ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Talking Rock to Seligman Telecommunications Project and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Project

Participating Agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Prescott National Forest U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Prepared for: Table Top Telephone Company, Inc. 600 N. Second Avenue Ajo, Arizona 85321

Prepared by: Transcon Environmental, Inc. 3740 East Southern Avenue, Suite 218 Mesa, Arizona 85206 (480) 807-0095

June 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 3 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Authority ...... 3 1.3.1 Rural Development ...... 3 1.3.2 Forest Service ...... 3 1.3.3 Bureau of Land Management ...... 3 1.4 Conformance with Other Regulations ...... 4 1.5 Decision Framework...... 4 1.6 Public Notification and Scoping Process ...... 4 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 5 2.1 Proposed Action ...... 5 2.2 Alignment Entirely Within the Road Prism Through Prescott N.F. Alternative ...... 6 2.3 No-Action Alternative ...... 7 2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ...... 7 2.4.1 Aerial Installation of Facilities ...... 7 2.4.2 Bury Facilities Directly Within the Roadways...... 7 2.5 Project Location ...... 8 2.5.1 Project Alignment Descriptions ...... 9 2.6 Project Facilities ...... 10 2.6.1 Fiber Optic Cable and Conduits ...... 10 2.6.2 Buried Handholes ...... 10 2.6.3 Amplification/Regeneration Facilities ...... 10 2.6.4 Tie-In Facilities ...... 10 2.6.5 Right-of-Way Markers ...... 11 2.6.6 Storage and Staging Area ...... 12 2.6.7 Steel Pipe ...... 12 2.7 Project Construction Sequence ...... 12 2.7.1 Permitting ...... 12 2.7.2 Flagging and Staking the Right-of-Way ...... 13 2.7.3 Clearing and Grading ...... 13 2.7.4 Installation of the Fiber Optic Cable and Conduits ...... 13 2.7.5 Placement of Right-of-Way Markers ...... 15 2.7.6 Development of Amplification/Regeneration Facility ...... 15 2.7.7 Fiber Optic Cable Testing ...... 15 2.7.8 Site Clean-up and Restoration ...... 15 2.7.9 Operation and Maintenance ...... 15 2.7.10 Abandonment ...... 15 2.8 Land Use and Access Requirements ...... 16 2.8.1 Access ...... 16 2.8.2 Fences and Range Improvements ...... 16 3: Affected Environment ...... 17 3.1 Land Use ...... 17 3.1.1 General Land Use ...... 17 3.1.2 Special Designations ...... 17 3.1.3 Recreation ...... 18 3.2 Water Resources ...... 19 3.2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water ...... 19 3.2.2 Water Quality ...... 19

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page i 3.2.3 Floodplains ...... 20 3.2.4 Wetlands and Riparian ...... 20 3.3 Soils ...... 20 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 21 3.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 21 3.4.2 Wildlife ...... 22 3.4.3 Vegetation ...... 22 3.4.4 Prescott N.F. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...... 23 3.4.5 Prescott N.F. Management Indicator Species ...... 23 3.4.6 BLM Sensitive Species ...... 23 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 24 3.6 Air Quality ...... 25 3.7 Visual Resources ...... 26 3.8 Transportation ...... 29 3.9 Noise, Radio, and Television Interference ...... 30 3.10 Human Health and Safety ...... 31 3.10.1 Public and Worker Safety ...... 31 3.10.2 Wildfire ...... 31 3.10.3 Hazardous Materials ...... 31 3.11 Socioeconomic and Community Resources ...... 32 3.11.1 Employment and Income ...... 32 3.11.2 Demographic Trends ...... 32 3.11.3 Environmental Justice ...... 33 3.11.4 Community Resources ...... 33 4: Environmental Consequences ...... 35 4.1 Land Use ...... 35 4.1.1 General Land Use ...... 35 4.1.2 Special Designations ...... 35 4.1.3 Recreation ...... 36 4.2 Water Resources ...... 36 4.2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water ...... 36 4.2.2 Water Quality ...... 37 4.2.3 Floodplains ...... 37 4.2.4 Wetlands and Riparian ...... 38 4.3 Soils ...... 38 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 39 4.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 39 4.4.2 Wildlife ...... 39 4.4.3 Vegetation ...... 40 4.4.4 Prescott National Forest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...... 41 4.4.5. Prescott National Forest Management Indicator Species ...... 43 4.4.6 BLM Sensitive Species ...... 43 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 44 4.6 Air Quality ...... 45 4.7 Visual Resources ...... 46 4.8 Transportation ...... 47 4.9 Noise, Radio, and Television Interference ...... 48 4.10 Human Health and Safety ...... 48 4.10.1 Public and Worker Safety ...... 48 4.10.2 Wildfire ...... 49 4.10.3 Hazardous Materials ...... 49

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page ii 4.11 Socioeconomic and Community Resources ...... 49 4.11.1 Employment and Income ...... 49 4.11.2 Demographic Trends ...... 50 4.11.3 Environmental Justice ...... 50 4.11.4 Community Resources ...... 50 4.12 No-Action Alternative ...... 51 4.13 Cumulative and Residual Impacts ...... 51 4.13.1 Cumulative Impacts ...... 51 4.13.2 Residual Impacts ...... 51 5: Resource Protection Measures ...... 52 5.1 Water Resources ...... 52 5.2 Soils ...... 52 5.3 Biological Resources ...... 52 5.3.1 General ...... 52 5.3.2 Species Specific ...... 53 5.3.3 Noxious Weeds ...... 53 5.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ...... 54 5.5 Air Quality ...... 54 5.6 Human Health and Safety ...... 54 5.7 Access and Roads ...... 55 6: Consultation and Coordination ...... 56 6.1 Federal Agencies ...... 56 6.2 State Agencies ...... 56 6.3 Local Agencies ...... 56 6.4 Native American Tribes...... 56 7: List of Preparers ...... 57 7.1 Document Preparation and Research ...... 57 7.2 Contributing Project Team Members ...... 57 8: References ...... 58

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Scoping Summary APPENDIX B Project Alternatives Through the Prescott National Forest Comparison Tables APPENDIX C Prescott National Forest Approved Seed Mixture APPENDIX D Federally Listed Species Assessment APPENDIX E Prescott National Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List APPENDIX F Prescott National Forest Fire Requirements

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page iii LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Proposed Telecommunications Project Map ...... 2 FIGURE 2 Yavapai County Road Illustration ...... 6 FIGURE 3 Photograph – Existing TTTC facility located in Seligman, Arizona ...... 11 FIGURE 4 Typical Right-of-Way Marker ...... 11 FIGURE 5 Tractor Plow Installation ...... 14 FIGURE 6 Directional Bore Method ...... 14 FIGURE 7 Photograph – Location of Shiver Trap Trail #10 on the Prescott N.F...... 18 FIGURE 8 Photograph – View Along CR 5 of existing visual resource characteristics ...... 26 FIGURE 9 Photograph – View Along CR 5 of existing visual resource characteristics ...... 27 FIGURE 10 Photograph – Visual characteristics in rocky/hill areas along CR 68 ...... 28 FIGURE 11 Photograph – Example of densely forested area along CR 68 ...... 28 FIGURE 12 Photograph – Photograph depicts valley area near intersection of CR 68 and CR 5...... 29

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Summary of Required Permits ...... 4 TABLE 2 Project Features ...... 5 TABLE 3 Legal Description by Land Jurisdiction ...... 9 TABLE 4 Land Ownership for the Proposed Project Alignments ...... 9 TABLE 5 Management Indicator Species of the Prescott National Forest ...... 23 TABLE 6 Sites Identified as a Result of Survey from North to South ...... 24 TABLE 7 Unemployment and Median Family Income ...... 32 TABLE 8 General Demographic Profiles and Families Below Poverty Level ...... 33 TABLE 9 Historic Properties Protection Measures and Project Effects ...... 44

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page iv ACRONYMS

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AIDTT Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team APE Area of Potential Effect ARS Arizona Revised Statutes ASHA American Speech-Language-Hearing Association ASLD Arizona State Land Department ASM Arizona State Museum AZPDES Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon Monoxide CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibel EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ER Environmental Report ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HPDE High Polyethylene LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MIS Management Indicator Species MP Mile post N.F. National Forest NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHV Off-highway Vehicle PFA Post Fledging Area PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 Particulate Matter Less than 10 microns in diameter ROW Right-of-Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNC The Nature Conservancy TTTC Table Top Telephone Company, Inc. USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page v 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND Table Top Telephone Company, Inc. (TTTC) proposes to construct, operate, and maintain an underground telecommunication system between the communities of Bagdad, Talking Rock, and Seligman, Yavapai County, Arizona (Figure 1). The telecommunication system would consist of buried fiber optic cable, conduit, and associated facilities that would be installed within and adjacent to existing roadways between these communities. The system would serve local residents and businesses in these areas.

The telecommunication system would be constructed by two projects. The first project, known as the Talking Rock to Seligman Telecommunications Project, would be constructed within Yavapai County Road (CR) 5 right-of-way (ROW) between the communities of Talking Rock and Seligman. The second project, known as the Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Project, would be constructed within Yavapai CR 68 ROW between the community of Bagdad and the junction of CR 68 and CR 5. The projects would cross the Prescott National Forest (Prescott N.F.), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), State of Arizona, and private land jurisdictions. Together the projects would consist of a total of approximately 102 miles of underground fiber optic cable, conduit, and associated facilities. Construction for the Talking Rock to Seligman Telecommunications Project is anticipated to begin during the summer of 2010, while the Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Project would likely begin during the spring 2011 depending on weather conditions.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts and to support TTTC’s applications for loan grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development for both of the proposed projects. Rural Development is a Federal agency which provides financial support for utility projects that serve rural areas throughout the United States. Rural Development is the lead Federal agency for compliance activities associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Other Federal agencies involved in these projects and associated NEPA compliance activities include the Forest Service and BLM. TTTC has retained Transcon Environmental, Inc. (Transcon) to perform environmental compliance activities for both of these projects.

TTTC is a rural telecommunications and telephone services provider that serves rural communities throughout Arizona. TTTC currently provides services to communities such as Ajo, where it is headquartered, Aguila, Bagdad, Seligman, and Sanders, Arizona. The company was established in the mid-1990s in response to a need from rural Arizona communities for reliable and cost effective telecommunication and telephone service.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 1 FIGURE 1

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 2 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of these two projects is to satisfy the need for new telecommunication facilities and capacity between and to the community areas of Talking Rock, Seligman, and Bagdad, Arizona. The existing TTTC microwave system, which is the primary service method for these areas, is outdated and unable to supply current demands for service and reliability. The proposed projects would allow TTTC to provide greater capacity and better quality service with more telecommunication service options to its customers. The proposed projects would provide a full range of telecommunication services, including expanded high-speed internet and local and long-distance telephone services.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1.3.1 Rural Development Rural Development is the lead Federal agency for compliance activities associated with NEPA and considers impacts for the entire length of the project. Projects listed in the Rural Development’s Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1794.22(a), require the submittal of an Environmental Report (ER). The proposed projects are within the criteria of ―categorically excluded proposals requiring an ER‖ as described in 7 CFR 1794.22(a)(2). This EA will address all requirements associated with an ER and is being prepared with guidance from Rural Development Bulletin 1794A-600 (Revised), pursuant to NEPA.

1.3.2 Forest Service Both projects would cross Prescott N.F. land along CR 5 and CR 68. The project areas are administered by the Prescott N.F. Chino Valley Ranger District. These projects are consistent with the Prescott N.F. Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The Prescott N.F. will prepare and approve a Decision Document authorizing the projects across their land. The Prescott N.F. determined the project did not conform to any of the Forest Service list of Categorical Exclusions and that an EA would be needed to satisfy NEPA requirements. Following the Decision Document, a Special Use Authorization for the project would be issued.

1.3.3 Bureau of Land Management The Bagdad to County Road 5 Project would cross BLM land managed by the Kingman Field Office. This document is being prepared to meet BLM requirements and analyzes the resource elements that are normally required to be reviewed in EA-level documents. Additionally, the proposed project is located within the area recently reviewed in an EA for ROW to Yavapai County for road construction activities. No significant impacts were identified.

The proposed action is in conformance with the BLM Kingman Management Framework Plan, which was approved March 1983. The land use plan states in Decision LR 13a, ―All other minor ROWs would be evaluated through the environmental review process and granted or rejected on a case by case basis. Existing rights-of-way would be used when possible to minimize surface disturbance.‖

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 3 1.4 CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS TTTC would conform with all applicable regulations for all agencies that are involved in the proposed project, as represented in Table 1.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED PERMITS Permitting Agency Permit/Authorization Financial Assistance USDA, Rural Development RUS Loan Form 515 Forest Service, Decision Memo Prescott National Forest Special Use Permits Bureau of Land Management, Federal Land Policy and Management Act Kingman Field Office Rights-of Way (long-term and temporary) CWA Section 401/404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 CWA Section 402 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit

Arizona Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit (Across Interstate-40) Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (consultation and concurrence)

Arizona State Land Department ROW Easements

Yavapai County Encroachment Permits

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Property Easements

1.5 DECISION FRAMEWORK This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Prescott N. F. Plan and helps move the project area towards desired conditions in that plan. These projects ―fulfill a demonstrated special need without unduly infringing on the use by the general public‖ (Prescott N.F.LRMP, 1986, as amended).

