLM 1995; page 22). 

4.8.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an additional 47 acres of surface disturbance. However, as 

the result of the 2002 wildland fire within the Project Area, vegetation communities have been 

extensively altered and replaced with post-fire species that includes cheatgrass and some native 

grasses. The majority of this disturbance would occur within the quarry and its associated waste 

4-7 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34S 19E 34S 20E 

35S 19E 35S 20E 

Projection: UTM Zone 11 North, NAD83 $ 

Explanation 

Project Area

Proposed Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation Area

Proposed Pit Expansion

Existing Pit

Existing Roads 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet 

!( !(

!( 

!(!( 

!( !( 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Project Area

(Lake County) BEND 

SALEM 

EUGENE 

MEDFORD 

TILLAMOOK PORT LAND

GRANTS PASS 

SPRINGFIELD 

KLAMATH FALLS 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT 

11/16/2012 

Figure 4.7.1 

Proposed Greater Sage-grouse

Mitigation Area 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual use or aggregate use with other data. Original

data were compiled from various sources. This information may

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 

LAKEVIEW DISTRICT OFFICE

1301 S. "G" Street

Lakeview, OR 97630 
 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

rock site. Project related disturbance would result in the removal of existing plant species that 

include invasive species. Seeding with native species during reclamation would minimize longterm impacts to vegetation. 

4.9 Noxious Weeds, Invasive Nonnative Species 

4.9.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the risk of introduction of new noxious weeds to Tucker Hill 

would be minimized. Cornerstone would monitor the Project Area for noxious weed invasions 

throughout the life of the mine operation and reclamation activities. The seed mix used for final 

reclamation would be certified weed free and approved by the BLM prior to the seeding 

operation. A monitoring program to annually inspect the Project for potential noxious weeds 

would prevent the proliferation and growth of newly established noxious weeds. The monitoring 

program would include an annual inventory during the life of the project, and for three years 

after closure of the mine. If noxious weeds are found, preferred treatment would be physical or 

manual extermination with selective chemical treatment at the least preferred method of 

eradication. (BLM 1996a; pages 12-13). Should weeds be discovered during monitoring, 

Cornerstone would be required to treat them in accordance with BLM’s current integrated weed 

treatment plans – Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon FEIS 

(2010) and Standard Operating Procedures from the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on 

BLM Lands in 17 Western States PEIS and ROD – Appendix B, Herbicide Treatment Standard 

Operating Procedures (2007). 

4.9.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an additional 47 acres of surface disturbance within the 

Project Area. This disturbance could promote an increased risk of future in noxious weed 

infestations. The potential risk for Tucker Hill has been evaluated in accordance with the BLM 

Handbook 9015 and is considered low. Cornerstone would implement several protection 

measures to prevent the spread and proliferation of noxious weeds within the Project Area. 

Seeding of squirreltail grass would provide temporary stability of the soil and would reduce the 

potential spread of noxious weeds. Reclamation would be conducted with a BLM certified weedfree mix. Cornerstone would continue to implement a noxious weed monitoring program that 

would include an inventory on an annual basis and for three years after the closure of the 

Project). Should weeds be discovered during monitoring, Cornerstone would be required to treat 

them in accordance with BLM’s current integrated weed treatment plans. 

4.10 Water Quality – Surface and Ground 

4.10.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to water resources are expected from mining 

activities within the Project Area. Pit activities would not encounter or impact the quality of 

groundwater within the Project Area. Surface water from storm events that infiltrate the quarry 

pit would not contaminate the quality of groundwater (BLM 1995; page 85). 

4-9 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

4.10.2 Proposed Action 

Water utilized for dust suppression activities on access roads would be purchased from a nearby 

ranch. The amount of ground water required for the Project would not increase from current use. 

No ground water would be encountered during pit expansion activities. Surface waters from 

storm events would be expected to infiltrate into the open pit floor; however, ground water 

would not be expected to be contaminated from such operations due to the filtration capacity of 

the stratigraphy, and the lack of contaminants present as a result of the mining operations 

(located in Appendix C, Spill Contingency Plan, in the Plan amendment). Therefore, no 

additional impacts would occur to water quality or quantity as a result of the Proposed Action. 

4.11 Geology and Mineral Resources 

4.11.1 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to geology and mineral resources in the Project Area under the No Action 

Alternative would include the ongoing permanent removal of perlite minerals from the existing 

Tucker Hill quarry. The removal of perlite minerals would continue until the ore is exhausted or 

it is no longer economically feasible to mine the quarry. 

4.11.2 Proposed Action 

The Project would result in the permanent removal of additional perlite material from an 

expanded Tucker Hill quarry. There are no identified geologic conditions that would be 

exacerbated by Project activities or would result in geological hazards. All Project-related 

activities would conform to regulatory standards to minimize instability. 

4.12 Land Use/Access 

4.12.1 No Action Alternative 

Cornerstone has obtained access to private land along the haul road to the quarry located on 

BLM land. No impacts as a result of No Action Alternative are expected on Oregon State 

Highway 31 or U.S. Highway 395 as a result of mining operations (BLM 1995; page 81). 

4.12.2 Proposed Action 

Potential slope instability within the quarry during operations and post-reclamation could occur. 

Given the slopes at the site and proposed benching, large slope failures are not anticipated. The 

benches would be 25 feet to 30 feet high with 25 foot safety benches. The wall slope would be 

approximately 60 degrees. Access to the Project Area would be controlled during operations to 

prevent potential public safety issues. In addition, prior to the final reclamation of the quarry, the 

BLM and DOGAMI would address necessary post-reclamation public safety concerns. 

Cornerstone would use existing access from the private landowner similar to the No Action 

Alternative to allow access along the haul road to the existing gravel pit where mill tailings and 

waste are stockpiled. No additional measurable impacts to traffic on Oregon State Highway 31 or 

United States Highway 395 is anticipated as a result of the Project; aside from those already 

4-10 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

addressed in the EIS (BLM 1995; page 81) and the few trips that would be made (i.e., five to 

15 trips per day). However, this same level of impact, would continue for another 15 years (life 

of the proposed expansion). 

4.13 Socioeconomics 

4.13.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the expanded Project would not be approved and the mine 

would continue current operations until all available perlite material is depleted or it is no longer 

economical to mine. 

Cornerstone is the largest shipper on the Lake County Railroad, moving the highest volume of 

rail cars on the Lakeview Branch Line (greater than 60 percent) (BLM 2008). Cornerstone is the 

fifth largest employer in Lake County. Approximately 30 jobs would continue and up to 

120,000 tons of perlite material would be made available to the marketplace. These economic 

benefits to the local economy would continue until current perlite resources are depleted. 

4.13.2 Proposed Action 

As a result of the Proposed Action, there would be a continued economic benefit to Lake County 

similar to those stated in the No Action Alternative for another 15 years. 

4.14 Soils 

4.14.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, soils in the Project Area would continue to be subject to wind 

and water erosion. The Lorella soil is shallow and subject to high rates of erosion. Environmental 

protection measures have been implemented to minimize these impacts at the existing quarry 

site. Soil erosion control measures include seeding the existing stockpiled soils with aggressive 

native plant species such as squirreltail grass that would minimize erosion of growth medium and 

potentially out-compete invasive weed infestations (BLM 1995; page 77). Wind erosion 

associated by fugitive dust would be controlled by waster sprays, cyclones, and a baghouse 

(BLM 1996b; page 13). 

Furthermore, as detailed in the Reclamation Plan, Project-activities would be carried out in a 

manner designed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment. These 

measures include the reclamation of the waste rock dump, road reclamation, drainage and 

sediment control, and revegetation (BLM 1996b; page 6, 18-21). 

