DOCSLIB.ORG

Tusayan East Wireless Communications Sites Final Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tusayan East Wireless Communications Sites Final Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Tusayan East Wireless Communications Sites Final Environmental Assessment Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona February 2016 Tusayan East Wireless Communications Final Environmental Assessment For More Information Contact: Sheila Sandusky Realty Specialist Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office 800 S. Sixth Street Williams, AZ 86046 Phone: (928) 635-8200 Email: [email protected] Fax: (928) 635-8208 Cover Page Picture – View from Grandview Lookout Tower, Tusayan Ranger District, looking towards Grand Canyon, taken by Ken Jacobs, June 2014. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Tusayan East Wireless Communications Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ vii 1.0 CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Project Location ............................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Proposed Tower Facility – Skinner Ridge ............................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Proposed Tower Facility – Grandview .................................................................................. 6 1.4 Document Structure ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Need For The Proposal .................................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.6.1 Skinner Ridge ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.6.2 Grandview ............................................................................................................................ 11 1.7 Public Involvement And Tribal Consultation ................................................................................ 13 1.8 Decision Framework ..................................................................................................................... 14 1.9 Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.0 CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................................................................. 16 2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Skinner Ridge Communications Site ................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.1 Access Route .............................................................................................................. 16 2.2.2 Grandview Communications Site ........................................................................................ 17 2.2.2.1 Access Route .............................................................................................................. 17 2.3 Alternative 3 – A 110 Foot Tall Monopole Tree Tower At The Grandview Communications Site ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.4 Alternative 4 – A 120 Foot Tall Lattice Tower At The Grandview Communications Site ........... 18 2.5 Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 19 2.5.1 Project Design Features that Reduce Visual Impacts .......................................................... 19 2.5.1.1 Skinner Ridge Project Design Features ...................................................................... 19 2.5.1.2 Grandview Project Design Features ........................................................................... 19 2.5.2 Stipulations for Access Road Use for the Skinner Ridge Site ............................................. 21 2.5.3 Stipulations for Access Road Use for Grandview Site ........................................................ 22 2.5.4 Project Design Features that Reduce Impacts to Wildlife ................................................... 22 2.5.5 Project Design Features that Reduce the Impacts of Noxious Weeds ................................. 23 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 25 3.0 CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Visual Quality ................................................................................................................................ 31 3.1.1 Affected Environment – SR 64 Corridor ............................................................................. 31 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................. 34 3.1.2.1 Skinner Ridge Communications Site .......................................................................... 34 3.1.2.2 Grandview Communications Site ............................................................................... 43 3.1.2.3 Scenery Management Summary ................................................................................. 60 3.1.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 61 3.1.4 Visual Impact Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 62 3.1.4.1 Skinner Ridge Design Features .................................................................................. 62 3.1.4.2 Grandview Design Features ....................................................................................... 63 i Tusayan East Wireless Communications Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 3.2 Wireless Service ............................................................................................................................ 64 3.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................... 64 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................. 64 3.2.2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 64 3.2.2.2 Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ................................................................................................ 64 3.3 Earth and Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 72 3.3.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Foundation Document Crater Lake National Park Oregon August 2015
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Crater Lake National Park Oregon August 2015 Signatur es 8-7-2015 Foundation Document To Diamond Lake, Roseburg, and 5 Pacifc Crest National Visitor center Gasoline 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Scenic Trail (PCT) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Other hiking trail Lodging Picnic area North Food service Campground UMPQUA NATIONAL Pets are prohibited Beaver on all hiking trails. Meadows Store Backcountry campsite FOREST Offroad driving is (permit required) prohibited. Cree Showers k 230 k or ) ( F ver st Rogue Ri Cascade Mountain Pass 138 Ea Lake West North Entrance Station To Bend, Eugene, and 97 To Medford and 5 Boundary Springs l i a r T c i North Entrance Road n e ROGUE RIVER c S l NATIONAL a n o i FOREST t a PUMICE DESERT N t s e r C c WINEMA if c Pa NATIONAL Oasis Butte FOREST CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK Red Cone Sphagnum Bog Red Cone Spring ic Trail en Cleetwood Cove Trail c S l a n o i t a Steel East N R Bay t i m s North Junction e r D C r c f i Grotto c a Cove P Watchman Overlook Crater Lake WIZARD ISLAND Cloudcap Overlook Cloudcap Lightning Bay Spring W Rim Village e s Rim Village Café & Gift Shop MOUNT SCOTT t Phantom Ship Sinnott Memorial Overlook (highest point in park) R Overlook im Rim Village Visitor Center 8929ft Kerr Notch 2721m D Crater Lake Lodge Plaikni Falls To Medford r.