1.6 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SCOPING PROCESS A scoping letter describing both projects was sent on September 22, 2009 to Federal, State, local agencies, interest groups, and private landowners with land adjacent to the proposed project areas to solicit input and comments (Appendix A).

The Prescott N.F. posted the proposed project on their online Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) list beginning on October 1, 2009. Project information, Prescott N.F. contact person and contact information were provided through the website listing. The SOPA list is available to the public online through the Prescott N.F. webpage.

Prescott N.F. is the lead agency for National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance activities and is performing scoping and consultation with Native American tribes. Through consultation activities the Prescott N.F. contacted the Yavapai Prescott, Yavapai-Apache, Fort McDowell Yavapai, Tonto Apache, Hopi, and Hualapai Tribes. No issues were identified during consultation.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 4 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter presents a description of the alternatives that have been considered for these projects. There are three alternatives that are analyzed: the proposed action, an alternative that would place the project within the road prism on Prescott N.F. administered lands, and the no-action alternative. A table comparing impacts from the three alternatives for each project is found in Appendix B. Also presented are several alternatives that were considered but subsequently eliminated from further analysis.

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION Through the proposed action, TTTC proposes to install a buried fiber optic telecommunication line, and construct associated appurtenant structures, between Talking Rock and Seligman, and Bagdad and CR 5. The telecommunication system would be constructed through two projects with features summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2

PROJECT FEATURES Project Miles Buried Infrastructure Handholes* New Access Roads ROW Width Talking Rock to Seligman 56 Fiber optic cable, two conduits 14 None 10 feet Bagdad to CR 5 46 Fiber optic cable, two conduits 12 None 10 feet *Approximately one handhole every four miles

The total length of project facilities is approximately 102 miles. TTTC would own, operate, and maintain the fiber optic cable, conduits, and associated facilities. At this time, TTTC does not plan to sublease or sell excess capacity or allow use of the conduits to other companies. TTTC would be the sole user and operator of the facilities.

The project between Talking Rock and Seligman, along CR 5, would be constructed first. TTTC would then construct the project between Bagdad and CR 5, along CR 68, and make necessary interconnections at the intersection of CR 5 and CR 68 where the two projects are proposed to meet (see Figure 1).

The proposed telecommunication system would be located within road corridors. Specifically, the project would be placed either in the road prism, which includes all parts of the road including cut banks, ditches, road surfaces, road shoulders and road fills, or adjacent to the road within the road ROW (Figure 2). TTTC would ensure burial depths of the fiber optic cable and conduits are deep enough to ensure future maintenance performed on the roads does not disturb their facilities. Burial depths would meet Yavapai County road requirements. Yavapai County has required that, in locations where the cable is placed within the road prism, the cable be encased in a protective steel pipe. They have also requested that, in locations where the pipe is located outside of the road prism, it be located a minimum of five feet from the edge of road prism.

In areas of sensitive resources (e.g., biological, cultural) and/or difficult topography, the project would be located within the road prism. Through the ponderosa pine areas located on the Prescott N.F. along CR 68, the fiber optic cable would be placed in the road prism. Through this area (approximately eight miles) the project would be located within the road prism at a depth of four feet. The fiber would be placed in steel pipe and handholes in this area would be placed outside of the road prism immediately adjacent to the road.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 5 FIGURE 2

Generally, a 15-foot temporary construction easement will be needed during installation within the road corridors, along with a permanent easement of 10 feet for maintenance and operation of the system. Both the 15-foot-wide temporary construction easement and the 10-foot-wide permanent easement may be used for a total potential disturbance area of 25 feet in width. Most construction disturbance is anticipated to be 10 to 15 feet wide.

TTTC would serve current and future customer needs for telecommunication service through these projects. The fiber optic cable that would be installed would be used to meet current customer needs. Two additional conduits would be installed to address future demands. These conduits would remain empty until the need to install fiber optic cables within them arises as a result of repair needs or customer demand for additional services. The placement of additional conduits would reduce future ground disturbance when additional fiber optic cable is needed to meet customer demand.

2.2 ALIGNMENT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE ROAD PRISM THROUGH PRESCOTT N.F. ALTERNATIVE This alternative would be the same as the proposed action with the exception that through Prescott N.F. administered land the project would be located entirely within the road prism. A total of approximately 32.41 miles would be placed in the road prism through Prescott N.F. lands (Talking Rock to Seligman 12.79 miles and Bagdad to CR 5 19.62 miles). TTTC would install the cable through these areas pursuant to Yavapai County Road requirements. This would include encasing the fiber in a steel pipe and placing it at a depth greater than 48 inches.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 6 2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, TTTC would not construct the proposed telecommunication system. TTTC would continue to use the existing outdated and unreliable microwave system which is currently unable to meet customer demand for services. Customers in the area of Bagdad, Talking Rock, and Seligman, and along the project alignment, would not benefit from more reliable and enhanced telecommunication service.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED Given the proposed location of the projects and the existing rural and undeveloped landscape, there were limited opportunities available to install new facilities to serve these communities. The existing roadways provided the most apparent opportunity for the placement of facilities as they provided a means to complete construction without unnecessary damage to the environment. Placement away from the existing roadways areas was not considered as any alternative of this nature would cause substantial and unnecessary damage to the environment. This would result in additional costs for construction and maintenance and, in general, would not be feasible in the long-term for TTTC to administer the facilities.

Several alternatives that followed the existing roadway corridors were considered that could potentially meet the purpose and need for the project. These alternatives were subsequently eliminated from further consideration. These alternatives are identified below accompanied by the rationale for eliminating them.

2.4.1 Aerial Installation of Facilities The purpose and need for the project could be met if facilities were constructed aerially between upright poles along CR 5 and CR 68, along the proposed routes. Preliminary review of this alternative revealed that over the life of the project this alternative may not be optimal for long-term operation and maintenance. TTTC may have to expend more resources and time on maintenance activities for aerial facilities serving these communities than they otherwise would if the facilities were buried. Further, poles would have to be added for the entire portion of both projects because they currently do not exist along the proposed alignments. This would add a long-term visual intrusion to the landscape because overhead utility structures currently do not exist.

2.4.2 Bury Facilities Directly Within the Roadways The purpose and need for the project could be met if the facilities were buried entirely in the middle or entirely within the existing road prism. This alternative was eliminated from consideration for several reasons. Yavapai County, who maintains jurisdiction over CR 5 and CR 68, has expressed their preference that facilities not be buried directly within the traveled roadway. This would maintain the integrity of the road and reduce potential impacts to the cable from road maintenance activities. Yavapai County will allow the buried cable to be located within the road prism but would require that it be placed at a greater depth within a protective steel pipe.

Placing the cable within the steel pipe within the road bed for the entire length of the project through the Prescott N.F. was considered by TTTC. The estimated cost for the steel pipe and fiber optic cable is approximately $91,000 per mile. This is much higher than traditional costs of construction not involving steel pipe. TTTC has received a bid to complete the entire length of the Talking Rock to Seligman alignment (approximately 55.65 miles) using normal construction techniques with no steel pipe for $1,354,172 (approximately $24,333 per mile). The cost of steel pipe is greater than three times the cost of traditional methods.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 7 TTTC has committed to place the cable in steel pipe within road prism in some areas of sensitive resources and difficult terrain.

2.5 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed projects would both be located in Yavapai County in north-central Arizona. They would cross Federal, State, and private land jurisdictions. The legal description for each project is in Table 3.

TABLE 3

LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY LAND JURISDICTION* Land Jurisdiction Township Range Section(s) Talking Rock to Seligman Project Forest Service 18 North 5 West 4, 8, 9, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28 19 N 5 W 6, 18, 20, 28 20 N 6 W 4, 16, 22, 26, 36 State of Arizona 17 N 4 W 4, 10, 14, 26 21 N 6 W 28, 34 22 N 6 W 12, 24, 36 22 N 5 W 18 Private 16 N 3 W 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 17 N 3 W 31 17 N 4 W 3, 15, 23, 24, 25. 36 18 N 4 W 31, 32, 33 18 N 5 W 20, 21, 25, 36 19 N 5 W 7, 17, 21, 29, 33 19 N 6 W 1 20 N 6 W 5, 9, 15, 22, 23, 25 21 N 6 W 1, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 33 22 N 6 W 1, 13, 25 22 N 5 W 6, 7, 19 23 N 6 W 36 Bagdad to County Road 5 Project Forest Service 16 North 7 West 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22 16 N 6 W 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 16 N 5 W 1, 5, 6 17 N 5 W 33, 34, 35, 36 17 N 4 W 31 BLM 14 ½ N 8 W 30 State of Arizona 14 ½ N 8 W 19, 20, 21 15 N 9 W 36 15 N 8 W 1, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, ,28, 32, 33 16 N 7 W 19, 30, 31 17 N 4 W 26

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 8 TABLE 3

LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY LAND JURISDICTION* Land Jurisdiction Township Range Section(s) Private 14 N 9 W 2, 11 14 ½ N 8 W 31 15 N 9 W 35 15 N 8 W 1, 12, 14, 28, 33 16 N 7 W 2, 11, 14, 20 16 N 6 W 6, 7 17 N 4 W 25, 27, 32, 33, 34 * Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian Source: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps (Bagdad, Big Shipp Mountain, Behm Mesa, Scratch Canyon, Camp Wood, Seepage Mountain, Simmons, Sullivan Buttes, Limestone Peak, Indian Peak, Red Mountain, Turkey Canyon, Turkey Canyon NE, Purcell Canyon, Seligman East, and Seligman West)

2.5.1 Project Alignment Descriptions Talking Rock to Seligman Beginning near the community of Talking Rock, at an interconnection point along CR 5, the project facilities are proposed to be located on the east side of the road until reaching a location near Mile Post (MP) 43, where the alignment would change sides to be located on the west side of the road. The alignment would continue along the west side of the CR 5 road until reaching the road junction with Interstate-40 (I-40). The facilities would be bored beneath the interstate, travel west and north along existing roadways in Seligman until reaching the TTTC building located in the center of town.

Bagdad to County Road 5 The project alignment, beginning in Bagdad at the TTTC building (Mile 0) and traveling east, would follow Lindahl Road on its south (east) side until the junction with CR 68 (where the dirt road begins). At this location (approximately Mile 3) the alignment would change to the north (west) side of the road. The alignment would continue on the north (west) side for several miles, where the side of the road would change to the south side once again (at approximately Mile 5.5). The alignment continues on the south (east) side of the road until reaching Mile 8, approximately. A switch would occur at this location to the north (west) side of the road and continue on this route until approximately Mile 25.5. Through the ponderosa pine forest areas located on the Prescott N.F., the alignment would be placed within the road bed. After this section, the alignment would be located on the south (east) side of the road until reaching its junction with CR 5. At the junction with CR 5 the alignment changes sides of the road, construction would follow a straight (not angled) line across the dirt road and necessary compaction standards would be adhered to. Table 4 summarizes the land ownership for both project alignments.

TABLE 4

LAND OWNERSHIP FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALIGNMENTS Land Ownership Talking Rock to Seligman Bagdad to County Road 5 Total Miles Forest Service 12.79 19.62 32.41 BLM –– 1.34 1.34 State of Arizona 7.41 12.66 20.07 Private 35.45 11.87 47.32 Total 55.65 45.49 101.14

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 9 2.6 PROJECT FACILITIES 2.6.1 Fiber Optic Cable and Conduits The proposed fiber optic cable system consists of a fiber optic cable enclosed in a plastic sheath and two 1.25-inch conduits made of poly-pipe. The fiber optic cable would provide services for current use. The two conduits would not have cables installed at this time; instead they would provide space for future use to repair segments of the line as necessary. Installing the conduits at this time would minimize future ground disturbance when additional capacity is needed. The cable and conduits would be placed in the ground at a minimum depth of three feet throughout the project alignment. Where the route crosses a dry creek or drainage, the cable and conduits would be placed in the ground at a minimum depth of six feet below the surface.

2.6.2 Buried Handholes One handhole would be placed approximately every four miles along the entire length of the project route to provide assist points and splice locations for the cable installation. Installation of the handholes requires excavation of an area that is a minimum six feet deep, and approximately four feet long and six feet wide for each installation. The handhole would consist of a preformed polymer-concrete box measuring 36 inches by 60 inches by 36 inches that would be buried at ground level, or slightly below the surface. Once the project is completed, the buried handholes would be accessed periodically for maintenance activities. Handholes will avoid cultural resources and sensitive biological resources.

2.6.3 Amplification/Regeneration Facilities In order to maintain the integrity of signals being transmitted over the new fiber optic system, signals would be amplified approximately every 40 to 50 miles. There would be one amplification facility as part of these projects that would consist of a prefabricated building situated on an approximate six-inch gravel base. The area would be approximately 50 feet wide and 50 feet long. The location of the amplification site is still being engineered. It is known that it would not be located on Forest Service or BLM- administered land and would be located in an area that avoids sensitive environmental resources.

2.6.4 Tie-In Facilities The proposed fiber optic system would tie in to an existing TTTC facility in Seligman (Figure 3), existing facilities in Talking Rock, and existing facilities in Bagdad. There would be a tie-in facility where the two proposed projects would interconnect at the junction of CR 5 and CR 68.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 10

FIGURE 3. Existing TTTC facility located in Seligman, Arizona. View to the northwest.

