NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA #OR-010-2004-05)

AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR

GREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT

The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, has analyzed a proposal and several

alternatives to replace the existing fire lookout facility located on Green Mountain in northern

Lake County, Oregon. An EA and FONSI have been prepared to document the potential

impacts of the proposed action. Copies of the documents are available for review by writing to

the Lakeview District Office, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630, or by calling Bob

Crumrine or Paul Whitman at (541) 947-2177. The documents are also available on the BLM‟s

website at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/index.php. Those wishing to provide

comments on the proposal must do so, in writing, by May 14, 2009.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Green Mountain Lookout

EA# OR-OIO-2004-05

The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, has analyzed a proposal and several alternatives to replace the existing fire lookout facility located on Green Mountain in north Lake County, Oregon. The new lookout would include water and shower systems, security systems, heating, bathroom, structure improvements, fire-finders, and interior furnishings. The alternatives vary in the amount ofnew access road or road realignment work that would be required.

The proposed project is in conformance with applicable land use plans and policies. There are no flood plains, wetlands, riparian areas, water quality, fish or aquatic habitat, threatened, endangered, special status or sensitive species, prime or unique farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, areas ofcritical environmental concern, research natural areas, designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, or other lands with wilderness characteristics, or wild horses in the project area. Based on the analysis contained in the attached EA, there would be no impacts to land status, energy or mineral resources, low income/minority populations, or climate. No significant impacts would occur to air quality, geology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, livestock grazing, visual quality, or recreation. Botanical and cultural surveys have been conducted. No special status plant species occur in the project area. Cultural survey found no sites within project area.

On the basis of the analysis contained in the attached EA and all other available information, my determination is that none of the alternatives analyzed would constitute a major federal action which would adversely impact the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is unnecessary and will not be prepared.

\1Z <!' ~.~.c. Yd&~ Thomas E. Rasmussen, Manager Date Lakeview Resource Area

EA Number: OR-010-2005-05

PROJECT TITLE/TYPE: GREEN MOUNTAIN FIRE LOOKOUT RELOCATION

PROJECT LOCATION: Township 25 South, Range 18 East, Section 19 in north central Lake

County, Oregon (see attached maps).

BLM OFFICE: Lakeview District

Bureau of Land Management

1301 South G Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE PLAN: The proposed project is subject to

one or more of the following BLM land use plans, policies, or programmatic environmental analyses:

Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision (2003)

Lakeview District Fire Management Plan (2004)

Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program (2004)

Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy (1998)

Fort Rock Fire Management Plan (1996)

PURPOSE and NEED FOR ACTION: The existing Green Mountain Lookout is located southeast

of the Fort Rock Guard Station and overlooks the northern portion of the Lakeview District, BLM,

which has a high summer wildfire occurrence. The wildfire occurrence is so high in this area that the

Fort Rock Fire Management Plan (1996) was developed to guide fire suppression decisions. The

lookout facility directly supports the fire suppression program in north Lake County.

The lookout facility was originally constructed in the late 1970's and has been utilized by many

inter-agency cooperators. The current condition of the structure is poor and unsafe. Problems

exist with a leaking propane system for heating, cooking, and refrigeration. The catwalk,

stairway, and second story floor have areas of large cracks, rotted beams, and loose railings. The

water system has been damaged by vandalism. The roof is in need of repair. The windows and

solar panels have been vandalized. A shower facility is needed. The entire lookout needs new

interior furnishings and rodent-proofing.

The insulation in the walls and ceiling of the bottom floor were removed due to past rodent

damage and to try to reduce the area rodents could occupy in the future. The facility used to

house a seasonal employee, but this can no longer be accommodated due to the poor facility

conditions. The main areas of concern are: security (protection from vandalism), repair of the

damaged propane and water systems, improve the structural soundness, and addition of lavatory

facilities.

The facility is located directly off of a designated Back Country Byway which invites more

people to travel through the area. This has resulted in increased vandalism in recent years due, in

large part, to the relative ease of accessibility and the lack of seasonal resident or other security

features at the facility.

A new lookout facility is needed to replace the current facility to ensure continued fire watch

capability over this high-fire occurrence area during the fire season. Costs for basic repair of the

deteriorating facility and vandalism have reached the point where it would be more cost effective

to construct a new lookout.

DESCRIPTION of PROPOSED ACTION: the proposed action is to provide a safe working

environment for fire lookout activities in the Green Mountain area.