    [Show full text]
  • Crater Lake Reflections Summer-Fall 2018
    Crater Lake National Park National Park Service Crater Lake U.S. Department of the Interior Refections Visitor Guide Summer/Fall 2018 Park News 2 ... Camping, Lodging, Food Discovering Crater Lake 3 ... Ranger Programs f Water Restrictions in Effect Please help us conserve water during 12 Great Ways to Enjoy Your Stay 4 ... Hiking Trails your visit. In March, the state of 5 ... Driving Map Oregon declared a drought emergency The frst European-American to see Crater Lake was lucky to ... In the News: Bull Trout for our county. In 8 of the past 10 survive the experience. On June 12, 1853, gold prospector John 6 years, the park has received less snow Wesley Hillman was riding his mule up a long, sloping mountain. 7 ... Feature Article: Lake Level than normal. Last winter’s snow total He was lost, tired, and not paying attention to the terrain ahead. was 15 feet below average. While 8 ... Climate Chart Suddenly, his mule stopped. Hillman sat up and found himself you’re here, please take short showers, on the edge of a clif, gazing in astonishment at “the bluest and don’t run the tap, and reuse towels most beautiful body of water I had ever seen.” He added: “If and sheets if staying overnight in park Look Inside! I had been riding a blind mule, I frmly believe I would have lodging. Thanks for your help! ridden over the edge to death and destruction.” f Leave Your Drone at Home While mules—no matter how sharp their eyesight—are no longer Operating remote-controlled aircraft permitted to approach the rim of Crater Lake, there are many in the park is prohibited.
    [Show full text]
  • Canyon's 'Guardians' Press for Protections by Matthew Putesoy - Jul
    THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC Canyon's 'guardians' press for protections by Matthew Putesoy - Jul. 25, 2009 My Turn The Grand Canyon is a national treasure, inviting 5 million people every year to explore and be inspired by its beauty. To the Havasuw 'Baaja, who have lived in the region for many hundreds of years, it is sacred. As the "guardians of the Grand Canyon," we strenuously object to mining for uranium here. It is a threat to the health of our environment and tribe, our tourism-based economy, and our religion. Thank you, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, for announcing a two-year moratorium on new mining claims in the 1 million acres of lands around Grand Canyon National Park. But existing claims, such as those pursued by Canadian-based Denison Mines Corp., still threaten the animals, air, drinking water and people of this region. Denison, which has staked 110 claims around the Grand Canyon, is seeking groundwater-aquifer permits that would allow it to reopen the Canyon Mine, near Red Butte on the South Rim, as well as two other mining sites. Uranium mining has been associated with contamination of ground or surface water. Here, mining could poison the aquifer, which extends for 5,000 square miles under the Coconino Plateau, and serves as drinking water for our tribe and neighboring communities. As I told Congress recently, if our water were polluted, we could not relocate to Phoenix or someplace else and still survive as the Havasupai Tribe. We are the Grand Canyon. Thanks to Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva for introducing the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Crater Rim Historic District Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
    National Park Service Cultural Landscape Inventory 2006 Crater Rim Historic District Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Table of Contents Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 1 Park Information ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Property Level and CLI Number .................................................................................................................. 3 Completion Status......................................................................................................................................... 3 Landscape Description.................................................................................................................................. 4 CLI Hierarchy Description ........................................................................................................................... 5 Location Map................................................................................................................................................ 5 Boundary Description ................................................................................................................................... 6 Regional Context .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Plans......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • West Hawai'i Covers
    National Park Service U. S. Department of the Interior Crater Lake National Park Museum Management Plan Cultural Resources Pacific West Region August 2007 Crater Lake National Park Museum Management Planning Team Mary Benterou, Park Curator Crater Lake National Park Crater Lake, Oregon Kent Bush, Regional Curator, Retd. Pacific West Region Seattle, Washington (Team Leader) Kelly Cahill, Park Curator North Cascades National Park Marblemount, Washington Rick Cronenberger, Historical Architect, RA Cultural Collections Consultant Intermountain Region Denver, Colorado Scott E. Foss, Ph.D., Park Curator John Day Fossil Beds National Monument John Day, Oregon Department of the Interior National Park Service Pacific West Region 2007 Crater Lake National Park Museum Management Plan August 2007 Executive Summary The Crater Lake National Park Museum Management Plan outlines a series of issues concerning the development, management, and use of the park archives, library, and museum collections (hereafter referred to as “the collections”), and it recommends corresponding actions to address these issues. A Collections Management Plan (CMP) (precursor to the current Museum Management Plan format) was completed in 1995, and the park has had the services of a journeyman-level curator for 12 years. Despite the age and maturity of the park, these park-specific resources remain in a developmental stage. They lack status, definition, and support, and thus are not able to efficiently contribute to park operations. Few of the recommendations in the 1995 CMP have been implemented. With the continued influx of collections, the documentation program and physical facilities are in worse condition now than in 1995. These deficiencies could be corrected by the following actions: • Developing internal protocols to govern collections growth, processing, and access.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Appraisal of the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona MLA 6-92