2.6.5 Right-of-Way Markers Right-of-way marker signs would be installed along the proposed project routes near the centerline of the ROW, where approved by the applicable land-management agency and landowners. These markers are typically colored orange, four to five feet tall, and printed with a warning indicating the presence of the buried fiber optic cable. The markers are spaced within line of sight of one another. A brightly color plastic tape is buried over the conduit bundle in the trench at the time of trench backfill, with at least 12 inches of cover to warn anyone digging in the area of the fiber optic line. Figure 4 shows a depiction of a ROW marker.

FIGURE 4 TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY MARKER

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 11 2.6.6 Storage and Staging Area The contractor performing construction activities for the project would be responsible for locating storage and staging areas in Bagdad, near Talking Rock and Seligman. The yard(s) would be located in a previously developed area(s) on private land. TTTC and its contractor would need Prescott N.F. approval for any storage and staging areas located on Prescott N.F. administered lands.

Because of the nature of linear construction of buried telecommunication lines the construction equipment will be stored on the approved ROW. All construction equipment will be stored in such a manner as to maintain access along major road ways.

2.6.7 Steel Pipe Where the cable is placed within the road prism Yavapai County has required that the cable be placed within a steel pipe. The pipe would be approximately 1 to 2 inches in diameter and would consist of an inter duct made of High PolyEthylene (HPDE), a galvanized steel tape, and HDPE jacket. The buried depth would be approximately four feet.

2.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Typical construction sequence for both of the projects are summarized and described as follows:  Permitting  Flagging and staking the ROW  Clearing and grading  Installation of the fiber optic cable and conduits  Placement of ROW markers  Development of amplification/regeneration facility  Fiber optic cable testing  Site clean-up and restoration  Operation and maintenance  Abandonment

2.7.1 Permitting The Prescott N.F., Chino Valley Ranger District would review applications for Special Use Permits. The BLM, Kingman Field Office would review a ROW application for the project. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) would review applications for ROW easements. Yavapai County would consider an encroachment permit. As necessary, coordination would occur with private landowners for permission to cross their land.

The project would adhere to the stipulations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide 12 permit in compliance with Sections 401/404 of the CWA. A Notice of Intent would be filed with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) Storm Water Permit. In addition to adhering to BLM’s plant salvage requirements, TTTC would provide notification 30 to 60 days prior to construction to the Arizona Department of Agriculture informing them of the intent to move and/or destroy native plants.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 12 2.7.2 Flagging and Staking the Right-of-Way All activities associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the ROW would be conducted within the authorized limits of the long-term and temporary ROW areas. Route staking would be implemented to ensure construction occurs in the ROW and would include the following:  Centerline Staking—this would indicate the general area of placement for the proposed cable and conduits.  Construction Limits Staking—this marks the boundary of the authorized temporary ROW and the limits construction can extend.  Boring Staking—flagging would be used where a bore would be required.  Environmental Avoidance Staking—flagging would designate the limits of areas of concern.

2.7.3 Clearing and Grading Clearing of vegetation, brush clearing, and minor grading would be performed in areas of dense vegetation or where the topography makes it difficult for equipment to operate safely or effectively. Debris from these activities would be mulched and left on-site or removed to an appropriate off-site landfill as directed by authorizing agencies.

2.7.4 Installation of the Fiber Optic Cable and Conduits Installation of the facilities would be completed via plowing, trenching, and directional boring. Each is described in the following paragraphs. In some circumstances, the assumed method of installation may not be practical or would be impossible, and an alternate method would be considered. If an alternative construction method creates impacts outside of the analysis considered in the EA, the construction manager would consult with the appropriate agency and a supplemental analysis would be performed if necessary.

Plowing The tractor plow illustration (Figure 5) depicts a typical plow installation. This is the preferred method of construction. The plow normally follows another tracked vehicle that uses a ripper shank to pre-plow the ground, providing a pathway for the tractor plow to follow and install the conduit into the ground. The plowing method of construction requires no trench and does not create a spoil pile. The width of direct soil disturbance caused by the burial plow would be approximately one foot; in addition, surface disturbance from the equipment tracks would average 10 to 15 feet in width. Plowing would utilize tracked equipment with a plow capable of maintaining the minimum depth of conduit while causing minimum displacement of the soil. After the conduit is placed, the disturbed ground would be restored utilizing a roller to compact the disturbed soil.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 13 FIGURE 5 TRACTOR PLOW INSTALLATION

Trenching Open trenching involves excavating a trench of 12 to 24 inches wide and six feet deep using a backhoe or rubber-tired tracked excavator. The conduit is placed in the trench and, as the equipment excavates ahead, the side case material is backfilled into the trench and suitably compacted. Trenching is anticipated in areas where the conduit cannot be placed to depth by the plowing method. These areas are:  Handholes and Tie-Ins—locations where the conduit is joined due to placement by different methods (i.e., plowing and directional boring).  Rocky Soils or Rock Outcroppings—areas where rocky soils or the presence of rock prevents plowing. Spoils would be returned to the ditch and placed over and along the running line within the disturbed area.

Directional Boring Directional boring is a process in which a hole is drilled using guidance equipment that provides continuous, accurate monitoring of the drill bit position. The bore machine is set outside of the wash bank or roadway. Once the bore drill reaches the opposite side of the wash or road, the cable and conduits can be attached to the drill and pulled back through the bore hole without disturbing the wash banks, roads, or other sensitive resources. The hole would be lubricated with mud, ultimately filling all voids. This is shown in Figure 6.

FIGURE 6 DIRECTIONAL BORE METHOD

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 14 Rock Trenching At times, the project facilities would be installed using a rock trenching process. This is similar to a dirt material trenching process, only a rock trencher is used to go through material that typical trenching equipment cannot. After facilities are placed in the trench, the area is compacted to appropriate standards. It is anticipated that rock trenching would be used during the construction phase of these projects.

2.7.5 Placement of Right-of-Way Markers Right-of-way marker signs (as shown in Figure 4) would be placed along the project alignment to identify the presence and ownership of the fiber optic cable and conduits. The markers would be pounded into the ground and would not require excavation or surface disturbance beyond placement of the marker.

2.7.6 Development of Amplification/Regeneration Facility The location of the amplification/regeneration facility is currently being analyzed. This facility would maintain the integrity of signals being transmitted over the fiber optic system.

2.7.7 Fiber Optic Cable Testing Once the fiber optic cable is installed, it would be tested to verify the cable functions properly. Damaged portions of the cable would be repaired prior to restoration activities.

2.7.8 Site Clean-up and Restoration Upon completion of the project, the ROW areas would be restored to reduce potential erosion and, to the extent possible, reflect the condition of the surrounding landscape. All non-permanent materials and debris would be removed from the site. Areas identified by the authorizing agencies would be seeded with seed mix approved by the agency having jurisdiction and would be applied as specified by the agency. The approved Prescott N.F. seed mixture is provided in Appendix C.

Existing roads that are used would be reclaimed to their original state. Reclamation would occur upon completion of the project to replace the condition of the roads to their original condition or provide for reasonable improvements that allow them to be traversable. All gates and fences which are crossed would be left to meet existing conditions, or be repaired as necessary.

2.7.9 Operation and Maintenance Maintenance of the fiber optic telecommunication system would consist of periodic inspection of facilities and the ROW, testing of the equipment, and repair of equipment, as needed. If necessary, some existing access roads and erosion control features would be graded, repaired, or maintained according to the permit or ROW conditions.

2.7.10 Abandonment Underground facilities would be abandoned in place to minimize future ground disturbance when they are no longer possible to upgrade.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 15 2.8 LAND USE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS 2.8.1 Access Both projects are entirely adjacent to existing roadways, primarily Yavapai County roadways, thus minimizing access road requirements. No attempt would be made to improve or modify the existing access roads. Existing roads would be used for entrance to and exit from the ROW corridors. All access to the permitted construction areas would be at previously used locations unless prohibited by the Prescott N.F., BLM, the ASLD or private landowners. After work hours, construction vehicles would be left within the ROW in such a manner as to maintain access, or be returned to designated staging yards. In the event collateral damage to existing streets or other public facilities occurs, repairs would adhere to the permit requirements of the governing agency. Otherwise the damaged road or facility would be repaired to an equal or better condition.

Access for the public use would be maintained throughout the duration of the project. Should a unique area require temporary closure of a road due to difficult construction conditions, TTTC and its construction contractor will work with authorizing agencies to limit impacts for public access.

2.8.2 Fences and Range Improvements If construction associated with the ROW breaks or destroys a natural barrier or existing fence used for livestock control, gaps would be temporarily fenced to prevent passage of livestock. Each fence crossed by the alignment would be braced and secured to prevent slacking of the wire before cutting the wire for cable installation. Any fence opening created during construction would be temporarily closed, as necessary, to prevent passage of livestock. Upon completion of construction and restoration, all fences and other range improvement projects would be re-established to the specifications of the Prescott N.F., BLM, the ASLD, or the private landowners.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 16 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the existing environment for both project alignments and both alternatives under consideration. In general, both project alignments and the two alternatives are within undeveloped rural areas where ranching dominates the existing land use. Recreational activities occur on adjacent forest land. Talking Rock, Seligman, and Bagdad are the primary populated areas and are located at the end points of the project alignments. The populations in these areas are limited. In many cases, because of the proximity of the projects and alternatives to one another, environmental resources are similar. Where possible, and for brevity, resource information that is presented will be combined for both projects and alternatives. Where differences exist, they will be noted by project name.

3.1 LAND USE 3.1.1 General Land Use Talking Rock to Seligman Residential and commercial land uses occur near the Talking Rock to Seligman project route. In general, residential and commercial uses are concentrated in the small community areas of Talking Rock and Seligman, at the end points of the project alignments. Talking Rock is a new master planned residential subdivision community where landowners may have custom homes built; Seligman is a small unincorporated community with residences, several small businesses (i.e., gas and service stations) and other community features (i.e., schools and a church). It provides visitor services to travelers along I-40. Between the two communities are intermittent rural residences, some of which are part of large ranches in the area (e.g., K-4 Ranch and the Yavapai Ranch). The proximity of residential and commercial uses to the project area vary from being close (several hundred feet) within Seligman to quite distant (miles) along CR 5.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Residential and commercial land uses within this project route occur, in general, within the unincorporated community of Bagdad. Land use near Bagdad is dominated by the nearby copper mining operation of the Cyprus Bagdad Copper Mine. Operations at the mine largely support the community. Commercial uses in Bagdad include several businesses, including a Basha’s grocery store, service stations, and small restaurants. Adjacent to the project alignment there is a fire station, several residences, and some small businesses (Copper Hills Motel and RV Park & Bar). On the opposite side of the alignment there is a church and a golf course. Between Bagdad and CR 5, there are intermittent rural residences which are primarily part of large ranches in the area. These include the Yolo Ranch and Cross V Ranch.

3.1.2 Special Designations There are no special land use designations (Wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Prime and Unique Farmland) that occur within or in the vicinity of either of the project areas. There are no other special land designations (i.e., Scenic Roadways or Byways) that are within or in the vicinity of either of the project areas.

Currently there is a land exchange the Prescott N.F. is working on with Yavapai Ranch. This land exchange will consolidate private and Federal land ownership along CR 5, near the middle of the Talking Rock to Seligman project alignment, thereby reducing the ―checkerboard‖ nature of the existing land jurisdiction (see Figure 1). The land exchange is currently ongoing.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 17 3.1.3 Recreation Talking Rock to Seligman Recreation uses occur adjacent to the proposed project alignment, primarily on the Prescott N.F. land, and may involve camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and various other outdoor activities (Prescott N.F. 2008). There may also be off-highway vehicle (OHV) use along CR 5. Within the community of Talking Rock there are recreational activities for residents, including a private golf and fitness center. Within the community of Seligman, there are some opportunities for recreation on baseball and football fields as well as other areas (Arizona Department of Commerce 2008a).

Bagdad to County Road 5 Recreation uses occur adjacent to the proposed project alignment, primarily on the Prescott N.F. land, and may involve camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and various other outdoor activities (Prescott N.F. 2008). There may also be OHV use along CR 68. Trails with access from CR 68, along this alignment, include Shiver Trap Trail #10 (Figure 7), Trail 918, and Trail 9874/B. Within the community of Bagdad there is, among other areas, a community park where recreation may occur (Arizona Department of Commerce 2008b). There is a golf course in Bagdad located near the proposed project alignment, on the opposite side of the road.

Shiver Trap Trail #10

County Road 68

FIGURE 7. Location of Shiver Trap Trail #10 on the Prescott N.F. with access from CR 68. View to the east.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 18 3.2 WATER RESOURCES 3.2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Talking Rock to Seligman Groundwater data was retrieved from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). ADWR has established planning areas describing the water resources of the State. This project area is within the Central Highlands Planning Area (Verde River basin, Big Chino sub-basin). ADWR (2008) describes the major aquifers in the Verde River basin as including the Verde formation, recent stream alluvium, basin fill carbonate aquifers, and igneous and metamorphic rock. Flow direction is generally from north to south following the Verde River. Most well yields in the Verde River basin are less than 100 gallons per minute. Principal sources of recharge in the Big Chino sub-basin are from runoff along the mountain fronts and the major washes.