ALTERNATIVES:

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE – Under this alternative, the existing structure on Green

Mountain would continue to be used for fire lookout activities. During fire season (Memorial

Day weekend to the beginning of fall rains (usually in late October)), a seasonal employee would

be stationed on-site during the day with the primary responsibility of locating new wildfire

ignitions, but the employee would not reside in the facility. Even with annual repair, the facility

would continue to age and the condition of the facility would continue to decline and become

less functional over time.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – Under this alternative, the existing Green Mountain lookout structure

would be torn down and a new structure would be constructed on the current site. The new

lookout facility would include water and shower systems, security systems, heating, bathroom

facilities, structure improvements, fire-finders, and interior furnishings.

BLM Road 6109-00 would be re-aligned below the current road alignment so that public traffic

would bypass the lookout (Map 2). Cinder material for the road relocation would come from the

existing pit located just south of the existing lookout. The existing road to the top of Green

Mountain would be left in place, but a security gate would be constructed at the road entrance so

the site could be closed to non-administrative vehicle traffic. Public foot access would still be

allowed.

Prior to demolition of the existing structure, an analysis of possible material hazards would be

completed by contractor licensed to handle hazardous materials. Demolition debris would be

taken to a licensed landfill.

An employee would seasonally reside in the new facility, typically from Memorial Day weekend

to the beginning of fall rains (usually in late October), with the primary responsibility of locating

new wildfire ignitions. This would aid in facility security and prevent future vandalism.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – Under this alternative, a new lookout would be built on a different location

on East Green Mountain. The new lookout facility would include water and shower systems,

security systems, heating, bathroom facilities, structure improvements, fire-finders, and interior

furnishings.

A new access route would be constructed from the Green Mountain Cinder Pit (Map 2). If

needed, the existing cinder pit access road would be repaired following construction activities.

Cinder material for the new access road and/or road repair would come from the existing pit. A

security gate would be constructed at the road entrance to close the site to non-administrative

vehicle traffic. Public foot access would still be allowed.

The existing structure would either be removed, as described for Alternative 1, or turned into a

recreation site as part of a program that renovates historic fire lookout facilities and then rents

them to people who wish to stay there. This renovation activity would be dependent upon the

availability of future recreation funding sources and would require a separate NEPA analysis

prior to renovation.

An employee would seasonally reside in the new facility, similar to Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3 – Under this alternative, a new lookout would be built on East Green

Mountain similar to Alternative 2. A new access route would be constructed from BLM Road

6109-00 (Map 2). Cinder material for the new access road would come from the existing pit.

The existing lookout structure would be demolished or renovated as described for Alternative 2.

Best Management Practices Common to Alternatives 1-3

There are no riparian areas, perennial stream banks, or other waters of concern that would receive

any sediment from the proposed road construction activities. Best Management Practices

(BMPs) would be incorporated into the alternative road construction alignments to include

drainage features and culvert installation where necessary and construction of an all-weather road

base and surface to prevent mud and sediment run-off.

Natural drainage features would be maintained and straw bales or other sediment control would

be placed until the roadway is completed to contain sediment.

BLM Road 6109-00 would be re-aligned/constructed with an all weather surface. This would

prevent the need for vehicles to leave the roadway and drive around mudholes/standing water

during poor weather conditions, resulting in a smaller footprint of the roadway.

Other BMPs would include washing construction vehicles/equipment prior to coming on-site to

prevent spread of noxious weeds during construction.

To minimize potential hazardous material spill impacts, the contractor or operator responsible for

implementing the project shall develop and submit to the Authorized Officer a HAZMAT spill

contingency plan prior to beginning construction or demolition. Should a spill or release of

hazardous material occur, the contractor/operator will follow the contingency plan.

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

A fifth alternative was considered consisting of initiating a major renovation of the existing

lookout structure. This alternative was removed from detailed analysis because it was

determined to be too costly, and there would still be problems with vandalism and site security.