4.14.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in a maximum of 47 acres of additional surface disturbance 

within the Project Area. Pit expansion activities would occur within the Lorella gravelly sandy 

loam soil association (soil 145C). The Lorella soil is shallow (less than 12 inches) and subject to 

high rates of erosion. Construction activities would likely contribute to the wind and water 

erosion potential of this soil (BLM 1995; page 77). Soil erosion protection measures similar to 

4-11 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

those outlined in the 1996 EIS would be implemented during Project-related activities to 

minimize the impact of the Proposed Action on soils. Soil erosion control measures under 

reclamation include seeding the existing stockpiled soils with aggressive native plant species 

such as squirreltail grass that would minimize erosion of growth medium and potentially outcompete invasive weed infestations (BLM 1995; page 77). Wind erosion associated by fugitive 

dust would be controlled by waster sprays, cyclones, and a baghouse (BLM 1996b; page 13). 

Additionally, the salvage of growth media and reclamation outside of the active quarry, which 

would including re-seeding, would minimize impacts to soils and reduce potential surface 

erosion. 

4.15 Visual Resources 

4.15.1 No Action Alternative 

Portions of the mining activities (growth media and waste rock dump) and haul road would be 

visible from Highway 31. Three KOP locations (1-3) were established in the EIS to analyze the 

visual impacts from various points along Highway 31 (see Figure 3.16.2). Most of the impacts 

from the growth media stockpiles and waste rock dump to visual resources would be temporary 

and would be much less noticeable following reclamation activities. The level or magnitude of 

visual impact expected to result from the No Action Alternative were found to be consistent with 

Class III VRM objectives (BLM 1995; pages 76–77). 

4.15.2 Proposed Action 

The Project Area lies within a VRM Class III designation. Five KOPs were established for the 

Project to rate the degree of visual contrast from the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action 

includes an expansion of the existing quarry and the placement of stockpiled growth media 

around the edges of the quarry. The KOPs are located along Highway 31, northwest and east of 

the Project Area, and along a county road to the southwest. The locations of the KOPs are shown 

on Figure 3.1.2. Visual contrast rating sheets (Form 8400-4) were prepared to describe the 

existing landscape and the proposed activities. Contrast ratings were then determined for the 

features of land/water body, vegetation, and structures. The degree of contrast was evaluated for 

the following elements under each feature: form, line, color, and texture. 

The quarry itself cannot be seen from any of the KOPs, but the existing stockpiled material is 

visible from some of the KOPs. Photo simulations from that EIS (BLM 1996a and b) indicated 

that the disturbance from the mining activities would be visible as a band of white contrasting 

material at the top of Tucker Hill. Photos taken in the fall of 2011 show that the material is 

actually brown, a color that is common in undisturbed areas in the fall, and does not show a 

sharp contrast. These photos form the basis of the current existing condition. 

Photo simulations showing full build out and post reclamation were prepared for those KOPs 

where the Project was visible. The following sections describe each KOP and the impact of the 

Proposed Action. 

4-12 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

4.15.2.1 KOP #1 – Highway 31 Southeast of Project Area 

KOP #1 is located approximately 5.7 miles from the Project Area on Highway 31 at an 

approximate 45 degree angle from the highway to the Project Area. Figure 4.15.1 shows the 

existing condition. The landscape consists of flat golden-brown patchy vegetation in the 

foreground, tan-brown, and orange-brown clumpy vegetated valley floor in the middle ground, 

and golden tan, light brown and navy rolling hills with flat to angular features in the background. 

Tucker Hill is in the background and is labeled on the photograph. The Waste Storage Area is 

also in the background parallel to the highway. The existing mining operation cannot be seen 

from this KOP and the Waste Storage Area can be identified if you know that it is in the view; 

however, it is indistinct and blends with the existing surroundings. The proposed activities would 

not be discernible from this KOP. No simulations were prepared for this KOP as there would be 

no impact from the Proposed Action to KOP #1. 

Visual contrasts are mitigated by the distance of the Project Area from this KOP. Similar lines, 

colors and textures exist that are the same as the proposed activities; therefore, the additional 

disturbance would add little, if any, contrast to the landscape. Contrast discrepancies would be 

mitigated once vegetation is reestablished at the site. Reclamation would mimic the existing 

topography on Tucker Hill minimizing impacts and meeting the requirements under VRM 

Class III. 

4.15.2.2 KOP #2 – Highway 31 Northwest of the Project Area 

KOP #2 is located on Highway 31, approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the Project Area. 

Looking south from this KOP location, Tucker Hill is a flat prominent feature that forms the 

background of the photo. Figure 4.15.2a shows the existing condition. The landscape consists of 

flat to angular golden-yellow grasses in the foreground, flat to angular golden to tan colored 

valley floor in the middle ground, and rolling hills with flat to angular features of golden tan to 

light brown to blue gray in the background. The Waste Storage Area is not visible from this 

location. The mine area shows as a thin light brown band at the top of the ridge. 

Figure 4.15.2b is a photo simulation that shows the Proposed Action at full build out. The view is 

essentially the same as the existing condition. Figure 4.15.2c is a photo simulation showing the 

landscape as it would appear post-reclamation under the Proposed Action. 

Visual contrasts are mitigated by the distance of the Project Area from this KOP. Similar lines, 

colors and textures exist that are the same as the proposed activities; therefore, the additional 

disturbance would add little, if any, contrast to the landscape. Contrast discrepancies would be 

mitigated once vegetation is reestablished at the site. Reclamation would mimic the existing 

topography on Tucker Hill, minimizing impacts and meeting the requirements under VRM 

Class III. 

4.15.2.3 KOP #3 – Highway 31 Northwest of Project Area 

KOP #3 is located on Highway 31, approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the Project Area. This 

KOP has a direct view of the Project Area while traveling south southeast on the highway. The 

existing mining operation can be seen from this KOP, but does not create much visible contrast 

4-13 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.1: KOP #1 Existing Condition 

Tucker Hill 

Waste Storage 

Area 

4-14 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.2a: KOP #2 Existing Condition 

Tucker Hill 

4-15 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.2b: KOP #2 Proposed Action at Full Build Out 

Tucker Hill 

4-16 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.2c: KOP #2 Proposed Action Post-Reclamation 

Tucker Hill 

4-17 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

to the observer. Based on the distance to the Project Area from this KOP location, it would be 

difficult to discern disturbances from existing and proposed mining activities. 

Figure 4.15.3a shows the existing condition. The landscape consists of golden yellow grasses in 

the foreground, a flat valley floor of gold to sage green vegetation in the middle ground, and 

rolling hills with flat angular features of pink tan to gold and dark navy in the background. In the 

foreground there is a fence line and a powerline. 

Figure 4.15.3b is a photo simulation that shows the Proposed Action at full build out. The view is 

essentially the same as the existing condition. Figure 4.15.3c is a photo simulation showing the 

landscape as it would appear after mining and post-reclamation under the Proposed Action. 

Reclamation would mimic the existing topography on Tucker Hill minimizing impacts and 

meeting the requirements under VRM Class III. 

4.15.2.4 KOP #4 – County Road Northwest of Project Area 

KOP #4 is located on a county road, approximately 2.2 miles from the Project Area. The Project 

Area is located west of this KOP. The existing mining operation can be seen from this KOP, but 

the visible contrast is slight. The Proposed Action would look similar to the existing condition. 

Figure 4.15.4a shows the existing condition. The landscape consists of flat dark brown and sage 

green vegetation in the foreground, a flat regular valley floor of gold to tan to brown colors in the 

middle ground, and rolling hills of tan to dark navy colors in the background. 

Figure 4.15.4b is a photo simulation that shows the Proposed Action at full build out. The view is 

essentially the same as the existing condition. Figure 4.15.4c is a photo simulation showing the 

landscape as it would appear after mining and post-reclamation under the Proposed Action. 