The proposed facilities would cross two perennial waters, Williamson Valley Wash and Walnut Creek, along the alignment. There are approximately 56 unnamed washes that are crossed by the proposed project alignment in which water can potentially be present during and after rainfall events.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Groundwater data was also retrieved for this project area from ADWR. This project is within a small portion of the Central Highlands Planning Area (Verde River basin, Big Chino sub-basin), between Camp Wood and CR 5. The remaining portion of the project area between Camp Wood and Bagdad is within the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (Bill Williams Basin). ADWR (2008) describes the major aquifers in the Verde River basin as including recent stream alluvium, basin fill, and volcanic rock. Flow direction is generally from east to west. One source of well yield information, based on 195 reported wells, indicates the median well yield in this basin is 280 gallons per minute.

The proposed facilities would not cross any perennial streams along the alignment. There are three intermittent waters associated with the project including: Boulder Creek, Bridal Creek, and Pine Creek. There are approximately 87 additional unnamed washes that are crossed by the proposed project alignment where water can potentially be present during and after rainfall events.

3.2.2 Water Quality Talking Rock to Seligman ADWR (2008) has collected water quality data for the Verde River basin. Most areas within the basin where drinking water standards have been equaled or exceeded are near populated areas. Nearest to the project alignment (several miles away from CR 5) there are three sites where data reflects a well or spring site that has equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. These sites are near the southern, middle, and northern portions of the alignment. There are no impaired lakes or streams that cross or are within the vicinity of the project area.

Bagdad to County Road 5 ADWR (2008) has reported water quality data for the Bill Williams basin. Nearest to the proposed project alignment there are three sites where data reflects well sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. These sites are within one mile of the project area near Bagdad.

There is an impaired stream (Boulder Creek) that would be crossed by the proposed alignment that is located northeast of Bagdad. Boulder Creek, from Copper Creek to Wilder Creek, has been identified as

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 19 an impaired surface water by ADEQ due to excessive amounts of arsenic, copper, and zinc in the water column. Historic metal mining from the ―inactive‖ Hillside Mine left behind an abundance of metal contaminants which negatively affect the downstream health of Boulder Creek and accompanying ecosystem (ADEQ 2004). Boulder Creek is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final TMDL report has been completed for Boulder Creek and an implementation plan is underway (ADEQ 2004; ADWR 2008).

3.2.3 Floodplains Talking Rock to Seligman The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the project area were reviewed. Where data was available, there are approximately 12 floodplain crossings along CR 5 (FEMA 2006) where the project alignment is proposed. These include named and unnamed intermittent creeks and washes. Named creeks and washes include Mint Wash, Hitt Wash, Mud Tank Wash, Walnut Creek, Pine Creek, Turkey Canyon Creek, and Chino Wash. These areas have been designated as special flood hazard areas, subject to inundation by flood events.

Bagdad to County Road 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this project area were also reviewed. Where data was available, it reflected that there are approximately two floodplain crossings along CR 68 (FEMA 2006) where the project alignment is proposed. These crossings include Pine Creek and Hitt Wash. Both areas that have been designated as special flood hazard areas, subject to inundation by flood events. Many areas along this alignment occur where floodplain data is not currently available

3.2.4 Wetlands and Riparian There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers along either of the project alignments. There are no coastal areas in the vicinity of either of the project areas. There are some riparian and wetland plant species associated with perennial and intermittent water crossings including Williamson Valley Wash and Walnut Creek. There are no other areas with riparian or wetland vegetation.

3.3 SOILS Soil data was gathered from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The most common soil associations among both project alignments include soils of valley fans, terraces, and plains. These include the Continental-Whitlock-Cave association, and the Pastura-Poley-Patri association, found along both of the proposed project alignments. There are small portions of both project alignments where the presence of the Barkerville-Moano association reflects soils of mountains and hills. Specific information regarding soil types for the projects is below (USDA 1973).

Talking Rock to Seligman  Barkerville-Moana Association: Shallow and moderately deep; well-drained; gravelly, very gravelly, cobbly, stony, and very stony soils that are dominantly sandy loam and loam.  Continental-Whitlock-Cave Association: Deep and shallow; gravelly, cobbly, or stony soils that are dominantly sandy loam on nearly level to steep fans, plains, and valley side slopes.  Springerville-Cabezon Association: Shallow, moderately deep, and deep; gravelly, cobbly, or stony soils that are dominantly silty clay and loam on nearly level plains and mesas and on very steep side slopes.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 20  Cabezon-Thunderbird-Venezia Association: Shallow and moderately deep; gravelly, cobbly, or stony soils that are dominantly loam and clay loam on gently sloping and undulating plains, mesas and very steep side slopes.  Pastura-Poley-Patri Association: Deep to shallow soils that are dominantly loam and gravelly sandy loam on nearly level to moderately steep fans, plains, and side slopes.

Bagdad to County Road 5  Barkerville-Moana Association: Shallow and moderately deep; well-drained; gravelly, very gravelly, cobbly, stony, and very stony soils that are dominantly sandy loam and loam.  Mirabel-Dandrea-Brolliar Association: Shallow and moderately deep; gravelly, cobbly, and stony soils that are dominantly sandy loam, loam, and silt loam.  Continental-Whitlock-Cave Association: Deep and shallow; gravelly, cobbly, or stony soils that are dominantly sandy loam on nearly level to steep fans, plains, and valley side slopes.  Pastura-Poley-Patri Association: Deep to shallow soils that are dominantly loam and gravelly sandy loam on nearly level to moderately steep fans, plains, and side slopes.  Lonti-Balon-Lynx Association: Deep soils that are dominantly loam, clay loam, gravelly or cobbly sandy loam, and gravelly sandy clay loam on nearly level and very steep fans, plains and flood plains.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Transcon biologists conducted field review of both of the project areas in the fall of 2005 and the spring of 2010 to document vegetation communities and evaluate potential habitat for special status species. Suitable habitat was determined by the presence of diagnostic habitat elements. The surveys covered the entire project alignments and all land jurisdictions. Surveys consisted of both walking and driving the proposed project alignment. A Biological Evaluation has been prepared for the proposed projects with a summary of the analysis below.

3.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Federally listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring within Yavapai County were identified using information from Federal and State resource agencies. Federally-protected species, as used here, are those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened, endangered, or are proposed as candidates for such listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A total of 15 Federally-listed threatened or endangered species with the potential to occur within the proposed project areas were identified and are listed in Appendix D. Project areas were then evaluated to determine whether they contained suitable habitat for each of these species. If suitable habitat existed, it was determined that the species was potentially occurring in that location.

Talking Rock to Seligman Based on this review, one species, the Gila chub, was identified as potentially occurring within this project area. The Gila chub was listed as endangered with critical habitat under the ESA in 2005. This species occurs in Arizona and New Mexico in streams, ponds, and cienegas. There is designated critical habitat for the Gila chub associated with Williamson Valley Wash east of CR 5.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 21 Bagdad to County Road 5 Based on this review, no species protected under the ESA were identified as potentially occurring within the project area. The proposed project does not occur within designated critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species.

3.4.2 Wildlife Typical wildlife associated with the Plains and Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin Conifer Woodland, Petran Montane Conifer Forest, and Interior Chaparral vegetation communities (Brown 1994) were observed during field reviews. Some of the species included antelope, cliff swallow, desert tortoise, Gambel’s quail, junco, pygmy nuthatch, roadrunner, western scrub jay, and roadrunner.

Migratory bird nests were observed during field reviews along the project alignment. An active red-tailed hawk nest was observed within a gallery of cottonwood trees within private lands along the Talking Rock to Seligman segment. Additionally, several cliff swallow nests were identified beneath the bridge over Williamson Valley Wash along the CR 5 segment.

3.4.3 Vegetation Talking Rock to Seligman The proposed project encounters both the Plains and Great Basin Grassland community and the Great Basin Conifer Woodland community (Brown 1994). The Plains and Great Basin Grassland vegetation communities in the southwest are dominated by short-grass communities. Where grassland is undisturbed, vegetation is largely comprised of a variety of species of grama grasses. Other species found include four-wing saltbush, cholla, soapweed, and snakeweed. These grasslands can also be invaded by junipers and big sagebrush (The Nature Conservancy [TNC] 1998). The Great Basin Conifer Woodland vegetation community is dominated by juniper and pinyon pine, which is the most common pine in this community. Transition species between the Woodland and Grassland communities include snakeweed, galleta grass, Indian ricegrass, and western wheatgrass (Dalton et al., 1990).

The Arizona Department of Agriculture oversees the protection of various native plants as classified under the Arizona Native Plant Law. No Arizona native plants occur within the proposed alignment location.

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a prohibited noxious weed, was identified along CR 5. The species is prevalent along the project alignment and occurs frequently in patches within and near the road bed.

Bagdad to County Road 5 The proposed project encounters the Petran Montane Conifer Forest and Interior Chaparral vegetation communities (Brown 1994). Petran Montane Conifer Forest is dominated by Ponderosa pines and Gambel oak. The Interior Chaparral vegetation community is the primary vegetation community along the project alignment. Typical species include shrub live oak, and chaparral shrubs which include skunkbush sumac and silktassels. Other species which may be present in the chaparral at higher elevations are evergreen oaks, alligator juniper, ponderosa pine, and pinyon pine (TNC 1998). Transition species between the communities include snakeweed, galleta grass, Indian ricegrass, and western wheatgrass (Dalton et al., 1990).

Plants protected by the Arizona Native Plants law were identified in limited portions of this alignment. Some of these plants include agave, banana yucca, ocotillo, and cholla and pincushion cacti.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 22 Canada thistle, a prohibited noxious weed, was identified along CR 68. The species was found in patches within and near the road bed.

3.4.4 Prescott N.F. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Forest sensitive species were reviewed for potential to occur within the project area (see Appendix E). Four wildlife species have potential to occur within the project area and are described below.

Talking Rock to Seligman There are no Prescott N. F. Regional Forester’s sensitive plant species that have the potential to occur among the project area. There are two sensitive Prescott N.F. Regional Forester’s wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the project area. These species are the Arizona toad and lowland leopard frog.

Bagdad to County Road 5 There are no sensitive Prescott N. F. Regional Forester’s plant species that have the potential to occur among the project area. There are two sensitive wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the project area. These species are the Northern goshawk and the Sonoran desert tortoise.

3.4.5 Prescott N.F. Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species which are considered characteristic of different habitat types and are used to represent all wildlife species as indicators of forest health. Table 5 lists MIS Species for the Prescott N.F.

TABLE 5 MANAGMENT INDICATOR SPECIES OF THE PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST Encountered by Vegetation Early Seral Late Seral Snag Component Project* Ponderosa Pine Abert squirrel Northern Goshawk Hairy woodpecker Yes Pygmy nuthatch Turkey Pinyon-Juniper Mule deer Plain titmouse Plain titmouse Yes Chaparral Mule deer Rufous-sided towhee N/A Yes Grassland/Desert Antelope Antelope N/A Yes Shrub Riparian N/A Lucy’s Warbler N/A No Aquatic N/A Macroinvertebrates N/A No *Indicates whether the vegetation type is encountered by the project while on Prescott N.F. lands.

3.4.6 BLM Sensitive Species BLM sensitive species potentially occurring in the proposed project area were identified using information from State resource agencies. BLM sensitive species, as used here, are those listed by the BLM as sensitive in Yavapai County, Arizona.