A sixth alternative considered was removal of the existing structure, site rehabilitation, and no

subsequent fire lookout surveillance provided from Green Mountain during fire season. The use

of aerial surveillance instead of a manned lookout was considered as part of this alternative, but

was determined to not be feasible because of high cost and incomplete coverage. This alternative

was dropped from further analysis because it would not meet the needs of the wildfire

management program.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Location and Topography

The existing Green Mountain lookout and the proposed new lookout sites are within one-quarter

mile of each other (Township 25 South, Range 18 East, Section 19) in north Lake County,

Oregon (Maps 1 and 2). The existing lookout sits on a rounded, nearly level area at the top of

Green Mountain. The elevation is 5,190 feet. The proposed new lookout site suggested in

alternatives 2 &3 would sit on a nearly level rock outcrop at the top of East Green Mountain, also

at 5,190 feet elevation. The sides of the outcrop have a nearly vertical drop ranging from a few

feet to almost twenty feet in some places.

Climate and Air Quality

The climate is semi-arid with precipitation from 12 to 16 inches per year. Most of the

precipitation occurs during the winter and early spring. Thunder storms with dry lightning occur

frequently throughout the summer.

Though there are no monitoring stations in the immediate vicinity of the project area, air quality

is expected to generally meet air quality standards. There are currently no air quality restriction

areas (Class 1 airsheds, non-attainment areas, or special protection areas) identified by the

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality near the project area, nor are there any industrial

sources of air pollution in the surrounding region.

The two major factors affecting air quality in south-central Oregon are the use of wood burning

stoves for heating in the winter and wildfire/prescribed burning activities throughout the burning

season. Particulate matter is the main air quality concern on federally-administered lands and it

originates from several sources including road dust, wildfire, and prescribed burning.

Geology and Soils

The project area is dominated by dark gray flow basalt outcrops. There are several cinder cones

in the area. The closest one is on the southwest side of East Green Mountain.

No known geologic hazards (landslides, sinkholes) are known to occur in the project area. No

unique geological features are found within the project area. The project area is in an area

identified by the State of Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals as having a moderate

peak ground acceleration for earthquake shaking for a frequency of once every 2500 year (2%

chance every 50 years). This would result in slight to moderate damage in specially designed

structures, with considerable damage in ordinary structures. The project area is in the general

area of several earthquake faults identified as having had recent movement by DOGAMI within

the last 20,000 years.

Soils are mostly shallow, but some areas have pockets filled with sandy loam soils. Microbiotic

crusts consist of lichens, mosses, green algae, fungi, cyanobacteria and bacteria growing in a thin

layer on or just below the soil surface. Often found in the soil spaces between larger vascular

plants, these crusts may play a role in controlling soil erosion, filtering water, retaining soil

moisture, improving soil fertility (BLM 2003a). There are no BLM Special Status microbiotic

plant species known to grow in the Lakeview Resource Area, nor are any suspected to occur here.

Transportation and Access

BLM Road 6109-00 runs through the project area. This road has been designated as a Back

Country Byway. The lookout facility is located directly off of Road 6109-00. The BLM

currently maintains a five-acre cinder pit for regional road maintenance needs that is located

about 500 feet south of the proposed new lookout site. An existing access road runs from BLM

Road 6109-00 to the pit (Map 2).

Vegetation and Special Status Plants

The vegetation in the project area is predominantly western juniper, sagebrush, and bunchgrass

communities. A botany survey of the project area found no special status plants or important

cultural plants.

Noxious weeds are present in the general vicinity of Green Mountain area, but have not been

found during botanical surveys of the immediate project area.

Wildlife and Special Status Animals

The project area is located within deer winter range. High concentrations of wintering mule deer

inhabit lands surrounding the project area from November to April and moderate concentrations

occur throughout the remainder of the year. The amount of cover and security provided for

wintering mule deer is good within the project area. Forage consists mostly of abundant

bitterbrush, sagebrush, and herbaceous species.

Over the last decade, elk use has been increasing within northern Lake County. Much of the

lands surrounding the project area receive use from elk over most of the year. Elk use is

moderate to heavy within portions of the area. Cover and forage for elk is adequate to support a

few animals for most of the year.

California bighorn sheep historically and currently utilized the Green Mountain and East Green

Mountain area and adjacent lava flows. Currently, a small band of bighorn sheep reside within

the three surrounding lava flows and may occasionally pass through the project area.

Bald eagles and peregrine falcons are occasional visitors to the area, but no nesting habitat exists

within the proposed project area. Some foraging habitat for bald eagles may occur here, however

it is probably restricted mostly to road killed deer adjacent to the major roadways and occasional

carrion. There are no good foraging areas for peregrine falcons or ferruginous hawks within

close proximity to the project area. Some marginal nesting habitat is available for ferruginous

hawks within the project area. There are no known sightings for ferruginous hawk within the

project area, but there are adjacent sightings in the surrounding valley bottoms a few miles away.