Reclamation would mimic the existing topography on Tucker Hill,minimizing impacts and 

meeting the requirements under VRM Class III. 

4.15.2.5 KOP #5 – Highway 31 Northeast of Project Area 

KOP #5 is located on Highway 31 approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the Project Area, and 

0.6 mile from the Waste Storage Area. The existing mining operation cannot be seen from this 

KOP. The Waste Storage Area, which is an old county gravel pit, is located in the middle 

ground. The Proposed Action includes the continued use of the Waste Storage Area for process 

waste. The view of the Waste Storage Area is likely to remain in similar stockpile forms 

throughout the life of the Project. Following reclamation, the stockpiles would be recontoured to 

fill in the county gravel pit to match the surrounding land forms. 

Figure 4.15.5a shows the existing condition. The landscape consists of gently rolling banks and 

with golden yellow vegetation in the foreground, rolling hills of tan, brown and orange-brown in 

the middle ground, and rolling hills with flat to angular features of gold to tan to light brown to 

blue gray/navy in the background. 

4-18 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.3a: KOP #3 Existing Condition 

Tucker Hill 

4-19 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.3b: KOP # 3 Proposed Action at Full Build Out 

Tucker Hill 

4-20 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.3c: KOP #3 Proposed Action Post-Reclamation 

Tucker Hill 

4-21 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.4a: KOP #4 Existing Condition 

Tucker Hill 

4-22 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.4b: KOP #4 Proposed Action at Full Build Out 

Tucker Hill 

4-23 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.4c: KOP #4 No Action Alternative at Full Reclamation 

Tucker Hill 

4-24 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.5a: KOP #5 Existing Condition 

Waste Storage 

Area 

Tucker Hill 

4-25 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.5b: KOP #5 Proposed Action at Full Build Out 

Waste Storage 

Area 

Tucker Hill 

4-26 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.5c: KOP #5 Proposed Action at Full Reclamation 

Tucker Hill 

4-27 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Figure 4.15.5b is a photo simulation that shows the Proposed Action at full build out. The view is 

essentially the same as the existing condition but with additional stockpiles. Figure 4.15.5c is a 

photo simulation showing the landscape as it would appear after mining and post-reclamation 

under the Proposed Action. Reclamation efforts would include recontouring and reseeding the 

Waste Storage Area to match the topography and vegetation of the surrounding landscape. 

Visual contrasts are mitigated by the distance of the Project Area from this KOP. Similar lines, 

colors and textures exist that are the same as the proposed activities; therefore, the additional 

disturbance would add little, if any, contrast to the landscape. Contrast discrepancies would be 

mitigated once vegetation is reestablished at the site. Reclamation would mimic the existing 

topography on Tucker Hill minimizing impacts and meeting the requirements under VRM 

Class III. 

4.16 Cumulative Impacts 

The current conditions on the land affected by the Proposed Action resulted from a multitude of 

natural and human actions that have taken place over many decades. A catalogue and analysis, 

comparison, or description of all individual past actions and their effects which have contributed 

to the current environmental conditions would be difficult to compile. Cataloguing the effects of 

each of these individual past actions would not provide a clearer understanding of the existing 

environmental conditions. It is possible to implement more accurate ways to obtain the 

information concerning those past actions which are necessary for an analysis of the “impact on 

the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” (See definition of “cumulative impact” 

in 40 CFR 1508.7.) 

A description of the current state of the affected environment inherently includes the effects of 

past actions and serves as a more accurate and useful starting point for a cumulative effects 

analysis, rather than attempting to establish such a starting point by “adding up” the described 

effects of all individual past actions. The importance of “past actions” is to set the context for 

understanding the incremental effects of the Proposed Action. This context is determined by 

combining the current conditions with available information on the expected effects of other 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Here the cataloguing and analysis of the 

effects of other similar present and reasonably foreseeable actions is necessary and has been 

described below. By comparing the total effect of the no action alternative to the effects 

described when adding the Proposed Action or any action alternative, one can discern the 

incremental cumulative impact resulting from a given alternative. 

Further, the information available on individual past actions is largely anecdotal and does not 

constitute a scientifically acceptable methodology capable of illuminating or predicting the direct 

or indirect effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives. The basis for predicting the direct 

and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives should be based on generally 

accepted scientific methodologies such as empirical research. That said, a brief discussion of the 

types of past mineral exploration and development activities that have occurred in the Lakeview 

Resource Area is included in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003b), pages 2­

90 to 2-95. This analysis provides a broader (resource area scale) context within which to 

consider the potential incremental cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action alternative. 

Mining activity occurs in three distinct categories governed by different mining laws and 

4-28 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

regulations: salable, leasable, and locatable. The proposed mining plan of operation amendment 

falls under the locatable mineral category. A discussion of the cumulative impacts of all three 

mineral activities at the resource area scale is included below. 

Appendix N1 of the Draft Lakeview RMP/EIS (BLM 2001), pages A-292 and A-293, 

summarized historic mineral activity within the resource area. In 1997 and 1998, 34 historic 

mining districts and two isolated prospect areas were inventoried to document historic, 

abandoned, or unreclaimed mining sites. A total of 491 small, individual abandoned workings 

were found, each generally under an acre in size. Abandoned mine workings are currently being 

reclaimed within the Lakeview Resource Area under the abandoned mine lands program at a rate 

of one or two sites each year based on site priority and funding. When new mineral development 

occurs in one of these old, abandoned sites, they are also reclaimed when the recent mineral 

development is done. 

A detailed discussion of historic salable mineral activity is included in Appendix N1, pages A292 to A-297 (BLM 2001). For salable minerals there are an estimated 50 to 100 existing sand, 

gravel, rock, and cinder pits scattered across the Lakeview Resource Area (Map M-3). These 

sites disturb an average of approximately 15 to 20 acres of land each, but may be as large as 

40 acres. The Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003b) estimated and analyzed opening 

15 to 30 new salable mineral sites over the life of the plan. This represents 600 to 1,200 acres of 

potential additional mining disturbance (based on an estimated average size of 40 acres), the 

impacts of which are discussed in the secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts section on 

page 4-139. Since the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS was completed, six new pits have 

been analyzed or approved for development (Walnut Orchard, Rabbit Hills, West Gulch, Winter 

Rim, Miners Draw, and Pitcher Lane). These new pits represent approximately 195 additional 

acres of surface disturbance. 

Leasable mineral activity includes all energy minerals and sodium. In 1999, there was no 

leasable mineral activity in the Lakeview Resource Area. The Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS (BLM 2003b), pages 2-90 to 2-95, and Appendix N2, pages A-215 to A-219, estimated that 

two to four oil and gas leases or geophysical activities would occur per year in the resource area 

disturbing up to 670 acres. Up to four geothermal exploration actions per year were expected 

with approximately 12 acres of disturbance. Currently, four geothermal leases totaling 250 acres 

are active and were issued in 2007, south of Paisley, Oregon. 

A discussion of locatable mineral exploration and development and historical activity is also 

included in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003b), pages 2-90 to 2-95, and in 

Appendix N2, pages A-209 to A-219. As of September 1999 (immediately prior to initiation of 

the Lakeview RMP), there were 368 active mining claims recorded in the resource area. Eighty 

percent of those claims were located in the Rabbit Basin sunstone area. The remaining claims 

were in the Tucker Hill perlite area and Christmas Valley diatomaceous earth area. In 2012, the 

total number of mining claims on the Lakeview Resource Area has increased to 439. In 1999, 

activity on these claims included 67 mining notices and two mining plans of operations. 