There are no sensitive BLM plant species that have the potential to occur along the project area. There are five sensitive wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the project area. These are the desert rosy boa, Sonoran desert tortoise, and banded Gila monster. Although BLM land is not found along

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 23 the CR 5 there is potential burrowing owl and Maricopa tiger beetle habitat located along the north end of this alignment.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Transcon conducted a Class III (intensive field inventory) cultural resources survey of the entire Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Project area. The survey was conducted to determine if significant cultural resources are present that could be affected by the proposed undertaking. Important cultural resources may include historic or prehistoric archaeological sites or objects; historically or architecturally significant structures, buildings, or landscapes; and traditional cultural places eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

As a result of the survey, six newly recorded sites and 14 previously recorded sites were identified within the current area of potential effect (APE). Eight of these sites were identified within the APE for the Bagdad to Count Road 5 project alignment, all of which have been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. A total of 12 archaeological sites were identified within the APE for the Talking Rock to Seligman project alignment. Ten of these have been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP; one site, historic Route 66, is already listed on the NRHP and another site, AZ N:2:38 (ASM), has been determined ineligible for listing. Table 6 identifies each cultural resource by project segment. In addition, 28 isolated occurrences of cultural resources were identified; isolated occurrences are ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

TABLE 6

SITES IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS SURVEY FROM SOUTH TO NORTH Alternate Site NRHP Land ASM Site No. Designation(s) Description Eligibility1 Status2 SEGMENT 1 (BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5) AZ M:4:54 AR-03-09-01- Historic CR 68 (newly recorded) E ASLD, BLM, 1099(PNF); PNF, PVT, Camp Wood Road YAV AZ M:8:76 NA 17311 Small pueblo site E ASLD, PVT AR-03-09-01- Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PNF 1319(PNF) with room blocks and midden (recorded by PaleoWest) AR-03-09-06- Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PNF 279/280(PNF) AR-03-09-01- Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PNF 549(PNF) AR-03-09-01- Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PNF 1340(PNF) with modern building debris (recorded by PaleoWest) AR-03-09-01- Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PNF 1334(PNF) with room blocks (recorded by PaleoWest) AZ N:2:165 Prehistoric lithic and sherd scatter (newly E PVT recorded) SEGMENT 2 (TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN) AZ N:2:38 Williamson Valley Road NE ASLD, PNF, PVT, YAV

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 24 TABLE 6

SITES IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS SURVEY FROM SOUTH TO NORTH Alternate Site NRHP Land ASM Site No. Designation(s) Description Eligibility1 Status2 AZ N:2:185 NA 14119; AZ Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PVT N:2:31(MNA); with room blocks Las Vegas East site AZ N:2:184 Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PVT (newly recorded) AZ N:1:16 Walnut Creek site Prehistoric Prescott Culture artifact scatter E PVT with room blocks AZ N:1:17 Historic Structure Iron truss vehicular bridge over Walnut E PVT, YAV No. 08741 Creek AR-03-09-01- Prehistoric Prescott or Cohonina Culture E PNF 578(PNF) artifact scatter AZ H:13:83 AR-03-09-01- Prehistoric lithic scatter (newly recorded) E PNF, PVT 1229(PNF) AZ H:13:82 Iron Hill Mine Historic iron mining complex (newly E PVT recorded) AZ H:13:81 Prehistoric artifact scatter (newly recorded) E PVT AZ H:9:52 Historic railroad maintenance facility, E PVT demolished AZ N:3:32 Atchison, Topeka Historic railroad with four sets of tracks E PVT and Santa Fe Railway AZ I:15:156 Route 66 Historic highway, drastically modified as NR PVT Main Street, Seligman 1Recommended NRHP Eligibility: E=eligible, NE=not eligible, NR=NRHP listed. 2Land status abbreviations: ASLD=Arizona State Land Department; BLM=Bureau of Land Management; PNF=Prescott National Forest; PVT=Private; YAV=Yavapai County.

3.6 AIR QUALITY The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants, which are called ―criteria pollutants.‖ These are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5), Ozone, and Sulfur Oxides (EPA 2008). Comparing air quality measurements to NAAQS is a factor in determining attainment (meeting standards) or non-attainment (not meeting standards) status. ADEQ bears primary responsibility for administration of the county’s air quality program. According to air quality data gathered from attainment/non-attainment maps produced by EPA and also from ADEQ data, both project areas are within attainment areas for all principal pollutants.

Air quality within and adjacent to both proposed project alignments is generally favorable and good. Primary contributors to air pollution nearest to the project area are transportation related. The proposed facilities would parallel existing CR 5 and CR 68; therefore, CO emissions are present from vehicles. Vehicle use on unpaved portions of CR 5 and CR 68 in addition to adjacent unpaved roads that provide access to residences, are factors in contributing PM10 pollutants into the air. Mining operations in Bagdad also contribute to air pollution.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 25 3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES Talking Rock to Seligman Visual resource characteristics along this project alignment are varied, but mostly maintain an undisturbed quality for nearly the entire project. The project begins and ends in small community areas with existing aerial and buried infrastructure, as well as commercial and residential uses—homes, sidewalks, landscaping, and paved streets. Between the community areas the project’s visual resource characteristics can be mostly described as being rural, natural, and undisturbed. Valley areas in the southern and northern portions of the project alignment provide vast, uninterrupted views of the landscape (Figure 8). With the exception of the traveled roadway, some rural residences and ranching structures, some infrastructure crossings (i.e., overhead transmission line and other intermittent utilities) the landscape is undisturbed. Views that surround the area are of nearby and distant mountains. Topography and vegetation limits views in some of the hilly areas (Figure 9). Views associated with the project are generally typical for the region. County Road 5 does not have any formal scenic designation.

FIGURE 8. View along CR 5 of existing visual resource characteristics. View to the north.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 26

FIGURE 9. View along CR 5 of existing visual resource characteristics. View to the north.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Similar to the other project alignment, visual resource characteristics along this project alignment mostly maintain an undisturbed quality for nearly the entire project. The project begins in Bagdad, where there are existing aerial and buried infrastructures, as well as commercial and residential uses—homes, sidewalks, landscaping, and paved streets. After leaving Bagdad, the project’s visual resource characteristics can be mostly described as being rural, natural, and undisturbed. The project area traverses through rocky hill areas (Figure 10), forest areas (Figure 11), and ends near a valley area (Figure 12). With the exception of the traveled roadway and some rural residences and ranching structures, the landscape is undisturbed. Views that surround the area are of nearby and distant mountains. Views associated with the project are generally typical for the region with the most important views located in the ponderosa pine forested areas of CR 68. County Road 68 does not have any formal scenic designation.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 27

FIGURE 10. Visual characteristics in rocky/hill areas along CR 68. View to the northeast.

FIGURE 11. Example of densely forested area along CR 68. View to the east.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 28

FIGURE 12. Photograph depicts valley area near intersection of CR 68 and CR 5. View to the east.

3.8 TRANSPORTATION County Roads 5 and 68 are the only direct road routes between the communities of Talking Rock, Seligman, and Bagdad. These roads are the primary transportation resources adjacent to the proposed project alignment.

Talking Rock to Seligman County Road 5 is the primary traveled roadway between the communities of Talking Rock and Seligman. It is generally between 24 feet (hills) and 27 feet (flat areas) wide. This road is maintained by Yavapai County. Between Talking Rock and the intersection of CR 5 and CR 68 the roadway is paved; the remainder of CR 5 to I-40 is unpaved. CR 5 is used primarily by residents, with use also occurring by recreationists to the Prescott N.F., tourist visitors, and occasional business/maintenance users.

The project facilities would encounter other transportation resources, including I-40, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad tracks, and community roads within the town of Seligman. I-40, which is administered by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), serves as a major east-west transportation corridor across northern Arizona. The BNSF railroad tracks are currently in use. Roads within the town of Seligman are used primarily by residents. There are also access routes from CR 5 to residences and recreation areas.

Bagdad to County Road 5 County Road 68 is the primary traveled roadway between the community of Bagdad and CR 5. It is generally 20 feet in width. This road is maintained by Yavapai County. Nearest to Bagdad, portions of the road are paved; otherwise, the remainder of the route is entirely unpaved. With the exception of

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 29 access routes from CR 68 to residences and recreation areas, there are no other transportation resources that occur along this route.

3.9 NOISE, RADIO, AND TELEVISION INTERFERENCE Noise levels were reviewed as they compare with common noise levels, as identified by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA 2009). With the exception of uncommon ―noisy‖ contributors, both project areas share a common resource value in that the areas can be considered relatively quiet.

Talking Rock to Seligman Noise currently exists along the project route in minor increments as a result of travelers on CR 5. Typical noise decibel (dB) levels along the alignment between Talking Rock to Seligman can be described as being mostly moderate (e.g., a quiet room), similar to 40 dB, when CR 5 is unoccupied by travelers. Short-term noise increases occur and are typically associated with non-commercial and commercial vehicle uses along the road. Occasional road maintenance would contribute to noise increases, along with recreational uses such as OHVs and campers.

Noise is highest in the Seligman area. Noise in Seligman is typical of rural residential communities and can be attributed to human activity, vehicle use, machines, and domestic animals among other things. Decibel level can most likely be described as being moderate to very loud (e.g., conversation, dishwasher), comparable to between 40 and 60 dB, respectively, in most cases. The BNSF Railroad uses the tracks that pass through the town of Seligman, contributing to short-term noise impact when passing through, with a higher dB level than average. I-40 provides primary access to the community and contributes to noise.

Sensitive noise receptors include residences in Seligman and several residences along CR 5 with homes near the road. There is also a church in Seligman located near the TTTC interconnection facility. There are no other sensitive noise receptors, such as schools or hospitals, along the project route.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Similar to the above project, noise exists along the proposed project alignment in minor increments from travelers along the CR 68 roadway. Noise along the project route between Bagdad and CR 5 is typically associated with non-commercial vehicle use, with typical noise dB levels being moderate (i.e., a quiet room), similar to 40 dB. Occasional road maintenance would contribute to an increase in noise, along with recreational uses such as OHVs and campers.

Noise is highest in the community of Bagdad. Noise in Bagdad is typical of rural residential communities and can be attributed to human activity, vehicle use, machines, and domestic animals, among other things. Decibel level can most likely be comparable to being between 40 and 60 dB, in most cases, being moderate to very loud.

Sensitive noise receptors include residences, a golf course area, and a church in the Bagdad community. The project would be located on the opposite side of the road of the golf course and church. There are no other sensitive noise receptors, such as schools or hospitals, along the project route.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 30 3.10 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.10.1 Public and Worker Safety The project would necessitate construction equipment being located within the communities of Bagdad, Talking Rock, and Seligman along existing roads where vehicles travel. There are some sidewalks located along the project alignment in the community of Bagdad. The likelihood of pedestrian or bicycle traffic along the project route is lowest outside of the communities and there is moderate potential for pedestrian activities in Bagdad, Talking Rock, and Seligman.

The proposed projects would occur in rural areas that are generally not in proximity of residences or intensive human use areas. Where project activities occur in areas near public uses or residences, signage and necessary safety procedures and notifications would occur. Accidental injury potential is always part of construction projects because construction crews operate heavy machinery and perform duties that, if not performed properly, can result in injuries. Safety measures would be established and enforced during all work activities to ensure worker and public safety.

The area has existing local police, fire, and medical facilities (Arizona Department of Commerce 2008a and b). Local police services are provided by the Sheriff’s office. Fire services are provided by volunteer departments. Medical facilities are also located nearby.

3.10.2 Wildfire Due to the proximity of potential dry vegetation adjacent to the proposed project alignments, there is potential for initiating a wildfire. The Prescott N.F. has provided protective measures to reduce the potential for fire (see Appendix F). TTTC will implement these measures.

3.10.3 Hazardous Materials ADEQ data was reviewed to determine the presence of hazardous waste sites along the proposed project alignments.

Talking Rock to Seligman There are no hazardous waste sites along CR 5 between Talking Rock and I-40 (ADEQ 2009). Underground storage tanks and leaking underground storage tanks were identified within the community of Seligman, near the proposed project alignment (ADEQ 2009). There were no other sites identified in the ADEQ data.

Bagdad to County Road 5 There are no hazardous waste sites along CR 68 (ADEQ 2009). There is an underground storage tank and leaking underground storage tank identified in Bagdad; however, the facility appears to not be within proximity of the proposed project alignment (ADEQ 2009). There were no other sites identified in the ADEQ data.

Hazardous materials anticipated to be used during construction of the projects are small volumes of petroleum hydrocarbons and their derivatives (e.g., fuels, oils, lubricants, and solvents) required to operate the installation and construction equipment. These materials are routinely associated with the operation and maintenance of heavy construction equipment or other support vehicles, including gasoline, diesel fuels, and hydraulic fuels. The hazardous materials used for the proposed projects would be contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. Areas for fuel storage would be within the

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 31 construction contractor’s storage yards on impermeable surfaces, so that fuel leakage does not pollute surface water, groundwater, or soils.

3.11 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES Information regarding the social, economic, and community conditions of the local communities nearest to both of the project alignments was gathered. These include Seligman and Bagdad. Information was also gathered for Paulden, Chino Valley, and Prescott, which are larger towns east and south of the project areas (see Figure 1) for Yavapai County, and also for the State. Data for these areas has been included to provide a reference for comparing local data to that of the surrounding and larger population. Specific information for the master planned subdivision community of Talking Rock was not available.

3.11.1 Employment and Income Arizona Department of Commerce (2008a and b) data was reviewed for economic characteristics of Seligman and Bagdad. Economic contributors in the Seligman area include motels, restaurants and service stations on Historic Route 66, which provide the main sources of community income. Bagdad’s major economic activities include mining and education. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Mine employs more than 500 people and the Bagdad School District has nearly 80 employees. The Bagdad community also has three small shopping centers, a grocery store, retail shops, professional offices, and several restaurants. Table 7 identifies the unemployment and median family income for these areas, and the larger surrounding areas.

TABLE 7

UNEMPLOYMENT AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME Location Unemployment (%) Median Family Income ($)

Seligman 1.7 29,722 Bagdad 4.8 43,203 Paulden 2.1 31,538 Chino Valley 2.8 35,013 Prescott 2.4 46,481 Yavapai County 2.7 40,910 Arizona State 3.4 46,723 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

3.11.2 Demographic Trends Table 8 identifies the general demographic profile for Seligman and Bagdad, relative to nearby areas with larger populations, and relative to regional County and State data. As shown, the population of Hispanics, relative to larger areas (i.e., neighboring communities and county) is higher in Seligman and Bagdad. Families living below poverty in Seligman are the highest relative to all areas and regional data.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 32 TABLE 8

GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES AND FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Ethnic Composition (%) Families Location/ American Below Population Indian and Black or Hispanic Hawaiian, two Alaska African (of any or more races, Poverty Native White American Asian race) and other Level (%) Seligman/ 2.0 85.1 0.2 1.5 19.1 11.1 14.4 456 Bagdad/ 1.1 92.3 1.0 0.4 18.7 5.1 3.0 1,578 Paulden/ 2.4 92.0 0.5 0.2 15.6 4.9 14.2 3,420 Chino Valley/ 0.9 94.1 0.2 0.2 9.8 4.6 12.6 7,835 Prescott/ 1.3 92.9 0.5 0.8 8.2 4.5 7.4 33,938 Yavapai County/ 1.6 91.9 0.4 0.5 9.8 5.6 7.9 167,517 Arizona State/ 5.0 75.5 3.1 1.8 25.3 14.6 9.9 5,130,632 Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000

3.11.3 Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) 12898 and its accompanying memorandum have the primary purpose of ensuring that ―each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.‖

Minority populations live in the project area and vicinity. As previously identified, the population of Hispanic residents is higher in Seligman and Bagdad as compared with nearby communities and County data. Other minority populations also live in these communities and represent a similar or lower composition of the population as neighboring towns and regional data.