Townsend's big-eared bats inhabit several caves in lava flows below Green Mountain and East

Green Mountain.

Many other wildlife species common to the sagebrush-steppe inhabit the project area. These

include other large and small mammals, birds, and reptiles. Habitats for these groups are diverse

and can be found in small patches throughout the project area. There are no known sage-grouse

or pygmy rabbit use or habitat found within the project area. There are no fish bearing streams in

the project area.

Special Management Areas

There are no areas of critical environmental concern, research natural areas, wild and scenic

river, or designated wilderness areas within or near the project area. The project area is located

within three miles of two existing wilderness study areas: Squaw Ridge Lava Beds and Four

Craters Lava Beds. There are no other lands with wilderness characteristics within or near the

project area.

Recreation

Currently, the North Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) plan is being prepared

to address recreational uses within north Lake County. The surrounding area offers recreation

opportunities for semi-primitive and non-primitive recreation related to hunting, sightseeing,

hiking, nature study and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The OHV Class for the project area is

"limited to existing roads and trails". The Green Mountain Campground is located between

Green Mountain and East Green Mountain (Map 2). The BLM constructed the campground in

1987. The campground consists of five gravel pads and associated campsites. In 2002, a vault

toilet was added. The campground is located along the Christmas Valley Back Country Byway

and logs as many as 1,000 visits from the public per season.

Visual Quality

The project area is located within visual resource management (VRM) Class IV. The objective of

this class is to provide for management activities which require major modification of the

existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be

high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer

attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.

Livestock Grazing

The project area is within the East Green Mountain Grazing Allotment #10101. The grazing

system is a deferred grazing rotation. The season of use traditionally has been April 15 to

November 15 each year.

Cultural and Historic Resources

The Green Mountain Lookout location is located within the Northern Great Basin Cultural area.

This area has been occupied by people for at least 14,000 years. During this time, the culture(s)

of the area went through 5 basic stages. The earliest of these is the period from 14,000 to 12,000

years ago. We know very little about this period and it is dated from only a small number of

sites. The Period from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago is known as the Clovis Period. Again, it is

marked in this area by only a handful of sites and isolated finds of Clovis Projectile Points for

which the period is named. It is thought that during this time period, large game such as the

mammoth was hunted along with the collection of plants and hunting of other smaller game.

People were nomadic and moved throughout a large territory.

The next Period is the Stemmed Point Period which lasted from 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. The

people of this period hunted deer, elk, antelope and other animals. The ranged throughout the

Northern Great Basin and many sites from this time period are found in the Fort Rock and

Christmas Valley Basin. Evidence for the communal hunting of rabbits in drives occurs first

during this time period. The use of plants is evidenced by the occurrence of plant processing

tools in larger numbers than during the first two Periods of occupation.

The next Period runs from 8,000 years ago up to about 500 years ago. This period is known as

the Archaic Period. Projectile points used during this period are smaller and more varied than are

found in earlier period. This is thought to relate to the hunting of both small and large animals of

many types and the collection of many different types of plant resources. There are literally

thousands of plant processing tools found on the large occupation sites of this period. At around

2,500 years ago, the bow and arrow were introduced replacing the spear thrower or atlatl which

had been used prior to the bow and arrow. People ranged through the territory and often returned

to the same locations to live for longer periods of time than in the earlier periods. This is

evidenced by the depth, size and content of village locations. Excavations of some of these

locations show that they have been used for more the 8,000 years.

The final period is that of the Northern Paiute and Historic contact. Evidence exists that the

Northern Paiute People entered this part of the Northern Great Basin by at least 500 years ago.

They continued the practices of the Archaic Period with high emphasis on the collection of plant

resources.

Sites in the area could include, lithic quarry sites, small to large occupation sites, stone house

ring sites, house pit sites, rock art sites, burial sites, rock cairns, rock alignments, hunting sites,

and cache sites. This can range in size from no more than 2 square feet to sites that cover up to

640 acres or more. Within the project area, it would be expected that small lithic scatters,

isolated projectile points and possible hunting sites would occur. On any rock outcrop, rock art

and rock cairns might be found. The area was probably used for hunting of game such as

antelope, deer, and elk. Bear, cougar and bighorn sheep might also have been hunted in the area.