Disturbance for mining notices averaged 2.3 acres per notice. Disturbance for mine development 

requiring mining plans of operation ranged from five to several hundred acres. The Lakeview 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003b) estimated an average of 67 mining notices and two 

mining plans would be open at any point in time during the life of the plan (with a total estimated 

disturbance ranging from 160 to 660 acres). In 2012, there were a total of 30 mining notices and 

4-29 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

15 mining plans active. The no action alternative represents no additional or incremental acres of 

mining related surface disturbance. The Proposed Action represents an additional or incremental 

47 acres of locatable mineral surface disturbance. 

The current estimated acres of total mining related surface disturbance, including the incremental 

acres associated with the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, are well within the range 

of mineral development impacts anticipated and previously analyzed within the Lakeview 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003b; Table 1). 

In addition, cumulative impacts associated with the Tucker Hill Perlite Quarry were also 

analyzed at the basin scale in the previous EIS (BLM 1995; pages 93-95, and 1996b; page 22). 

The reader should refer to this EIS for a more detailed discussion. The following section 

addresses the incremental or additive cumulative impacts that have been identified in addition to 

the direct impacts described by specific resource sections earlier in Chapter 4. 

Table 4.16-1: Total Acres of Mining Related Disturbance in the Lakeview Resource Area 

Historic (pre-RMP) Expected after the RMP 

(2003) 

Actual to Date 

(post-RMP) 

Abandoned Mine Lands <500 0 0 

Salable 

New Pits (post 2003) 

Walnut Orchard 

Rabbit Hills 

Winter Rim 

West Gulch 

Miners Draw 

Pitcher Lane 

Miners Draw Quarry 

750–2,000 acres 600-1,200 acres 210 acres 

73 

11 

5 

1 

45 

60 

15 

Locatable 

New Operations(post 2003) 

Sunstone Exploration and 

Development 

Tucker Hill Waste Rock 

Disposal (2008) 

No estimate available 160-660 

90 acres 

80 acres 

10 acres 

Leasable 0 682 0 

As described in Tucker Hill Perlite Quarry EIS (BLM 1995; page 93), the landscape within the 

322,000-acre Chewaucan River basin has been modified greatly. The marshes have been drained 

and used for agriculture, along with the development of two small communities and roads. 

Tucker Hill has been explored for minerals since 1948 with intensive exploration beginning in 

1982. The landscape on Tucker Hill has been modified as the result of road construction, drill 

site construction, and perlite mining. Previous exploration has been rehabilitated; however, 

evidence of previous and current exploration is visible. The disposal site is located in an area of 

past and present gravel quarry operations managed by various state, county, and private 

operators. 

The surrounding Tucker Hill area is part of the larger Chewaucan River Basin that was 

historically important for Native Americans based on previous archaeological inventories in the 

Area and communication with tribal members. Tucker Hill was utilized in conjunction with other 

4-30 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

areas in the river basin as an important source of obsidian and was utilized for a variety of 

traditional activities. 

Impacts to the spiritual/religious nature of the Tucker Hill formation have occurred in the 

vicinity of the Project area due to past quarry development. Continued operation of the perlite 

mine would continue to produce visual and auditory impacts to traditional use areas inside and 

outside of the Project Area. Access to traditional use areas on Tucker Hill, which is limited due 

to mine operations and concerns for safety, as well as private property issues, would continue to 

exist. However, the Red Knoll ACEC, which was established as a replacement area for Tucker 

Hill for plant gathering, hunting and religious practices would continue to be available for these 

types of traditional uses (MOA, Appendix B). 

The BLM may also utilize weed treatments involving herbicides within the area as necessary to 

address existing or new weed infestations, both during and subsequent to mining operations. 

While the quantity or aerial extent of such future treatments is not possible to predict accurately, 

the effects of such treatments would be similar to those previously addressed in other analyses 

(BLM 2004, 2007, 2010). 

The cumulative incremental impacts of an additional 47 acres of surface disturbance on range 

resources, wildlife, soils, vegetation, air quality, land use, water quality, socioeconomics, and 

health and safety are within the range of those previously addressed in the Lakeview Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003b). 

4.17 Irreversible/Irretrievable Impacts 

Irreversible/irretrievable impacts associated with the Project include Native American 

Traditional Uses, Archeological Resources, Visual Resources, and Mineral Resources: 

•	 Native American Traditional Uses – The impacts of the proposed Project would 

permanently impact an additional 47 acres located at Tucker Hill. The impacts to Native 

American Traditional Uses include the disturbance of the area, the presence of non-native 

people within the area, visual impacts to the site and its viewshed, and the audible impact 

of the mining operation. 

•	 Archaeological Resources – Any physical removal of archeological resources would 

result in a permanent impact to archeological resources. Site 35 LK 3065 would no 

longer be available for archaeological research. However, this site has been determined 

not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Sites and Places and the 

appropriate mitigation has already been performed on the site (as determined by the 

Oregon SHPO, October 29, 1996). 

•	 Visual Resources – The expansion of the quarry would be consistent with the objectives 

prescribed for a Visual Resources Management Class III area. Irreversible impacts 

associated with the Project on visual resources would be mitigated to the extent possible 

as analyzed in this EA. 

4-31	 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

•	 Mineral Resources – The Project would result in the permanent removal of perlite from 

the Project Area. These impacts would be confined to the existing quarry and proposed 

quarry expansion. 

4-32	 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC INPUT 

5.1 List of Preparers 

Bureau of Land Management 

Todd Forbes Project Manager 

Paul Whitman Planning and Environmental Coordinator 

Steve Flock Geologist 

Vernon Stofleth Wildlife Biologist 

James Leal Fisheries Biologist 

Chris Bishop Recreation Specialist 

Bill Cannon Archaeologist 

Enviroscientists, Inc. 

Opal Adams Project Principal, Visual Resources 

Michele Lefebvre Project Manager 

Nick Mitrovich Environmental Specialist 

Gail Liebler GIS Specialist 

5.2 Persons, Groups and Agencies Contacted 

A complete compendium of people, agencies, and groups contacted is available for review at the 

BLM Lakeview office. 

5-1 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

 

 

6 LITERATURE CITED 

ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2011. Appendum to Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of 13 Sites at 

Tucker Hill, Lake County, Oregon. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

Atlas Perlite, Inc. Tucker Hill Perlite Project. Lakeview District Office. 

______. 1996a. Record of Decision and Plan of Operations Approval for Atlas Perlite, Inc. 

Lakeview District Office. 

______. 1996b. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Atlas Perlite, Inc. Tucker Hill 

Perlite Project. Lakeview District Office. 

______. 2001. Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 3 

volumes. 

______. 2003a. Lakeview Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. 2 volumes. 

Lakeview District Office. 

______. 2003b. Lakeview Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 4 volumes. 

______. 2004. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Program. Environmental Assessment 

#OR-OR-010-2004-03. 

______. 2007. Standard Operating Procedures from the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on BLM Lands in 17 Western States PEIS and ROD – Appendix B, Herbicide Treatment 

Standard Operating Procedures. September 2007. 

______. 2008. Cornerstone Industrial Minerals, Inc. Tucker Hill Quarry Plan of Operations 

Amendment. . 

______. 2008b. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1790-1. 

______. 2010. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon FEIS. 

______. 2011a. Greater Sage-grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures. IM-2012­

043. BLM Washington Office. 

______. 2011b. Wilderness Characteristics Evaluation – Tucker Hill Area. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/Tucker_Hill_wild_char_forms.pdf 

______. 2011c. Notes of wildlife present for contactor. Received December 1, 2011. 

______. 2011d. Botanical Clearance Request, June 21, 2011. 

Climate Mitigation Services. 2007. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: Minnesota Steel 

6-1 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

 

 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

Industries’ Proposed Integrated Iron Mine, DRI, Pelletizer, and 2.5 Mt/yr Steel Mill. July 

10, 2007. 

Connelly, John and Knick, Steven. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a 

Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press: Berkeley and Los 

Angeles. 