Income is lower in Seligman than most areas when compared with the regional data, and there are also a greater number of families living below poverty. In comparison, income within Bagdad is higher and families living below poverty are lower, which is most likely attributable to employment by Cyprus Bagdad Copper Mine.

3.11.4 Community Resources Talking Rock to Seligman Talking Rock is a new master planned residential subdivision community where landowners may have custom homes built. There are private amenities associated with community membership.

Seligman is a small community with a population of nearly 500. Within Seligman there are community resources that include a library, recreational facilities (baseball fields, football fields, and basketball and volleyball courts). There is a museum (Beale Road Museum) that is open to the public. There is a public elementary school and public high school. In addition to these community resources, there is a volunteer

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 33 fire department and medical service clinics. Law enforcement is provided by the Sheriff’s Office (Arizona Department of Commerce 2008a).

Bagdad to County Road 5 Bagdad is also a small community, but at 1,500 persons, it is nearly three times in size as Seligman. Bagdad was established as a result of the copper mining industry and the industry continues today. There is a community library and sport amenities including ball courts and fields, a golf course, corrals, two roping arenas, and a city park. There is a public elementary and high school, along with community college resources. There is a volunteer fire department and one outpatient medical clinic. Law enforcement is provided by the Sheriff’s Office (Arizona Department of Commerce 2008b).

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 34 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Environmental Consequences section describes the changes or impacts to the human environment that can be expected from implementing the proposed action, the alternative action, and the no-action alternatives. The proposed facilities for both projects would be located within the ditch or adjacent to existing traveled roadway areas, resulting in minor and temporary impacts to the small area where construction is proposed. Use of the roadway corridor that currently exists minimizes impacts to undisturbed areas. Impacts described below are similar for both projects. Where one project’s proposed action or alternative has different impacts than the other project’s proposed action or alternative, it will be specifically noted; otherwise, the analysis below applies to both projects’ proposed actions and alternatives. A summary and comparison of impacts for each of the three alternatives on Prescott N. F. lands is found in Appendix B. Also included in the summary is a cost comparison for the proposed alternative alignment within the road prism through the Prescott N. F. and the no action alternatives.

4.1 LAND USE 4.1.1 General Land Use Proposed Alternative There would be no impacts to residential or commercial land use as a result of these projects. The project facilities and construction activities would be within or adjacent to existing disturbed roads. Residents with homes near the proposed project route would notice equipment for the short duration (several days at most) that construction would occur within an area. Minor inconveniences, such as maneuvering around equipment to access roads, would result from construction activities. Commercial and public use buildings and areas would not be impacted. Access to residences, commercial, and public facilities would be adequately accommodated during construction and no access would be closed. No residences or businesses would be displaced. As necessary, coordination with landowners would occur to obtain permission to cross private land.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to land use would occur from this alternative. Impacts would be the same as described in the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative Existing land uses would be maintained and no impacts to land use would occur from the no action alternative.

4.1.2 Special Designations Proposed Alternative The projects would not affect Wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or Prime or Unique Farmland, as these areas are not present within or in the vicinity of the project areas. No Special Designations occur among the project alignment and therefore no impacts to these areas would occur.

The Prescott N.F. would continue to process the TTTC applications, along with the pending Yavapai Ranch land exchange. Prescott N.F. has shared they would ensure TTTC facilities are accounted for when land exchange negotiations are complete, with the facilities being carried forward in land conveyance documents.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 35 Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative There would be no impacts to special designation areas. Impacts would the same as described for the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative No impacts would occur from the no action alternative.

4.1.3 Recreation Proposed Alternative The proposed projects would not result in impacts to recreation uses occurring adjacent to or near the proposed project routes. Recreational opportunities on the Prescott N.F., including hiking and biking trails and camping, would remain available for use. Construction activities would not result in the closure of any trails. Construction would not impact the use of recreational facilities in Talking Rock, Seligman, or Bagdad or result in access closures to these facilities. Indirectly, minor inconveniences may result for those traveling to the facilities should they experience slower traffic speeds and minor detours during construction. Construction activities may also be audible in the short-term when they are near recreation facilities. Construction would take place during daylight hours for both of the proposed projects thereby minimizing potential intrusion.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative This alternative would not result in impacts to recreation uses occurring adjacent to or near the proposed project routes. Recreational opportunities on the Prescott N.F., including hiking and biking trails and camping, would remain available for use. Construction activities would not result in the closure of any trails. Construction would not impact the use of recreational facilities in Talking Rock, Seligman, or Bagdad or result in access closures to these facilities. Minor inconveniences may result from slower traffic speeds where construction is occurring.

No Action Alternative Recreational activities would continue and no impacts to recreational activities or facilities would occur from the no action alternative.

4.2 WATER RESOURCES The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and would comply with terms and conditions set forth in the Nationwide 12 permit ―Utility Line Installation‖ from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed and a Notice of Intent filed with ADEQ in compliance with the Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit program.

4.2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Proposed Alternative There would be no impacts to groundwater as a result of the proposed projects. Project activities associated with construction, operation, and maintenance, would not reach the depth of groundwater. Water used during construction activities (i.e., dust control) would come from approved sources.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 36 Talking Rock to Seligman No impacts to surface water are anticipated to occur along this project route. Where the project crosses Williamson Valley Wash, along CR 5 where the wash is designated as perennial, the project facilities would be directionally bored. At Walnut Creek the project would be directionally bored or attached to an existing bridge. Construction equipment would be set up in upland areas away from the wash. The conduit would be bored underneath the wash and no impacts would occur to the wash, associated vegetation, or water. In other areas where there are intermittent stream areas or washes, the project facilities would also be bored, resulting in no surface disturbance to these areas.

Bagdad to County Road 5 No impacts to surface water are anticipated to occur along this project route. There are no perennial waterways that are crossed. In areas where there are intermittent stream areas or washes, the project facilities may be bored beneath the surface, resulting in no surface disturbance to these areas. Where trenching or plowing is necessary, construction would only occur where water is not present.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative There would be no impacts to ground or surface water. Impacts would the same as described for the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative No impacts would occur to ground and surface water from the no action alternative.

4.2.2 Water Quality Proposed Alternative There are no water quality impacts that are anticipated as a result of implementing either of the proposed projects. Application of Best Management Practices (BMP) outlined in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that will be prepared for compliance with the CWA will be completed prior to initiation of the project.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative There are no water quality impacts that are anticipated as a result of implementing either of the proposed projects. Application of BMP outlined in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that will be prepared for compliance with the CWA will be completed prior to initiation of the project.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to water quality from the no action alternative. 4.2.3 Floodplains Proposed Alternative No impacts to floodplains are expected as a result of implementing the proposed projects. The facilities along both alignments would occur within floodplain areas in various locations, primarily near wash or drainage areas. Facilities proposed in these locations are not expected to alter the floodplain. No change to existing grade or fill is expected to occur as a result of these projects.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 37 Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative No impacts to floodplains are expected as a result of implementing the proposed projects. The facilities along both alignments would occur within floodplain areas in various locations, primarily near wash or drainage areas. Facilities proposed in these locations are not expected to alter the floodplain. No change to existing grade or fill is expected to occur as a result of these projects.

No Action Alternative There would be no potential change to floodplains from the no action alternative.

4.2.4 Wetlands and Riparian Proposed Alternative There would be no impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or coastal areas. Intermittent water sources will be directionally bored and all equipment and construction activities will occur in upland areas. Vegetation associated with Williamson Valley Wash will not be impacted.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative There would be no impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or coastal areas. Intermittent water sources will be directionally bored and all equipment and construction activities will occur in upland areas. Vegetation associated with Williamson Valley Wash will not be impacted.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to wetlands and riparian areas from the no action alternative.

4.3 SOILS Proposed Alternative Soils along both of the project routes would be temporarily disturbed during project construction and installation of the facilities. Impacts to soils would generally occur as a result of two types of activities: installation of the fiber optic cable and conduit, and overland vehicle traffic resulting in some soil compaction. Construction of the facilities would generally follow the existing disturbed topography of the roadways. Compaction standards would be met along both of the project alignments to return the soil along the roadways to as near their original condition as possible. Long-term impacts to soils are not anticipated as maintenance activities would be accomplished via handhole locations, thereby minimizing disturbance.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to soils for this alternative would be similar to the proposed alternative. This alternative would result in fewer impacts to soils as it would be located within the disturbed road bed through the Prescott N. F. Soils within the road prism have already been heavily compacted and would not result in additional soil compaction in these areas.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to soils from the no action alternative.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 38 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Talking Rock to Seligman Proposed Alternative The Gila chub is the only Federally-listed species with the potential to occur within this project area. Williamson Valley Wash east of CR 5 has been designated as critical habitat for the Gila chub.

No direct or indirect impacts to the Gila chub or its habitat are anticipated. Construction will involve installing the telecommunications line using directional bore technology to drill a hole underneath the creek and surface on the opposite bank in an upland area. All construction activities and personnel will be restricted to previously disturbed upland areas. Limited new disturbance resulting from construction practices will occur; however, this disturbance will be restricted to upland areas and no personnel or equipment will enter the creek. The project will have no effect on the Gila chub or its critical habitat.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from this alternative would be the same as those described in the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no impact to species protected by the ESA from the no action alternative.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Proposed Alternative There are no Federally-listed species that occur among this project area. There would be no impact to Federally-listed species as a result of implementing this project. The project is not located within designated critical habitat; therefore, there would be no impacts to designated critical habitat.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from this alternative would be the same as those described in the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no impact to species protected by the ESA from the no action alternative.

4.4.2 Wildlife Proposed Alternative As it relates to both projects, construction activities would have localized, short-term impacts on wildlife habitat, resulting in minor impacts to several wildlife populations. Impacts to habitat would occur where the project alignment is located outside of the road prism. Most disturbances to wildlife habitat would be temporary and would be limited to the width of the construction equipment, which would generally result in approximately 15.5 acres of disturbance for the Talking Rock to Seligman Project and approximately 14 acres for the Bagdad to CR 5 project on Prescott N.F. lands. Impacts to wildlife habitat would be mitigated through reseeding efforts as described in Chapter 5. Minor, direct impacts may occur when species come in contact with equipment and crews, disrupting wildlife activities resulting in momentary displacement or death. Once construction is complete, impacts to general wildlife would be minimal to

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 39 non-existent. Maintenance would occur primarily via handhole locations that are located along the project alignment, resulting in no new ground disturbance.

Active migratory bird nests were identified along the projects. With the exception of domestic pigeons, house sparrows, and European starlings, all birds in the project vicinity are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act states that it is unlawful to take, kill, or possess migratory birds listed under its protection. If construction is to occur within the avian breeding season (March 1 through August 31), a preconstruction survey will occur to determine if nesting migratory birds are present. In the event an active nest is discovered, the agency biologists will be contacted for further guidance.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from this alternative would generally be the same as those described in the proposed alternative, but because of the placement of the project within the road prism through Prescott N.F. lands there would be less impact to wildlife habitat (15.5 acres on the Talking Rock to Seligman Project and 14 acres on the Bagdad to CR 5 Project).

No Action Alternative There would be no change to wildlife or wildlife habitat from the no action alternative.

4.4.3 Vegetation Proposed Alternative The projects would impact vegetation through direct contact with construction equipment. Most disturbances would be limited to the width of the equipment, approximately 10 to 12 feet wide, and most vegetation would be trampled under the construction equipment leaving the root system in place for future growth. In areas of low shrubs and grassland, impacts would be limited. Some vegetation clearing would occur where vegetation is dense and impedes the operation of construction equipment. Large mature vegetation would be avoided where feasible through trimming and minor route realignment. Areas disturbed by construction activities would be reseeded with seed mixes and methods as directed by authorizing agencies.

Where plants protected by the Arizona Native Plant law are encountered, they would be avoided where feasible through minor project route realignment or salvaged as directed by authorizing agencies. A stumpage fee has been paid to the ASLD to address these species on State lands.

Stands of Canadian thistle were identified along both projects. These stands are more plentiful along the CR 5 and are found in association with the roadside. Implementation of resource protection measures described in Section 5.3.3. will limit the possible spread of noxious weeds.