No large occupation sites or stone tool quarry sites would be expected within this area.

The area of the proposed project and alternatives has been surveyed for cultural and historic

resources. No sites or significant resources were located as a result of these surveys. Two

isolated projectile points and isolated flakes were observed in the area. These materials would be

consistent with the use of the area primarily for the hunting of game.

The existing lookout structure has no historic value. It was constructed in the 1970s. It does not

possess any unique or important architectural features that would warrant its preservation.

Wildfire Management

The project is located within the Fort Rock Fire Management Area (see EA# OR-010-96-04).

This plan gives guidance to fire management in an effort to select actions for each fire to reduce

costs and provide for firefighter and public safety while not adversely affecting resource and

wilderness values. Historical data shows an average of 30 fires per year (half the total fires for

the entire Lakeview District) which result in roughly 1,500 acres burned. Most of these fires are

less than ¼ acre in size. A very small percentage of fires result in large fire activity that creates

increased costs, safety concerns and damage to resource values. Early detection of fires is key in

providing management with information needed to select the actions that best mitigate potential

costs and hazards. The facility on Green Mountain provides this information more effectively

than other means of detection used.

Hazardous Materials

No known hazardous materials or waste are located in the project area nor have known removals

of hazardous materials been conducted at the existing lookout facility. The age of the facility

dating from the late 1970s makes it possible that hazardous components in building materials

such as asbestos (floor tiles, shingles, wall board, insulating materials) and lead (paint, piping)

could be found within the existing lookout facility. Rodent activity at the current facility

increases the possible exposure to hantivirus and other airborne pathogens to both employees and

members of the public. Equipment and vehicles parked on the site of existing lookout facility

could have had minor leaks of oil and possibly gasoline, but the volume of petroleum products

released would likely have been minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Introduction

The following resource values or issues are either not present or would not be directly affected by

any of the alternatives analyzed: flood plains, wetlands, riparian areas, water quality, fish or

aquatic habitat, threatened, endangered, special status or sensitive species, livestock grazing

management, prime or unique farmland, wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental

concern, research natural areas, designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, or other lands

with wilderness characteristics, land status, energy or mineral resources, wild horses, or low

income/minority populations.

General Impacts

A small area immediately surrounding the existing lookout facility and access road has been

heavily disturbed by past construction, maintenance, and operation activities. Under the no

action alternative, these existing disturbances would not change. Alternative 1 would cause the

most new ground disturbance with about one acre of new road construction. Alternatives 2 and 3

would disturb 0.5 to 0.75 acres during construction of the new road and the lookout facility.

Climate and Air Quality Impacts

None of the alternatives analyzed would have any discernable impact on local or regional

climate.

The No Action Alternative would result in no changes to existing air quality. Alternatives 1-3

would have very similar effects on air quality. During project construction, noise and air

pollutants (primarily dust and hydrocarbon emissions from heavy equipment) would have minor,

temporary impacts to the air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project area. These impacts

would cease at the conclusion of construction activities and would not violate air quality

standards.

Geology and Soils

There would be no change in impacts to area geology, soils, or crusts under the No Action

Alternative.

Alternatives 1-3 would disturb a very small area (0.5 to 1.0 acres) of existing soils and crust

cover. The soil erosion potential for constructing the new lookout facility is expected to be

moderate for the short-term, under Alternatives 1-3. During construction activities, fugitive dust

could be expected, but would be temporary. Road construction activities, as proposed in

Alternatives 1-3, could create short-term erosion problems and might require short term erosion

controls such as silt fences until vegetation is established. Roads constructed and

decommissioned under Alternatives 1-3 would utilize Best Management Practices such as culvert

placement and surface drainage control to minimize long-term soil erosion impacts. No long-

term surface stability problems are anticipated with facility or road construction activities.

Transportation and Access

Alternatives 1, 3, and No Action would have no effect on the on-going operations at the existing

BLM cinder pit (OR-54113).

Under Alternative 2, cinder-hauling traffic on the BLM cinder pit access road (as it relates to

regional road maintenance activities) may be temporarily disrupted until completion of project

construction. There may also be some temporary degradation of the pit access road due to

increased traffic.