Cornerstone Industrial Minerals . 2012. History and Local Geology. 

http://www.cornerstonemineral.com/histgeo.html. 

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, 

D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 

2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, 

S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 

USA. 

Kautz Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1996. Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of 13 Sites 

at Tucker Hill, Lake County, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2011. Noxious Weeds Quarantine: Effective 9/29/2011. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/603_052_1200.shtml 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy. 

______. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan 

to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. April 2011. 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (Oregon SHPO). 1996. Tucker Hill Project, Kautz 

Environmental Consultants, Determinations of Eligibility, Effect Lake County. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Web Soil Survey. 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Unit Conversions, Emissions Factors, and 

Other Reference Data. 

______. 2009. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2007. USEPA, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 

703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755) as amended by: Chapter 634; June 20, 

1936; 49 Stat. 1556; P.L. 86-732; September 8, 1960; 74 Stat. 866; P.L. 90-578; October 

17, 1968; 82 Stat. 1118; P.L. 91-135; December 5, 1969; 83 Stat. 282; P.L. 93-300; June 

1, 1974; 88 Stat. 190; P.L. 95-616; November 8, 1978; 92 Stat. 3111; P.L. 99-645; 

November 10, 1986; 100 Stat. 3590 and P.L. 105-312; October 30, 1998; 112 Stat. 2956 

6-2 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
 

CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, INC.
 

TUCKER HILL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 

_____. 1940. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) as amended 

-- Approved June 8, 1940, and amended by P.L 86-70 (73 Stat. 143) June 25, 1959; P.L. 

87-884 (76 Stat. 1346) October 24, 1962; P.L. 92-535 (86 Stat. 1064) October 23, 1972; 

and P.L. 95-616 (92 Stat. 3114) November 8, 1978. 

_____. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Findings for Petitions 

to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or 

Endangered. Federal Register 75(5132):13910-14014. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Lakeview, Oregon. Factfinder.census.gov. 

Winthrop, Robert. 1995. Tucker Hill Quarry Project, Tribal Consultation. 

6-3 Tucker Hill EA_122012 
APPENDIX A
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Form 8400-4 

(September 1985) 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Date: 1/17/2012 

District: Lakeview DistrictOffice 

VI SUAL CONTRAST RATI NG WORKSH EET 

Resource Area: Lakeview 

Activity (program):43 CFR 3809: Minerals 

SECTION A. PROJECT INFORMATION 

1. Project Name: Cornerstone IndustrialMineralsCorp.Tucker HillPerlite 4. Location 5. LocationSketch: 

MineExpansion Township 34South 

Range 19East 

Sections 23-26,35 

AlsoSee PhotoandMap Highway 31 

WasteStorage 

4716372N 

718862E N 

TuckerHill 

KOP#1 

2. KeyObservationPoint: KOP #1 

3. VRM Class: Class III 

SECTION B. CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2.VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Patchy 

MG -Clumpy 

BG -Homogeneous 

FG – Near vertical road 

MG – Diagonal fence 

BG – NA 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal road 

MG -Horizontal 

BG - Horizontal, rolling, undulating to angular 

FG – Irregular 

MG – Undulating 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG –Diagonal 

BG – NA 

COLOR

FG – Gray road, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Gold -tan to light brown to blue-gray/navy 

FG - Golden -brown 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Golden tan, light brown, navy 

FG – Dark Gray w/ white stripe 

MG – Brown 

BG – NA 

TEXTURE 

FG – Coarse-grained/very fine-grained 

MG – Course-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained to medium-grained 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – NA 

SECTION C. PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2. VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Patchy 

MG -Clumpy 

BG -Homogeneous 

FG – Near vertical road 

MG – Diagonal fence 

BG – NA 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal road 

MG -Horizontal 

BG - Horizontal, rolling, undulating to angular 

FG – Irregular 

MG – Undulating 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG –Diagonal 

BG – NA 

COLOR

FG – Gray road, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Gold -tan to light brown to blue-gray/navy 

FG - Golden -brown 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Golden tan, light brown, navy 

FG – Dark Gray w/ white stripe 

MG – Brown 

BG – NA 

TEXTURE 

FG – Coarse-grained/very fine-grained 

MG – Course-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained to medium-grained 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – NA 

SECTION D. CONTRAST RATING X SHORT TERM  LONG TERM 

1. FEATURES 2. Does pr oject design meet visual r esour ce 

management objectives? X Yes  No 

DEGREE (Explain on r ever se side) 

LAND/WATER 

BODY 

(1) 

VEGETATION 

(2) 

STRUCTURES 

(3) 

OF 3. Additional mitigating measur es r ecommended? 

CONSTRAST 

StrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNone 

 Yes X No (Explain on r ever se side) 

Evaluator’s Names Date 

Opal Adams 1/17/2012 

Photostaken by Steve Flock (BLM) in Fall 2011 

ELEMENTS

Form X X X 

Line X X X 

Color X X X 
 

 

 

 

 

Texture X X X 

SECTION D. (Continued) 

Comments from item 2. Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape could be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

The existing mining operation cannot be seen from this KOP. The Waste Storage Area can be seen but is indistinct and blends 

with the existing surroundings. The proposed activities would not be discernible from this KOP. 

Additional Mitigating Measures (See item 3) 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-461-988/33094 
Existing Condition from KOP #1 

Tucker Hill 

Waste Storage 

Area 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Form 8400-4 

(September 1985) 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Date: 1/17/2012 

District: Lakeview DistrictOffice 

VI SUAL CONTRAST RATI NG WORKSH EET 

Resource Area: Lakeview 

Activity (program):43 CFR 3809: Minerals 

SECTION A. PROJECT INFORMATION 

1. Project Name: Cornerstone IndustrialMineralsCorp.Tucker HillPerlite 

MineExpansion 

4. Location 

Township 34South 

Range 19East 

Sections 23-26,35 

5. LocationSketch: 

AlsoSee PhotoandMap H ighway 31 

KOP#2 

4721313N 

705915 E N 

TuckerHill 

2. KeyObservationPoint: KOP #2 

3. VRM Class: Class III 

SECTION B. CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2.VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Perpendicular to angular 

MG -Flat 

BG -Patchy 

FG – Horizontal to vertical Fence line & road post 

MG – Square, blocky, buildings 

BG – Flat berms from mining operation 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal fence line 

MG -Horizontal 

BG - Horizontal to angular 

FG – Angular -vertical 

MG – Slight diagonal to horizontal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG – Horizontal and Vertical 

BG -Horizontal 

COLOR

FG – Gray soils, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Gold to tan 

BG – Gold -tan to light brown to blue-gray 

FG - Golden 

MG - Golden 

BG – Golden tan 

FG – White, red, brown 

MG – Gray, white, brown 

BG – Tan to light brown 

TEXTURE 

FG – Coarse-grained 

MG – Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained to coarse 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – Fine Grained 

SECTION C. PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2. VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Perpendicular to angular 

MG -Flat 

BG -Patchy 

FG – Horizontal to vertical Fence line & road post 

MG – Square, blocky, buildings 

BG – Flat berms from mining operation 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal fence line 

MG -Horizontal 

BG - Horizontal to angular 

FG – Angular -vertical 

MG – Slight diagonal to horizontal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG – Horizontal and Vertical 

BG -Horizontal 

COLOR

FG – Gray soils, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Gold to tan 

BG – Gold -tan to light brown to blue-gray 

FG - Golden 

MG - Golden 

BG – Golden tan 

FG – White, red, brown 

MG – Gray, white, brown 

BG – Tan to light brown 

TEXTURE 

FG – Coarse-grained 

MG – Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained to coarse 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – Fine Grained 

SECTION D. CONTRAST RATING X SHORT TERM  LONG TERM 

1. 