Talking Rock to Seligman Proposed Alternative On Prescott N.F. lands the project would have impacts to juniper/ grassland communities. Impacts would be temporary as areas where disturbance would occur would be reseeded per Prescott N.F. direction. Where feasible larger trees would be avoided through minor route realignment or trimming of branches. Impacts to vegetation would not exceed 38.76 acres (10 feet permanent ROW and 15 feet additional temporary work space). However, most disturbances to vegetation would be limited to the width of the equipment and result in approximately 15.5 acres of temporary impact.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 40 Noxious weeds are found generally along the country road ROW throughout the entire project alignment. There is potential that noxious weeds could be transferred on to Prescott N.F. administered lands. Mitigations measures described in Section 5 would limit potential impacts.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from this alternative would generally be the same as those described in the proposed alternative, but because of the placement of the project within the road prism through Prescott N.F. lands there would be less impact to vegetation (approximately 15.5 acres). Additionally, potential impacts from weed species would be lessened as the project alignment would be in the road prism on Prescott N. F. lands.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to vegetation from the no action alternative.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Proposed Alternative On Prescott N.F. lands the project would have impacts to chaparral and juniper/ grassland communities. Impacts would be temporary as areas where disturbance would occur would be reseeded per Prescott N.F. direction. Where feasible, larger trees would be avoided through minor route realignment or trimming of branches. Impacts to vegetation would not exceed 37.22 acres (10 feet permanent ROW and 15 feet additional temporary work space). However, most disturbances to vegetation would be limited to the width of the equipment and result in approximately 14.09 acres of temporary impact.

Noxious weeds are found generally along the country road ROW throughout the entire project alignment. There is potential that noxious weeds could be transferred on to Prescott N.F. administered lands. Mitigations measures described in Section 5 would limit potential impacts.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from this alternative would generally be the same as those described in the proposed alternative, but because of the placement of the project within the road prism through Prescott N.F. lands there would be less impact to chaparral and juniper/ grassland communities (approximately 14 acres). Additionally, potential impacts from weed species would be lessened as the project alignment would be in the road prism on Prescott N. F. lands.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to vegetation from the no action alternative.

4.4.4 Prescott National Forest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Talking Rock to Seligman Proposed Alternative There are two Prescott N. F. Regional Forester’s sensitive species that have the potential to occur within the project area. These are the Arizona toad and the lowland leopard frog. There are no impacts anticipated to these species as a result of implementing this project.

The Arizona toad may occur within various washes (Boulder Creek, Williamson Valley Wash, Big Chino Wash, Walnut Creek, Cooper Wash, Indian Springs Wash, Pine Creek, and Mint Wash) or where water

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 41 may be present. To avoid impacts to the Arizona toad or its habitat, these drainages would be directionally bored. No impacts to the Arizona toad are anticipated.

The lowland leopard frog may occur within various washes (Boulder Creek, Williamson Valley Wash, Big Chino Wash, Walnut Creek, Cooper Wash, Indian Springs Wash, Pine Creek, and Mint Wash) or where water is present. To avoid impacts to the lowland leopard frog, these drainages would be directionally bored. As a result no impacts to the lowland leopard frog are anticipated.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative There would be no impact Prescott N. F. Regional Forest’s sensitive species. Impacts from this alternative would be the same as those described in the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to the Regional Forester’s sensitive species from the no action alternative.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Proposed Alternative There are two Prescott N. F. sensitive wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the project area, the Northern goshawk and the Sonoran desert tortoise. The project alignment passes through approximately one mile of the ―Camp Wood Post -fledging Family Area (PFA)‖ for the Northern goshawk. Based on the history of this PFA, up to one pair of goshawks may be present (Pers. Comm.. Noel Fletcher, Prescott N.F. biologist). The project also crosses through approximately seven miles of Category III habitat for the Sonoran desert tortoise located on BLM and State lands.

Although no Northern goshawks were observed during field reviews, these birds occur in various habitat types and are associated with ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Construction would occur within an existing disturbed roadway through this portion of the Prescott N. F. and would not impact any trees. No equipment, personnel, or materials will be staged within the PFA. While these measures may reduce impacts, the project may still impact a pair of individuals due to construction disturbance during the breeding season. These impacts are not likely to cause a trend towards listing of the species.

The project is not located within habitat for the Sonoran desert tortoise on Prescott N.F. lands. The Bagdad to CR 5 project will pass through approximately seven miles of Sonoran desert tortoise Category III habitat located on State and BLM lands. During field survey a tortoise was identified along the project alignment. It is anticipated that limited desert tortoise habitat will be impacted as the project is located within existing road corridors. Impacts to the Sonoran desert tortoise are expected to be low. The potential of crushing an unseen tortoise in the road corridor does exist. Through the employment of conservation measures as detailed in the section 5, low impacts are anticipated to occur to the Sonoran desert tortoise or their habitat.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from this alternative would be the same as those described in the proposed alternative. The project would be located in the same location within the road prism for both alternatives.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to the Regional Forester’s sensitive species from the no action alternative.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 42 4.4.5. Prescott National Forest Management Indicator Species Proposed Alternative Generally, the project will not change the seral stage or vegetation characteristics within the project area or on a forest-wide level. Although the project may have temporary impacts to individuals of some Management Indicator Species, it would not impact the habitat and population trends for any Management Indicator Species.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Generally, the project will not change the seral stage or vegetation characteristics within the project area or on a forest-wide level. Although the project may have temporary impacts to individuals of some Management Indicator Species, it would not impact the habitat and population trends for any Management Indicator Species.

No Action Alternative There would be no change Management Indicator Species from the no action alternative.

4.4.6 BLM Sensitive Species There are three sensitive BLM species with the potential to occur along the Bagdad to CR 5 segment of the project: the desert rosy boa, Sonoran desert tortoise, and banded Gila monster. Potential habitat for the burrowing owl and Maricopa tiger beetle was identified along the Talking Rock to Seligman segment. The burrowing owl is also protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Approximately seven miles of potential desert rosy boa habitat was identified along the project alignment near Bagdad. It is possible that some habitat of the desert rosy boa will be potentially disturbed during project activities. The potential for construction crews to encounter individuals of this species in the roadway is low. However, if an individual of this species is encountered during construction, work will stop until the individual has moved out of harm’s way. Areas disturbed during construction would be restored and reseeded based on instruction from authorizing agencies.

The Bagdad to CR 5 project will pass through approximately seven miles of Sonoran desert tortoise Category III habitat. During field survey a tortoise was identified along the project alignment. It is anticipated that limited desert tortoise habitat will be impacted as the project is located within existing road rights-of-way. Impacts to the Sonoran desert tortoise are expected to be low. The potential of crushing an unseen tortoise in the road corridor does exist. Prior to construction activities beginning construction crews will attend a training discussing limiting impacts to the desert tortoise.

Approximately seven miles of banded Gila monster habitat was identified along the project alignment near Bagdad. Because the project is within the roadway corridor, limited habitat will be disturbed during project activities. There is low potential for the project to encounter individuals of this species in the road corridor. If an individual of this species is encountered during construction, work will stop until the individual has moved out of harm’s way.

Potential habitat for the burrowing owl occurs along the northern portion of the Talking Rock to Seligman alignment, including the area from Seligman, south approximately 12 miles along the project alignment. This area includes suitable habitat as well as active prairie dog colonies containing suitable burrows for the owl. To ensure impacts to the burrowing owl are minimal, a preconstruction survey should occur to determine if owls are present along the project alignment, within suitable habitat. The survey will follow

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 43 guidelines established in Burrowing Owl Project Clearance Guidance for Landowners. If burrowing owls are discovered during the survey, appropriate measures for minimizing or avoiding impacts will be followed, as outlined in the clearance protocol.

The Maricopa tiger beetle has the potential to occur within the project area. There are known occurrences of this species south of the Talking Rock to Seligman segment project area. Impacts will be avoided by directionally boring streams containing water. Using this method construction activity will be kept out of potential Maricopa tiger beetle habitat and restricted to previously disturbed upland areas.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Proposed Alternative Nineteen historic properties (NRHP-eligible archaeological sites) were identified within the current project alignments. Table 9, below, identifies the sites, recommendations for preservation and project effects. These were developed thorough consultation with the Prescott N. F. and Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and are discussed in the Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan (Bassett 21011b). If all recommended mitigation is followed, there would be ―no adverse effect‖ to historic properties from either of the proposed projects.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative If all recommended mitigation is followed, there would be ―no adverse effect‖ to historic properties from either of the proposed projects.

No Action Alternative There would be no impact to cultural resources from the no action alternative.

TABLE 9

HISTORIC PROPERTIES PROTECTION MEASURES AND PROJECT EFFECTS ASM Alternate Site Land Site No. Designation(s) Status2 Protection Measure Project Effect SEGMENT 1 (BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5) AZ AR-03-09-01- ASLD, Barricade and avoid five historic No adverse impact M:4:54 1099(PNF); BLM, PNF, concrete features Camp Wood PVT, YAV Road AZ NA 17311 ASLD, Divert around site for complete site No impact M:8:76 PVT avoidance; barricade site margin AR-03-09-01- Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact _____ PNF 1319(PNF) downcut roadbed; monitor trenching AR-03-09-06- PNF Divert to roadbed at two locations for No impact _____ 279/280(PNF) complete site avoidance; monitor trenching AR-03-09-01- PNF Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact _____ 549(PNF) downcut roadbed; monitor trenching AR-03-09-01- PNF Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact _____ 1340(PNF) downcut roadbed; monitor trenching _____ AR-03-09-01- PNF Divert to roadbed for complete site No impact

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 44 1334(PNF) avoidance; monitor trenching AZ PVT Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact _____ N:2:165 downcut roadbed; monitor trenching SEGMENT 2 (TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN) AZ NA 14119; AZ PVT Divert through site adjacent to No adverse impact N:2:185 N:2:31(MNA); pavement within the downcut roadbed; Las Vegas East monitor trenching site AZ PVT Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact _____ N:2:184 downcut roadbed; monitor trenching AZ Walnut Creek PVT Divert around site for complete site No impact N:1:16 site avoidance; barricade site margin AZ Historic PVT, YAV Directionally bore across Walnut Creek No impact N:1:17 Structure No. away from the bridge 08741 _____ AR-03-09-01- PNF Divert to roadbed for complete site No impact 578(PNF) avoidance; monitor trenching AZ AR-03-09-01- PNF, PVT Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact H:13:83 1229(PNF) downcut roadbed; monitor trenching AZ Iron Hill Mine PVT Divert through site on disturbed, No adverse impact H:13:82 downcut roadbed; monitor trenching 1Recommended NRHP Eligibility: E=eligible, NE=not eligible, NR=NRHP listed. 2Land status abbreviations: ASLD=Arizona State Land Department; BLM=Bureau of Land Management; PNF=Prescott National Forest; PVT=Private; YAV=Yavapai County.

4.6 AIR QUALITY Proposed Alternative In general, impacts associated with air quality are anticipated to be minor, temporary, and short-term for both of the proposed projects. Increased emissions of PM10 would likely occur as a result of soil disturbance associated with minor vegetation removal and movement of construction equipment. However, the use of water during construction activities and the subsequent application of acceptable soil stabilizing techniques would reduce the potential dust emissions. A localized increase in emissions of CO would also likely occur from construction equipment and vehicles used during construction activities. Once construction is complete, there would be slight impacts on air quality related to dust generation that would result from travel and driving that occurs along existing dirt roads for maintenance. Maintenance on the facilities is expected to be minimal and travel along existing paved and unpaved access roads would not significantly impact air quality. Impacts from the project are not anticipated to trigger non- attainment status for PM10 or other criteria pollutants.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to air quality for this alternative would be the same as the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to existing air quality from the no action alternative.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 45 4.7 VISUAL RESOURCES The projects would have some affect on visual resources, but is anticipated that impacts would be generally limited. There are no areas along the project alignments that have special visual designations. Above ground elements of the project include ROW markers and hand holes are small in scale and will generally be absorbed by the vastness of the landscape. These new elements will not begin to dominate or change the visual characteristics of the area. The regeneration facility site would be located on private land within an area of low scenic interest.

Talking Rock to Seligman Proposed Alternative Removal of vegetation associated with construction efforts to bury the conduits will be evident on the landscape. Impacts are anticipated to be limited as the majority of the vegetation associated with the project consists largely of grasslands and low shrubs. Some vegetation removal will likely be visible in areas of large shrubs and brush located on the Prescott N.F. These impacts are anticipated to be absorbed visually by the rolling topography and dense brush vegetation patterns that provide potential screening and absorption of the disturbance associated with the project. Potential impacts will be further limited through the application of resource protection measures including avoidance of larger trees and trimming vegetation, reseeding of disturbed areas with agency approved seed mixes, and minimizing the construction footprint. It is anticipated that disturbed areas would be restored over time and would not change the visual qualities or characteristics of the area.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to visual resource for this alternative are expected to be similar to the proposed alternative with the exception of the portions of the project through the Prescott N. F. where the project would be located within the existing disturbed road prism. This alternative would not change the visual characteristic or quality of the forest. Impacts to visual resources on the Prescott N. F. would be low.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to existing visual resources from the no action alternative.