Vegetation Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change in existing vegetation within the

project area. Removal of 0.5 to 1.0 acres of juniper trees and sagebrush vegetation would be

necessary to clear the project area for building (Alternatives 2 and 3) and access road

construction (Alternatives 1-3).

There would be no change in current weed monitoring or treatment activities on lands

surrounding the project area under the No Action Alternative. The project area would be

monitored for potential weed invasion following construction activities associated with

Alternatives 1-3. Should weeds be found in the future, they would be treated in accordance with

the existing Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program (BLM 2004).

Wildlife Impacts

There would be no impacts to any wildlife species or their habitat under the No Action

Alternative. Alternatives 1-3 would have very similar impacts to some wildlife species in the

immediate project area. Construction activities may temporarily displace some animals due to

noise and other human disturbance. Between 0.5 and 1.0 acres of habitat would be permanently

removed from the project area. The loss of minimal juniper thermal cover, which is not a limiting

factor in the project area, and bitterbrush forage would not negatively impact wintering mule

deer. Overall, none of the action alternatives would have significant impacts to any wildlife

species, including special status species.

Recreation Impacts

There would be no impacts to recreation resources under the No Action Alternative or

Alternative 1. In Alternatives 2 and 3, there is a potential to enhance recreation opportunities

within the North Lake SRMA by creating a rental lookout for the public. The Lakeview Resource

Area identified several management objectives in the Lakeview RMP for the North Lake SRMA.

Two of these objectives are: 1) meet increased recreation demand and 2) Provide natural

resource amenities on public lands that enhance local communities as places to live, work or visit

(this could include water quality, scenic views, recreation sites, wildlife viewing, hunting and

fishing). Both Alternatives 2 and 3 could compliment these objectives, if the old lookout was

restored as a recreation site at some point in the future. If the lookout is torn down and removed,

there would be no change in existing recreation opportunities in the general vicinity, similar to

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.

Visual Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to the existing visual character of

the project area.

Visual impacts associated with Alternatives 1-3 would be most noticeable during construction.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would see a short-term increase in activity adjacent to the Back Country

Byway due to material delivery and construction vehicles. The project would be visible

immediately adjacent to BLM Road 6109-00, but due to the size of the surrounding landscape,

would not be dominant in the viewshed. Lookout construction activities on East Green Mountain

under Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be visible from BLM Road 6109-00.

For these reasons, the visual impacts associated with Alternatives 1- 3 would be fairly similar

and are expected to be negligible and temporary. The management objective of VRM Class IV

allows for other management activities that may involve major modification of the landscape.

These activities proposed under Alternatives 1-3 are all consistent with this VRM guidance.

Cultural and Historic Impacts

The No Action Alternative would have no impacts to cultural or historic resources.

Under Alternative 1, there would be potential to disturb cultural resources during the

construction/re-alignment of Road 6109-00, below the existing lookout location. A few scattered

flakes have been observed just below the top of the formation where the existing lookout is

located. However, a cultural resources survey of the proposed road location (Map 2) which was

staked on the ground some 200 meters below where the flakes were observed, revealed no other

cultural resources. Therefore, the re-alignment of Road 6109-00 along the location staked on the

ground, would avoid any area where cultural or historic materials are present.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no disturbance of cultural or historic resources as

surveys of the proposed road area and lookout construction areas did not find any site locations.

Wildfire Management Impacts

The primary purpose of a fire lookout facility is to be able to detect new wildfire ignitions within

the surrounding area. The main impacts of the action alternatives relate to the impacts associated

with fire suppression and rehabilitation activities. Since the lookout was constructed in the

1970‟s, numerous wildfire ignitions have been reported in the area. Once a fire is reported, fire

suppression resources (fire engines, fire crews, air tankers, etc.) are sent in to monitor or put out

the fire. In general, fire suppression resources can be allocated to a given fire faster due to the

presence of the lookout. The quicker the response time, the smaller the burned area is.

Suppression actions are generally more effective and less impacting, the quicker the response

time. In addition, the smaller the burned area, the less restoration is required following the fire.

Wildfire suppression and restoration impacts are described in more detail in the Lakeview

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (2003; pages 4-121 to 4-123). In general, the smaller the fire, the less

regional smoke and air quality impacts would be associated with the fire.

It is not possible to accurately estimate how many additional acres would not burn or require

restoration in the foreseeable future due to the continued operation of a fire lookout. However,

all four alternatives analyzed in detail would provide about the same level of wildfire spotting

capability and the impacts of fire suppression and subsequent restoration activities would

generally be less when the total burn area is kept small (compared to having no wildfire spotting

capability in the area).