DEGREE 

OF 

CONSTRAST 

FEATURES 2. Does pr oject design meet visual r esour ce 

management objectives? X Yes  No 

(Explain on r ever se side) 

LAND/WATER 

BODY 

(1) 

VEGETATION 

(2) 

STRUCTURES 

(3) 

StrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNone 

3. Additional mitigating measur es r ecommended? 

 Yes X No (Explain on r ever se side) 

Evaluator’s Names Date 

Opal Adams 1/17/2012 

ELEMENTS

Photostaken by Steve Flock (BLM) in Fall 2011 

Form X X X 

Line X X X 

Color X X X 

Texture X X X 
 

 

 

 

SECTION D. (Continued) 

Comments from item 2. Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should 

not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

The proposed activities include an expansion of existing operations on a flat hill top. Visual Contrasts are mitigated by the 

distance from the KOP. Similar lines, colors, and textures exist that are the same as the proposed activities; therefore, the 

additional disturbance will add little, if any, contrast to the landscape. The contrast will be mitigated once vegetation is 

reestablished at the site. 

Additional Mitigating Measures (See item 3) 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-461-988/33094 
Existing Condition from KOP #2 

Tucker Hill 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Form 8400-4 

(September 1985) 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Date: 1/17/2012 

District: Lakeview DistrictOffice 

VI SUAL CONTRAST RATI NG WORKSH EET 

Resource Area: Lakeview 

Activity (program):43 CFR 3809: Minerals 

SECTION A. PROJECT INFORMATION 

1. Project Name: Cornerstone IndustrialMineralsCorp.Tucker HillPerlite 

MineExpansion 

4. Location 

Township 34South 

Range 19East 

Sections 23-26,35 

5. LocationSketch: 

AlsoSee PhotoandMap 

4723120N 

703719E N 

KOP#3 

2. KeyObservationPoint: KOP #3 

3. VRM Class: Class III 

SECTION B. CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2.VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Perpendicular to angular, clumps 

MG – Flat to clumpy 

BG -Patchy 

FG – Diagonal Road and fence 

MG – Diagonal power line, horizontal-vert. buildings 

BG – Flat berm from Tucker Hill Mine 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal fenceline, power line& road 

MG -Horizontal 

BG - Horizontal to undulating to angular 

FG – Angular -vertical 

MG – Diagonal to horizontal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal to undulating 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG – Horizontal , Vertical, diagonal 

BG – Horizontal , curvy 

COLOR

FG – Dark Gray road, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Gold to tan to sage green 

BG – Pink-tan to dark navy 

FG - Golden 

MG - Golden & sage green 

BG – Golden tan to pink 

FG – Dark gray, brown, red 

MG – Brown, gray, white 

BG –Light-medium pinkish brown 

TEXTURE 

FG – Very fine-grained to coarse-grained 

MG – Fine-grained w/ coarse-grained clumps 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine -Grained 

SECTION C. PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2. VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Perpendicular to angular, clumps 

MG – Flat to clumpy 

BG -Patchy 

FG – Diagonal Road and fence 

MG – Diagonal power line,horizontal-vert. buildings 

BG – Flat berm from Tucker Hill Mine 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonalfence line, power line& road 

MG -Horizontal 

BG - Horizontal to undulating to angular 

FG – Angular -vertical 

MG – Diagonal to horizontal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal to undulating 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG – Horizontal , Vertical, diagonal 

BG – Horizontal , curvy 

COLOR

FG – Dark Gray road, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Gold to tan to sage green 

BG – Pink-tan to dark navy 

FG - Golden 

MG - Golden & sage green 

BG – Golden tan to pink 

FG – Dark gray, brown, red 

MG – Brown, gray, white 

BG –Light pinkish brown 

TEXTURE 

FG – Very fine-grained to coarse-grained 

MG – Fine-grained w/ coarse-grained clumps 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine -Grained 

SECTION D. CONTRAST RATING X SHORT TERM  LONG TERM 

1. 

DEGREE 

OF 

CONSTRAST 

FEATURES 2. Does pr oject design meet visual r esour ce 

management objectives? X Yes  No 

(Explain on r ever se side) 

LAND/WATER 

BODY 

(1) 

VEGETATION 

(2) 

STRUCTURES 

(3) 

StrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNone 

3. Additional mitigating measur es r ecommended? 

 Yes X No (Explain on r ever se side) 

Evaluator’s Names Date 

Opal Adams 1/17/2012 

Photostaken by Steve Flock (BLM) in Fall 2011 

ELEMENTS

Form X X X 

Line X X X 

Color X X X 

Texture X X X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION D. (Continued) 

Comments from item 2. Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should 

not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

The existing mining operation can be seen from this KOP but does not create much contrast. The proposed activities would 

essentially look the same as the existing condition. It would be difficult to discern a difference in the size of the disturbance due to 

the distance from the KOP. 

Additional Mitigating Measures (See item 3) 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-461-988/33094 
Existing Condition from KOP #3 

Tucker Hill 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Form 8400-4 

(September 1985) 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Date: 1/17/2012 

District: Lakeview DistrictOffice 

VI SUAL CONTRAST RATI NG WORKSH EET 

Resource Area: Lakeview 

Activity (program):43 CFR 3809: Minerals 

SECTION A. PROJECT INFORMATION 

1. Project Name: Cornerstone IndustrialMineralsCorp.Tucker HillPerlite 

MineExpansion 

4. Location 

Township 34South 

Range 19East 

Sections 23-26,35 

5. LocationSketch: 

AlsoSee PhotoandMap KOP#4 

4719113N 

705218E N TuckerHill 

2. Key ObservationPoint: KOP #4 

3. VRM Class: Class III 

SECTION B. CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2.VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG –Clumps 

MG – Distinct clumps 

BG -Patchy 

FG – Diagonal Road and fence 

MG – Horizontal powerline 

BG – Thin flat berm at Tucker Hill Mine 

LINE 

FG –Diagonal 

MG – Horizontal, Diagonal 

BG - Horizontal to undulating to angular 

FG – Irregular 

MG – Horizontal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal to undulating 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG – Vertical 

BG – Horizontal 

COLOR

FG – Dark Gray road, sage green shrubs 

MG - Gold to tan to brown 

BG – Tan to dark navy 

FG - Dark brown, sage green 

MG - Golden tan, light green 

BG – Golden tan to navy blue 

FG – Dark gray 

MG – Brown 

BG –Light-brown 

TEXTURE 

FG – Very fine-grained to coarse-grained 

MG – Fine-grained w/ coarse-grained clumps 

BG – Very fine-grained w/ coarse clumps 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained w/ coarse clumps 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine -Grained 

SECTION C. PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2. VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Flat 

MG -Flat, regular valley floor 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG –Clumps 

MG – Distinct clumps 

BG -Patchy 

FG – Diagonal Road and fence 

MG – Horizontal powerline 

BG – Thin flat berm at Tucker Hill Mine 

LINE 

FG –Diagonal 

MG – Horizontal, Diagonal 

BG - Horizontal to undulating to angular 

FG – Irregular 

MG – Horizontal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal to undulating 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG – Vertical 

BG – Horizontal 

COLOR

FG – Dark Gray road, sage green shrubs 

MG - Gold to tan to brown 

BG – Tan to dark navy 

FG - Dark brown, sage green 

MG - Golden tan, light green 

BG – Golden tan to navy blue 

FG – Dark gray 

MG – Brown 

BG –Light-brown 

TEXTURE 

FG – Very fine-grained to coarse-grained 

MG – Fine-grained w/ coarse-grained clumps 

BG – Very fine-grained w/ coarse clumps 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained w/ coarse clumps 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – Very fine -Grained 

SECTION D. CONTRAST RATING X SHORT TERM  LONG TERM 

1. 