    ! a [MLA[6"g2 I Mineral Land Assessment Open File Report/1992 I I Mineral Appraisal of the Kaibab National Forest, I Arizona I I I I tional I I I i L I BUREAU OF MINES I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I I I I I MINERAL APPRAISAL OF THE KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA ! I by I David C. Scott I I MLA 6-92 I 1992 I I -.4 Intermountain Field Operations Center ! Denver, Colorado ! UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I Manuel Lujan Jr., Secretary BUREAU OF MINES I T S ARY, Director I I l I I PREFACE A January, 1987 Interagency Agreement between the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Forest Service describes I the purpose, authority, and program operation for the forest-wide studies. The program is intended to assist the Forest Service in incorporating mineral resource data in forest plans as specified by I the National Forest Management Act (1976) and Title 36, Chapter 2, Part 219, Code of Federal Regulations, and to augment the Bureau's mineral resource data base so that it can analyze and make I available minerals information as required by the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act (1980). This report is based on available data from literature and field investigations. I l I I I I I I I I This open-file report summarizes the results of a Bureau of Mines forest-wide study. The report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with ! the Bureau of Mines editorial standards.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Scientific Investigations Map 2832, Pamphlet
    Geologic Map of Mount Mazama and Crater Lake Caldera, Oregon By Charles R. Bacon Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 2832 View from the south-southwest rim of Crater Lake caldera showing the caldera wall from Hillman Peak on the west to Cleetwood Cove on the north. Crater Lake fills half of the 8- by 10-km-diameter caldera formed during the climactic eruption of Mount Mazama volcano approximately 7,700 years ago. Volcanic rocks exposed in the caldera walls and on the flanks record over 400,000 years of eruptive history. The exposed cinder cone and andesite lava flows on Wizard Island represent only 2 percent of the total volume of postcaldera volcanic rock that is largely covered by Crater Lake. Beyond Wizard Island, the great cliff of Llao Rock, rhyodacite lava emplaced 100–200 years before the caldera-forming eruption, dominates the northwest caldera wall where andesite lava flows at the lakeshore are approximately 150,000 years old. 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey This page intentionally left blank. CONTENTS Introduction . 1 Physiography and access . 1 Methods . 1 Geologic setting . 4 Eruptive history . 5 Regional volcanism . 6 Pre-Mazama silicic rocks . 6 Mount Mazama . 7 Preclimactic rhyodacites . 9 The climactic eruption . 10 Postcaldera volcanism . .11 Submerged caldera walls and floor . .11 Glaciation . .11 Geothermal phenomena . 12 Hazards . 13 Volcanic hazards . 13 Earthquake hazards . 14 Acknowledgments . 14 Description of map units . 14 Sedimentary deposits . 15 Volcanic rocks . 15 Regional volcanism, northwest . 15 Regional volcanism, southwest . 17 Mount Mazama . 20 Regional volcanism, east . 38 References cited .
    [Show full text]
  • Rim Drive Rehabilitation Revegetation Project 2017 Annual Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Crater Lake National Park Rim Drive Rehabilitation Revegetation Project 2017 Annual Report ON THIS PAGE Working on site documentation for the Rim Drive Rehabilitation project. Photograph by Carrie Wyler. ON THE COVER Collecting native plant seed for restoration while the Spruce Fire plumes in the background. Photograph by Carrie Wyler. Rim Drive Rehabilitation Revegetation Project 2017 Annual Report Carolyn S. Wyler, Tara L. Chizinski, Scott E. Heisler, Melody C. Frederic, and Jennifer S. Hooke National Park Service Crater Lake National Park P.O. Box 7 Crater Lake, Oregon, 97604 April 2018 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Crater Lake National Park Crater Lake, Oregon i This annual report series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by a subject matter expert who was not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • CANYON URANIUM MINE REVIEW Review of the Canyon Mine Plan of Operations and Associated Approval Documentation in Anticipation of Resumption of Operations