Hazardous Materials

The impacts of removing the existing lookout structure would be similar under Alternatives 1-3.

An analysis of possible material hazards would be contracted to qualified, licensed professionals.

Before demolition of the old structure the following testing would occur:

1) Testing for asbestos (floor tiles roofing materials etc.).

2) Testing, removal and disposal of any lead based paints or other lead products used in

construction.

3) Testing would be done and precautions would be taken against potential Hanta virus

infection.

Demolition debris would be taken to a licensed landfill and disposed of in accordance with

applicable laws and regulations.

Construction activities (Alternatives 1-3) also have the potential to introduce hazardous materials

into the environment due to the use of vehicles, heavy equipment, or other materials that could

potentially spill or leak hazardous substances (oil, gasoline, radiator fluid, drip torch fuel,

herbicides, etc.) into the environment.

Liability could arise from the release of a hazardous substance or waste, (as defined in the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42

U.S.C.9601, et seq. or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et

seq.). A release/spill (as defined in 40 CFR 300 and CERCLA section 101 (22)) includes any

“spilling, leaking, discharging , injecting, pumping, pouring, emitting, escaping, leaching,

dumping, or disposing into the environment, including abandoning or discarding barrels,

containers, and any other closed receptacles containing an hazardous substance or pollutant or

contaminant.” A release of a hazardous substance or a petroleum product that exceeds the

reportable quantities would require a Notification to the National Response Center and /or the

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The risk of a spill or contamination occurring

under any of the alternatives is small. If contamination occurred during demolition or

construction activities, the contractor would be required to follow the spill contingency plan to

minimize the impacts of an accidental release.

Secondary and Indirect Impacts

There would be no known secondary or indirect impacts associated with any of the alternatives.

Cumulative Impacts

Analytical Scale and Timeframe

For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts are considered within the boundary of the

Fort Rock Fire Management Area (see Lakeview RMP/ROD map FM-5). The rationale for

choosing this analysis scale is because the fire lookout facility directly supports wildfire

suppression activities within this boundary.

In addition, the BLM made predictions and conducted cumulative effects analysis within the

Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (2003) regarding other potential reasonably foreseeable

facility maintenance, road maintenance, new road construction, and wildfire suppression actions

that may occur within the larger resource area during the 15-20 year expected life of the

RMP/ROD. The BLM cannot reasonably predict management actions beyond the life of this

plan. For this reason, the timeframe for predicting reasonably foreseeable future actions is the

same as the RMP/ROD.

Current Guidance

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued cumulative impact guidance on June 24,

2005, that states the “environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking,” and

review of past actions is required only “to the extent that this review informs agency decision-

making regarding the proposed action.” Use of information on the effects of past action may be

useful in two ways: one is for consideration of the proposed action‟s cumulative effects, and

secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action‟s direct and indirect effects.

The CEQ stated that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis

by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical

details of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the current state of the

environment (ie. affected environment section) inherently includes the effects of past actions.

Further, the “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past

actions to determine the present effects of past actions.” Information on the current

environmental condition is more comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful

starting point for a cumulative effects analysis than attempting to establish such a starting point

by adding up the described effects of individual past actions to some environmental baseline

condition in the past that, unlike current conditions, can no longer be verified by direct

examination.

The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on past actions may be useful

is in “illuminating or predicting the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. The

usefulness of such information is limited by the fact that it is anecdotal only, and extrapolation of

data from such singular experiences is not generally accepted as a reliable predictor of effects”.

The Department of Interior issued some additional guidance related to past actions which state,

“when considering the effects of past actions as part of a cumulative effects analysis, the

Responsible Official must analyze the effects in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and in

accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, such as

„„The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past

Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis‟‟ dated June 24, 2005, or any superseding Council on

Environmental Quality guidance (see 43 CFR 46.115)”.

Known Past Activities

During preparation of this EA, no reviewer identified any need to exhaustively list individual

past actions or to analyze, compare, or describe the environmental effects of individual past

actions, in order to develop an analysis which would be useful for illuminating or predicting the

cumulative effects of the proposed action.