DEGREE 

OF 

CONSTRAST 

FEATURES 2. Does pr oject design meet visual r esour ce 

management objectives? X Yes  No 

(Explain on r ever se side) 

LAND/WATER 

BODY 

(1) 

VEGETATION 

(2) 

STRUCTURES 

(3) 

StrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNone 

3. Additional mitigating measur es r ecommended? 

 Yes X No (Explain on r ever se side) 

Evaluator’s Names Date 

Opal Adams 1/17/2012 

Photostaken by Steve Flock (BLM) in Fall 2011 

ELEMENTS

Form X X X 

Line X X X 

Color X X X 

Texture X X X 
 

 

 

 

 

SECTION D. (Continued) 

Comments from item 2. Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should 

not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

The existing mining operation can barely be seen from this KOP but does not create noticeable contrast. The proposed activities 

would essentially look the same as the existing condition. The size would increase slightly but this would not be readily apparent 

to the casual observer. 

Additional Mitigating Measures (See item 3) 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-461-988/33094 
 

Existing Condition from KOP #4 

Tucker Hill 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Form 8400-4 

(September 1985) 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Date: 1/17/2012 

District: Lakeview DistrictOffice 

VI SUAL CONTRAST RATI NG WORKSH EET 

Resource Area: Lakeview 

Activity (program):43 CFR 3809: Minerals 

SECTION A. PROJECT INFORMATION 

1. Project Name: Cornerstone IndustrialMineralsCorp.Tucker HillPerlite 4. Location 5. LocationSketch: 

MineExpansion Township 34South 

Range 19East 

Sections 23-26,35 

AlsoSee PhotoandMap Highway 31 

WasteStorage 

4719847N 

719847E N 

2. KeyObservationPoint: KOP #5 

3. VRM Class: Class III 

SECTION B. CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2.VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Rolling banks and flat water (ice) 

MG – Rolling hills 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Patchy 

MG -Clumpy 

BG -Homogeneous 

FG – Diagonal road andfence 

MG – Pyramidal stockpiles 

BG – NA 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal road 

MG – Horizontal , pyramidal 

BG - Horizontal, rolling, undulating to angular 

FG – Diagonal 

MG – Horizontal to diagonal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG –Pyramidal 

BG – NA 

COLOR

FG – Gray road, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Gold -tan to light brown to blue-gray/navy 

FG - Golden -yellow 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Golden yellow, navy 

FG – Dark Gray road/red posts 

MG – Dark gray 

BG – NA 

TEXTURE 

FG – Coarse-grained/ fine-grained 

MG – Course-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained to medium-grained 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – NA 

SECTION C. PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 

1. LAND/WATER 2. VEGETATION 3. STRUCTURES 

FORM

FG - Rolling banks and flat water (ice) 

MG – Rolling hills 

BG – Rolling hills w/ flat to angular features 

FG – Patchy 

MG -Clumpy 

BG -Homogeneous 

FG – Diagonal road and fence 

MG – Pyramidal stockpiles 

BG – NA 

LINE 

FG – Angular diagonal road 

MG – Horizontal , pyramidal 

BG - Horizontal, rolling, undulating to angular 

FG – Diagonal 

MG – Horizontal to diagonal 

BG – Horizontal to diagonal 

FG – Diagonal, vertical 

MG –Pyramidal 

BG – NA 

COLOR

FG – Gray road, golden yellow grasses 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Gold -tan to light brown to blue-gray/navy 

FG - Golden -yellow 

MG - Tan, brown, orange-brown 

BG – Golden yellow, navy 

FG – Dark Gray road/red posts 

MG – Dark gray 

BG – NA 

TEXTURE 

FG – Coarse-grained/ fine-grained 

MG – Course-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained to medium-grained 

FG – Very coarse 

MG – Coarse-grained 

BG – Very fine-grained 

FG – Fine-grained 

MG-Fine-grained 

BG – NA 

SECTION D. CONTRAST RATING X SHORT TERM  LONG TERM 

1. 

DEGREE 

OF 

CONSTRAST 

FEATURES 2. Does pr oject design meet visual r esour ce 

management objectives? X Yes  No 

(Explain on r ever se side) 

LAND/WATER 

BODY 

(1) 

VEGETATION 

(2) 

STRUCTURES 

(3) 

StrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNoneStrongModerateWeakNone 

3. Additional mitigating measur es r ecommended? 

 Yes X No (Explain on r ever se side) 

Evaluator’s Names Date 

Opal Adams 1/17/2012 

Photostaken by Steve Flock (BLM) in Fall 2011 

ELEMENTS

Form X X X 

Line X X X 

Color X X X 

Texture X X X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION D. (Continued) 

Comments from item 2. Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape could be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

The existing mining operation cannot be seen from this KOP. The Waste Storage Area, which is located in an existing gravel pit 

can be seen in the middleground. The proposed activities include the use of this storage area but also propose alternate waste 

storage at the mine site. The view is likely to remain as it is with pyramidal stockpile forms. Following reclamation, the stockpiles 

will be recontoured to match surrounding land forms. 

Additional Mitigating Measures (See item 3) 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-461-988/33094 
Existing Condition from KOP #5 

Waste Storage 

Area 
APPENDIX B
 
RECEIVED 

MAY J U 1996t 

LAKEViEW, B.l.M. 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

among 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORICAL PRESERVATION 

and 

USDI, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, LAKEVIEW DISTRICT 

and 

OREGON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

regarding 

TUCKER Hll..L MINING PROJECT 

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) 

WHEREAS, the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) has determined that the Tucker Hill 

Mining Project will have an effect upon properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places, and has consulted with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and, 

WHEREAS, the BLM has consulted with The Klamath Tribes and Bums Paiute Tribe, and 

has invited them to concur in this agreement; and, 

WHEREAS, the BLM has determined an archaeological district, eligible to the National 

Register ofHistoric Places, is located within the area ofeffect ofthe proposed project; and, 

WHEREAS, The Klamath Tn'bes and Bums Paiute Tribe have informed BLM that the district 

retains values oftraditional cultural importance to the tribes; and, 

WHEREAS, the BLM has consulted with the Atlas Corporation (Atlas), project proponent, 

and has invited them to concur in this agreement; 

NOW, TIIEREFORE, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), BLM and 

the Oregon SHPO agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following 

stipulations in order to take into account the effect ofthe undertaking on historic properties. 

Stipulations 

The BLM will ensure the following measures are carried out: 

A. 	 The Testing Plan for Archaeological Sites Located at Tucker Hill (Attachment A), designed 

to determine the informational values of the archaeological properties within the area of 

potential effect (APE) in relation to their informational contribution to the Archaeological 

District, is fully implemented and results evaluated in consultation with the SHPO, The 

Klamath Tribes, and the Bums Paiute Tribe; 
2 

B. 	 The BLM in consultation with The Klamath Tribes and Burns Paiute Tribe and Atlas shall 

attempt to identify measures that may diminish impacts of the project on the traditional 

cultural values ofthe project area Any such measures identified and agreed to among these 

parties shall be specified in an attachment (Attachment B) to this agreement and submitted 

to the SHPO and Council for review. 

1. 	 The SHPO and Council shall be provided 30 days from receipt to concur or reject the 

measures. 

2. 	 Ifthe SHPO and Council concur in the measures, they shall be incorporated into this 

agreement by attachment, and shall carry the full force ofthis agreement. 

3. 	 If either the SHPO or Council object to the measures, the BLM shall resolve the 

objection in accordance with Stipulation D ofthis Agreement. 