    CANYON URANIUM MINE REVIEW Review of the Canyon Mine Plan of Operations and Associated Approval Documentation in Anticipation of Resumption of Operations US Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Kaibab National Forest 6/25/2012 Executive Summary Canyon Uranium Mine Review June 25, 2012 On September 13, 2011, Denison Mines informed the Kaibab Forest Supervisor they intended to resume operations at Canyon Mine under the existing Plan of Operations and Record Of Decision. A review has been completed of the Canyon Mine Plan of Operations and associated approval documentation in anticipation of the resumption of operations. Canyon Mine is within the area segregated in 2009 and then ultimately withdrawn in the Northern Arizona Withdrawal process by the Secretary of Interior on January 9, 2012. Under the segregation and subsequent withdrawal, any mining claimant pursuing approval for exploration or mining would need to prove their claims had valid existing rights prior to the 2009 segregation. Denison Mines’ mining claims at the Canyon Mine were evaluated by US Forest Service mineral examiners with regards to valid existing rights under the 1872 Mining Law. This mineral validity examination, completed on April 18, 2012, confirmed that the mining claims have valid existing rights. In addition to the mineral validity examination, the Forest undertook a review of the 1986 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, and associated documents. Resource specialists from the Kaibab National Forest and the Southwestern Regional Office reviewed the documents to determine if any modification or amendment of the existing Plan of Operations was required and whether there was any new information or changed circumstances indicating unforeseen significant disturbance of surface resources.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2022 National Park Service
    The United States BUDGET Department of the Interior JUSTIFICATIONS and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2022 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NOTICE: These budget justifications are prepared for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. Approval for release of the justifications prior to their printing in the public record of the Subcommittee hearings may be obtained through the Office of Budget of the Department of the Interior. Printed on Recycled Paper THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK National Park Service FY 2022 Budget Justifications Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Overview, Tables, and Highlights NPS General Statement ................................................................................................................ Overview-1 Organization Chart ..................................................................................................................... Overview-17 National Park System Units ....................................................................................................... Overview-18 Park Visitation and Acreage ...................................................................................................... Overview-22 Unit Designations and Other Abbreviations .............................................................................. Overview-30 Budget at a Glance ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Hiker's Companion to GRAND CANYON GEOLOGY
    A Hiker’s Companion to GRAND CANYON GEOLOGY With special attention given to The Corridor: North & South Kaibab Trails Bright Angel Trail The geologic history of the Grand Canyon can be approached by breaking it up into three puzzles: 1. How did all those sweet layers get there? 2. How did the area become uplifted over a mile above sea level? 3. How and when was the canyon carved out? That’s how this short guide is organized, into three sections: 1. Laying down the Strata, 2. Uplift, and 3. Carving the Canyon, Followed by a walking geological guide to the 3 most popular hikes in the National Park. I. LAYING DOWN THE STRATA PRE-CAMBRIAN 2000 mya (million years ago), much of the planet’s uppermost layer was thin oceanic crust, and plate tectonics was functioning more or less as it does now. It begins with a Subduction Zone... Vishnu Schist: 1840 mya, the GC region was the site of an active subduction zone, crowned by a long volcanic chain known as the Yavapai Arc (similar to today’s Aleutian Islands). The oceanic crust on the leading edge of Wyomingland, a huge plate driving in from the NW, was subducting under another plate at the zone, a terrane known as the Yavapai Province. Subduction brought Wyomingland closer and closer to the arc for 150 million years, during which genera- tions of volcanoes were born and laid dormant along the arc. Lava and ash of new volcanoes mixed with the eroded sands and mud from older cones, creating a pile of inter-bedded lava, ash, sand, and mud that was 40,000 feet deep! Vishnu Schist Zoroaster Granite Wyomingland reached the subduction zone 1700 mya.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Mazama and Crater Lake: a Study of the Botanical and Human Responses to a Geologic Event
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Robyn A. Green for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Geology. Botany and Plant Pathology. and Anthropology presented on June 3. 1998. Title: Mount Mazama and Crater Lake: A Study of the Botanical and Human Responses to a Geologic Event Abstract approved: / Robert J. Lillie Crater Lake, located in the southern Cascade mountains of Oregon, is the seventh deepest lake in the world. Unlike a majority of the deepest lakes in the world, found in continental rift valleys, Crater Lake is in the caldera of a volcano. For the young at heart and mind, those willing to descend (and ascend) about 700 feet to Cleetwood Cove can undertake a boat tour of Crater Lake. From the boat, Crater Lake is more than just a beautiful blue lake; it becomes the inside of a volcano, where the response of people and plants to a geologic event can be investigated. The catastrophic eruption of Mount Mazama 7,700 years ago affected both plant and human populations. Before pumice and ash from the volcano blanketed the landscape like freshly fallen snow, the forests to the east of Mount Mazama were dominated by ponderosa and lodgepole pine. Within the immediate vicinity of the volcano all life was obliterated; the force of the eruptive material toppled vegetation and buried it with ash and pumice. Through the recovery process of succession, life has slowly returned to Crater Lake. Forests surrounding the lake are now dominated by mountain hemlock, whitebark pine, and lodgepole pine. These plants not only depict the process of succession, but also of adaptation to a volcanic environment.
    [Show full text]