Road construction, limited road maintenance, limited facility maintenance, and a number of

wildfire suppression activities have occurred in the Ft. Rock fire management area since the fire

lookout was originally constructed in the 1970‟s. In addition, a small cinder pit was developed in

the immediate vicinity of Green Mountain to support road maintenance needs. Tourism and

recreation have been encouraged in the vicinity through the designation of a backcountry byway

and development of a small campground southeast of the existing lookout. A 7,740-acre juniper

firewood cutting area was established to the northwest of the lookout in the mid-1990‟s to

provide firewood for public use. To date, about 600 acres of invasive juniper has been cut from

the area.

All of these past activities have affected or shaped the landscape of the surrounding lands into

what it is today.

Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

The Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (2003) and the Lakeview RMP/ROD (2003) anticipated

numerous types of operation and maintenance activities would occur in the resource area

throughout the life of the plan including such things as “routine maintenance of existing roads,

ditches, culverts, water control structures, recreation facilities, signs, and other similar

facilities/projects” (page 100).

It is possible that some of the existing roads in the vicinity of lookout and surrounding fire

management area could receive some level of maintenance (by either the BLM or others) during

the life of the RMP/ROD. The existing cinder pit would likely be used to provide material for

some of these road maintenance needs. Most of these individual activities are considered to be

so minor that, even when considered collectively on a national scale, they have been categorically

excluded from requiring analysis under NEPA.

The impacts of juniper cutting and removal have been previously analyzed in an environmental

assessment (1991). The analysis addressed the impacts of cutting up to 7,740 acres of juniper on

surrounding lands (Green Mountain North). To date, approximately 600 acres have been opened

up for firewood and post/pole cutting. For this reason, the impacts of the juniper cutting (on-

going and reasonably foreseeable future) are still within the range of those previously addressed

in the existing EA (1991).

Under the no action alternative, the impacts of the existing disturbances described above would

likely continue into the foreseeable future. A small area immediately surrounding the existing

lookout facility and access road has been heavily disturbed by past construction, maintenance,

and operation activities. Under the no action alternative, the extent of these existing disturbances

would not change. Under Alternative 1, there would be the additive, cumulative effect of about

one acre of new ground disturbance associated with new road construction, in addition to the

impacts described for the no action alternative. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be the

additive, cumulative effect of about 0.5 to 0.75 acres of additional ground disturbance during

construction of the new road and the lookout facility, in addition to the impacts described for the

no action alternative. For these reasons, the additive, cumulative effects of ground disturbance

associated with the three action alternatives is considered small and minor.

If funds became available and the old lookout structure was renovated (rather than demolished) at

some point in the future, the impacts of renovation would be limited to a small area (0.5 acre) of

previously disturbed land (of the same location and extent as described for Alternatives 2 and 3).

Thus, it would not result in any additive, cumulative ground disturbance. Tourism and

recreational use along the backcountry byway and campground would be expected to continue

and possibly even increase in the future if additional recreation opportunities are provided by the

renovated lookout. At the present time, the availability of future recreation funds to renovate the

structure is highly speculative. As noted in the alternatives section, this proposal would require

preparation of an additional NEPA analysis should funding become available. For these reasons,

the additive, cumulative effects of the reasonably anticipated on-going or increased recreation in

the area are considered small and minor.

PREPARER(S):

Ken Tillman - Natural Resource Specialist (Hazardous Materials)

Steve Flock – Geologist

Kim McLean - Outdoor Recreation Planner

Bill Cannon - Archaeologist

Lucille Housley – Botanist

Bob Crumrine – Assistant Fire Management Officer

James Elvin – District Engineer

Shannon Theall – GIS

Theresa Romasko – Assistant Field Manager

Todd Forbes – Assistant Field Manager

Paul Whitman – Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Erin McConnell – Weed Management Specialist

Map 2 - Green Mountain Lookout Alternatives 1-3

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meetNational Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developedthrough digital means and may be updated without notification.

0.25 00.125 Miles

Existing Lookout Location

Alternatives RoadsAlternative 1 Proposed RealignmentAlternative 2 Proposed RouteAlternative 3 Proposed Route

Exisiting and Proposed Sites

Existing Green Mtn. Lookout SiteGreen Mtn. CampgroundProposed Green Mtn. Lookout Site

Existing Gravel Pit

Proposed New Green Mtn. Lookout Site.Building footprint and expected area of potential effect. Alt 2 & 3.

Back Country BywayBLM Road 6109

Back Country Byway