C. 	 The BLM shall ensure that a Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) is developed in 

consultation with the parties to this agreement. The HPTP shall integrate information derived 

from the implementation ofthe Testing Plan (see Stipulation A) and through consultation with 

the Tnbes regarding traditional cultural values and the agreed upon mitigation measures. If 

archaeological data recovecy is warranted, the HPTP shall include a research design and shall 

be consistent with the Secretary oflnlerior's Standards and Guidelinesfor Archeological 

Documentation (48 FR 44734-37), take into account the ACHP publication, Treatment of 

Archeological Properties (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1980), &4dress 

responsibility for curation and/ or disposition of cultural and archaeological artifacts 

obtained through implementation of the Treatment plan in conformance with 43 CFR 79 

and 43 CFR 10, and include discovery procedures integrating 36 CFR 800.11 and 43 CFR 

10. 

D. 	 Should the parties to this agreement object in a timely manner to any documents or actions 

provided or conducted under the terms ofthis agreement, the BLM shall consult with the 

objecting party to resolve the objection. Ifthe BLM determines that the objection cannot be 

resolved, the BLM shall forward the documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council. 

1. 	 Within 30 days ofreceipt ofall pertinent documentation, the Council shall provide the 

BLM with recommendations, which the BLM shall take into account in reaching a 

final decision regarding the dispute. 

2. 	 Ifthe dispute merits a high level resolution, the Council may issue comments to the 

BLM Director for consideration. 

The BLM' s responsibility to carry out all actions under this agreement that are not the 

subjects ofthe dispute shall remain unchanged. 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

By:W~ (Ed Singleton:DiStri(i er) 

Date: U-P>-4 Jo 

OREGOr STA~~TORIC PRESERVATION OHICER 

By:(/ -......... ~~ Date: y/0.~ (James M. Hamrick, Deputy SHPO) 

IDSTORIC PRESERVATION 

By: ---.f-.,L-l.di!:~::::......u~_.._L.UJJZ16..::::::::.__ Date: d ~/(Y (Robert D. Bus 

3 

E. The BLM, SHPO, and Council may seek to terminate the Agreement by providing thirty 

(30) days written notice to the other parties of their intent. Consultations during this 

period will be undertaken to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would 

avoid termination. 

F. In the event this agreement is terminated and negotiations do not produce a revised 

agreement, the BLM will comply with 36 CFR Section 800.6(b) with regard to the 

undertaking covered by this Agreement. 

G. No member or delegate of Congress or state legislator, or resident Commissioner, shall 

be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise 

therefrom, but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if made 

with a corporation for its general benefit. 

This MOA shall remain in effect from the date of signing by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation through December 31, 1996, and may be renewed pending concurrence of all parties. 

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the BLM, the Oregon SHPO, and the 

Council, and implementation of its terms, evidence that the BLM has afforded the Council an 

opportunity to comment on the mining project and its effects on historic properties, and that the BLM 

has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. 
4 

By: CO~ U/_.k, BURN~ 

(Wanda Johnson, Ch --

Date: If; ~ ,.:U> -.f~ 

CONCUR by the A1LAS CORPORATION 

By.~L (Jo , P ~ect M er) 

Date: S: 7-%, 
.· 


Attachment A 


A Testing Plan for Archaeological Sites Located at 


Tucker Hill, Lake County, Oregon 


Prepared by 

Kautz Environmental Consultants. Inc. 

March 1996 
JUN-19-96 WED 3:00 PM NAPOLS FA ., !'"~ 

.' ..... '].. ~·J. 503 294 1429 P. 2 

Attachment B 


Measures for Diminishing Impacts on Traditional Cultural Uses of Tucker Hill 


The following rr.easures have been identified and agreed upon by parties to this agreement 

and shall be incorporated into the project's Historic Properties Treatment Plan: 

1. BLM agrees to provide an archeological monitor, in addition to the standard project 

compliance monitor, during site construction, consisting of one (i) day per week during 

the initial construction phase (approximately 4 weeks) and subsequent periods of quarry 

entargement. 

2. Atlas agrees to pay salary and expenses for one member of either Tribe (Tribes may 

rotate weeks) to serve as archeological project monitors every day during the initial ground 

disturbing activities of construction phase (approximately four weeks) and subsequent 

periods of quarry enlargement to monitor construction activities and curb potential illegal 

artifact collection and during periods of archeological testing and mitigation work except in 

instances in which Atlas or its contractors are performing ground disturbing work at 

multiple sites simultaneously. In such circumstance, Atlas agrees to pay salary and 

expenses for additional tribal monitors at each work site where ground disturbing activities 

occur. 

For purposes of this agreement, ground disturbing activities means disturbance of 

surface soils and rocks by any mechanical means normally associated with construction. 

It does not include blasting of bedrock after soil and earth have been removed by other 

means. 

3. BLM agrees to work with the tribes to identify and designate an alternate plant 

collecting site(s), preferably within the Chewaucan/Lake Abert region. 

4. Atlas agrees to negotiate with the private landowner (East 1/2 of Section 23) on 

behalf Clf the tribes to provide reasonable vehicle acce~s to public lands on Tucker Hill for 

tribal activities (including plant collecting, religious practices, education, and monitoting) 

during the life of the project. Atlas also agrees to accommodate the tribal use of the area 

by not hauling materials or blasting on the specified days. The Tribes agree to give a 

minimum of two weeks advance notice when requesting the specified days except five 

days notice will be required for root gathering. 

5. ~.tlas agrees to have their archaeological contractor, Kautz Environmental 

Consultants, ernp!oy a minimum of one qualified member of the Burns Paiute Tribe and 

one qualified member of the Klamath Tribe as a part of site testing and mitigation crevvs. 

Such employment is dependent upon the employment application and the employment 

acceptance by qualified tribal members. 

Bl.M: rnocoltb.doc 

1evisec 6/19/96 
JUN-19-96 WED 3:00 PM NAPOLS "":!. ... , ..... . FAX NO. 503 294 1429 P. 3 

6. BLM and the Tribes will negotiate a long-term curation agreement for 

archaeological materials acquired from archaeological site testing and mitigation efforts at 

tribal facilities consistent with Federal rules for curation (36CFR79). Until such time that 

long term curation agreements are negotiated, the BLM, the Tribes and Atlas agreed that 

the Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon shall be the designated facility for 

curation of archaeological materials acquired from archaeological site testing and 

mitigation efforts. Atlas agrees to have their archaeological contractor, Kautz 

Environmental Consultants, designate the Museum of Natural History, University of 

Oregon as lhe designated facility for curation of archaeological materials acquired from 

archaeological site testing and mitigation efforts. 

7. Atlas agrees to provide direct notice to the Tribes of any further development and/ 

or enlargement of the project area beyond the currently approved Plan of Operations. 

This notice is in addition to any notice that Atlas may be required to provide to the BlM. 

8. The Tribes will identify rock rings within the area of direct impact which are 

religious sites to be removed and relocated prior to any construction or mining activities by 

Atlas. Atlas agrees to have their archaeological contractor, Kautz Environmental 

Consultants, record the sites. The Tribes will be responsible for any archaeological 

testing of these rings and shall remove the rings pursuant to tribal customs and religious 

practices. The Tribes, in consultation with BLM and Atlas, will relocate the rights to an 

appropriate location. Atlas agrees to bear the costs to remove, record and relocate the 

rock rings. 

9. BLM, Atlas, and the Tribes agree that Phase II of the Historic Properties Treatment 

Plan to be prepared by Kautz Environmental Consultants will Incorporate the following 

actions: 

In areas identified as areas of indirect impact, Kautz Environmental Consultants, 

Atlas' archaeological contractor, will establish perimeters within sites identified by 

the archaeological survey as high density areas in the original survey and will 

record general features associated within these sites. The Tribes will inventory and 

record archaeological features within the perimeters and maintain tribal records of 

these-features. 

10. BLM agrees to protect documents containing archeological data gathered by Kautz 

Environmental Consultants pursuant to the Historic Treatment Plan as confidential 

documents not subject to release under federal and state laws. 

BlM: mcoottb.doc 

1evised 5/19/96 2