Bagdad to County Road 5 Proposed Alternative Impacts to visual resources are anticipated to be similar as Talking Rock to Seligman. Through the most scenic portion of CR 68 within the ponderosa pine forest areas, the alignment will be placed within the road bed and impacts to visual resources in this area are anticipated to be limited. Through other areas of the alignment consisting of dense shrub and chaparral vegetation some visual resource impacts would be evident through the removal and/or trimming of vegetation. These impacts are anticipated to be absorbed by the rolling topography and dense brush vegetation patterns that provide potential screening and absorption of the project alignment. Potential impacts will be further limited through the application of resource protection measures including avoidance of larger trees and trimming vegetation, reseeding of disturbed areas with agency approved seed mixes, and minimizing the construction footprint. It is anticipated that disturbed areas would be restored over time and would not change the visual qualities or characteristics of the area.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 46 Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to visual resource for this alternative are expected to be similar to the proposed alternative with the exception of the portions of the project through the Prescott N. F. where the project would be located within the existing disturbed road prism. This alternative would not change the visual characteristic or quality of the forest. Impacts to visual resources on the Prescott N. F. would be low.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to existing visual resources from the no action alternative.

4.8 TRANSPORTATION Proposed Alternative Transportation-related impacts are anticipated to be minor and short-term in nature; primarily associated with minor detours or rerouting that could occur where work is performed near roads. Slower vehicles may also be present in construction areas that are near roads. Where proposed fiber optic facilities cross highways (I-40) or public access roads (i.e., within Seligman and Bagdad), efforts would be employed to ensure public safety by use of appropriate signage and use of lane closures or restrictions where needed. Any potential lane closures would be temporary in nature. No roads would be closed as a result of the proposed action. Access would be maintained to residences and community areas, including recreation access locations. Bore crossings of roads would be in accordance with recognized standards and would not impede travel or result in public safety concerns.

Impacts to transportation in the area resulting from increased travel to and from the project site by construction workers is expected to be minor. Workers would park in safe locations. TTTC would obtain necessary permits and authorizations from ADOT, local jurisdictions, and BNSF Railroad prior to encroaching upon the existing transportation infrastructure. No impacts would occur to traffic movement along I-40 or along the railroad tracks as a result of construction, maintenance, or operation of the facilities. All normal transportation activity would be able to occur during installation of these lines and after completion of construction. No closures of either I-40 or the BNSF rail line would occur.

Yavapai County would approve construction plans within CR 5 and CR 68. A traffic control plan would be developed by TTTC prior to construction activities under the guidelines and standards outlined by Yavapai County to maintain traffic safety, access, and movement. TTTC would coordinate with Yavapai County during construction to ensure planned maintenance activities along the road are not impacted.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to transportation for this alternative are generally the same as the proposed alternative. Short term minor impact may occur during construction activities resulting in minor rerouting around construction equipment. TTTC would be required to restore the roads to met Yavapai County and Prescott N. F. road requirements for portion of the project located on the forest.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to existing visual resources from the no action alternative.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 47 4.9 NOISE, RADIO, AND TELEVISION INTERFERENCE Proposed Alternative Noise would temporarily increase along the project alignment as a result of construction equipment use. Noise levels along the forest roads would incrementally increase and noise-sensitive receptors, such as residences, located near the construction area could be temporarily affected. It is not anticipated that construction activities would make public use areas, like the Prescott N. F., unusable or pose inconvenience to public recreational activities. The golf course and church in Bagdad are not expected to be significantly impacted. Construction activities would generally take place during daylight hours and would occur during weekdays.

The overall effect of increased noise levels would be minimal, with dB levels nearest to the project areas anticipated to be between 70 dB and 90 dB, which is categorized as being very loud or extremely loud (ASHA 2009), with 90 dB being similar to a lawnmower, shop tools, truck traffic, or a subway (ASHA 2009). Noise generated by cars, trucks, and other vehicles using the adjacent roads would be slightly less than the noise expected to be generated by project construction equipment. Construction activity would take place during daylight hours when background noise levels are generally the highest and people’s tolerance to noise is generally the highest. Construction crews are expected to move quickly and most construction noise would be audible to persons at a specific location for not more than two or three days.

The proposed buried facilities along both of the proposed project routes would not result in interference to radio or television. Facilities would be buried and not cause disruptions to overhead or tower facilities.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to noise, radio, and television interference would be the same as the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to existing noise, radio, and television interference conditions from the no action alternative.

4.10 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 4.10.1 Public and Worker Safety Proposed Alternative There would be no anticipated negative impacts to health and human safety as a result of implementation of the projects. Public and worker safety would be promoted through these projects by employing necessary safety precautions. This includes the use of necessary signage along traveled roadways and following safety procedures among others. Impacts to existing public service units (police, fire, medical) are not anticipated. Resource protection measures in Chapter 5 address worker and public safety. Traffic and pedestrian safety requirements would be followed.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to public and worker safety would be the same as the proposed alternative. Because of the location of the alignment within the road through the Prescott N. F. there would be slightly higher risk to public and worker safety. These impacts would be limited through the application of standard traffic and pedestrian safety requirements.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 48 No Action Alternative There would be no impact to public and worker safety from the no action alternative.

4.10.2 Wildfire Proposed Alternative It is not anticipated that wildfires would result from the construction and maintenance activities that occur as part of these projects, or from continued operation activities. The potential to ignite a fire will be lessened through application of the protection measures provided by Prescott N.F. in Appendix E and the resource protection measures described in Chapter 5.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative It is not anticipated that wildfires would result from the construction and maintenance activities that occur as part of these projects or from continued operation activities. The potential to ignite a fire will be lessened by the placement of the projects within the road through the Prescott N. F. and through application of the protection measures provided by Prescott N.F. in Appendix E and the resource protection measures described in Chapter 5.

No Action Alternative There would be no increased potential for wildfire from the no action alternative.

4.10.3 Hazardous Materials Proposed Alternative It is not anticipated that use of fuels and fluids for project construction equipment would impact the human environment. These materials would be handled and controlled in such a manner as to avoid impact to the environment. Should unforeseen spills occur, TTTC would arrange for clean-up and remediation activities. Resource protection measures included in Chapter 5 address hazardous materials.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts from hazardous materials would be the same as the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no increased potential for impacts from hazardous materials from the no action alternative.

4.11 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES 4.11.1 Employment and Income Proposed Alternative It is not anticipated that the proposed action would alter employment or income of the region. The projects would not result in a long-term increase in employment or income for the area. In the short-term, contractors or TTTC employees who perform work activities may stay in nearby hotels, purchase fuel for vehicles, and visit the local restaurants/eateries. This would contribute to the local economy in minor, insignificant ways.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 49 Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to employment and income would be the same as the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no increased opportunity for potential employment and income in the communities that would be created by construction activities.

4.11.2 Demographic Trends Proposed Alternative The project would not alter demographic trends among the project area. The existing local and regional ethnic composition would not change as a result of these projects.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative The project would not alter demographic trends among the project area. The existing local and regional ethnic composition would not change as a result of these projects.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to demographic trends from the no action alternative.

4.11.3 Environmental Justice Proposed Alternative In general, socioeconomic conditions would not change as a result of these projects. The proposed facilities would be built alongside and adjacent to existing disturbed roadways. Effects described in the EA would be borne equally by those in the project area, regardless of ethnicity or income levels. Impacts that are described in this EA would be primarily temporary in nature related to short-term construction activities. Long-term operation and maintenance of the facilities would not result in environmental justice-related impacts. The projects would not cause disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and/or low-income populations.

Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Impacts to environmental justice would be the same as the proposed alternative.

No Action Alternative There would be no change to environmental justice conditions from the no action alternative.

4.11.4 Community Resources Proposed Alternative Community resources have the potential to be improved as a result of these projects. In addition to residential services to homes, the fiber optic facilities would be available for community features including the libraries, schools, medical clinics, and business uses. This has the potential of expanding existing services and opportunities. There would be no adverse impacts that would result to community resources as a result of implementing these projects.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 50 Alignment Entirely within the Road Prism through the Prescott N. F. Alternative Community resources have the potential to be improved as a result of these projects. In addition to residential services to homes, the fiber optic facilities would be available for community features including the libraries, schools, medical clinics, and business uses. This has the potential of expanding existing services and opportunities. There would be no adverse impacts that would result to community resources as a result of implementing these projects.

No Action Alternative Rural communities associated with the project would not have greater access to more reliable and enhanced telecommunications services. Current facilities which are outdated and unreliable would continue to serve communities in the project area.

4.12 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE There are no impacts anticipated to the human environment that result from the no-action alternative. There would be no telecommunication infrastructure placed between Talking Rock and Seligman, or between Bagdad and CR 5, and therefore no impacts to present resources are foreseen for the human environment. Indirect impacts would result to socioeconomic and community resources. TTTC’s customers—including residences and business— in Bagdad, Talking Rock, and Seligman, would be left without increased telecommunication services, and would continue to overextend the already over-used microwave system. Upgrades to the TTTC existing facilities are not possible and should failure of the existing system occur, TTTC would not be able to provide needed services.

4.13 CUMULATIVE AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS 4.13.1 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those additive or interactive effects that would occur due to the proposed projects incremental impacts, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include the following:  Continued road use and maintenance activities along CR 5 and CR 68  Recreation use on the Prescott N.F. and within the community areas  Residential development of private land parcels along CR 5  Future completion of the Yavapai Ranch Land Exchange

No adverse or significant cumulative impacts are expected to result from the projects and/or alternatives considered. When combined with other actions described above, the projects would not contribute significantly to human or environmental impacts in the area. Use of the existing road corridors will maximize the use of existing developed areas, while minimizing impacts to undisturbed landscape.

4.13.2 Residual Impacts Proposed Alternative Minor residual impacts, occurring after implementation of the resource protection measures (Chapter 5), would result from these projects and/or alternatives considered. Residual impacts would occur for vegetation, wildlife, and soils. Minor amounts of vegetation would be removed or disturbed and some wildlife habitat would be modified. There would be short-term residual impacts to soils from ground disturbing construction activities.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 51 5: RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES This chapter lists the resource protection measures that would be implemented for the projects. They are intended to mitigate, reduce, or eliminate impacts anticipated to resources. These would be implemented by TTTC and/or their contracted representative(s) throughout all project related activities during and after construction activities. Resource protection measures will be implemented for both projects, unless otherwise noted.

5.1 WATER RESOURCES  Streams, creeks, or washes containing water at the time of construction will be crossed using directional boring and construction equipment and personnel will be restricted to previously disturbed upland areas.  Construction crews will employ erosion, sediment, material stockpile, and dust control BMPs on-site in order to minimize any fill or runoff from work areas from entering waterways.

5.2 SOILS  Soil stabilization techniques will be used where roads are constructed and in areas where construction activities take place. This includes use of BMPs for erosion control, and employing techniques to reduce soil destabilization.  To the extent feasible, disturbed areas would be re-contoured to reflect the surrounding conditions.

5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.3.1 General  Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a worker education program will be implemented to inform workers of sensitive species that could potentially be encountered and measures to minimize impacts. The worker education program will focus on the Gila chub, Arizona toad, Maricopa tiger beetle, lowland leopard frog, Sonoran desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, desert rosy boa, northern goshawk, and burrowing owl.  Ground disturbance will be limited to that necessary to complete construction.  Observation of protected or sensitive species will be reported immediately to the agency biologist.  Open trenches will be covered at the end of each work day to prevent wildlife from following into the trench. A sloped ramp will be placed on each trench to allow wildlife to escape.  No pets or firearms will be allowed on the construction site.  Areas disturbed during construction activities will be reseeded using seed mixes, seeding methods, and protocols established by the authorizing agency.  If construction is to occur within the avian breeding season (March 1 through August 31), a preconstruction survey will occur to determine if nesting migratory birds are present. If active bird nests are discovered, authorizing agencies would be notified and species appropriate buffer will be placed around the nest to ensure there are no impacts to nesting birds. Monitoring of the nests may occur to allow construction to proceed when young have fledged.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 52 5.3.2 Species Specific Northern Goshawk  No equipment, materials, or personnel will be stored within the Camp Wood PFA.  Construction within the goshawk PFA will be restricted to the road prism and would not remove any trees.

Gila Chub  No construction activities will be permitted in Williamson Valley Wash. The wash will be directionally bored. Construction activities and personnel will be restricted to upland areas.  An earth berm will be erected around drilling areas to contain any inadvertently spilled water and sediment.  A biological monitor will be present during construction activities to assure that all construction activities occur outside of the wash. The biological monitor will have authority to halt construction activities should impacts to the wash occur.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise  The Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team (AIDTT) guidelines for handling Sonoran desert tortoises will be provided and reviewed during the environmental worker education program.  If construction is to occur during the active period for the Sonoran desert tortoise (February 15 to November 15) equipment will be inspected when parked overnight to ensure no tortoises have moved under the equipment.  In the event a Sonoran desert tortoise needs to be moved from the project alignment the tortoise should be relocated at least 500 feet (but no more than 0.25 mile) from where it was found. The tortoise shall be moved less than 48 hours in advance of disturbance to prevent the tortoise from returning to the area.

Western Burrowing Owl  A preconstruction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist along the project alignment within areas determined as suitable burrowing owl habitat. This survey will follow the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) protocol guidelines.  If burrowing owls are discovered during surveys, then appropriate measures for minimizing impacts to owls will be employed as recommended in the burrowing owl survey protocol.

5.3.3 Noxious Weeds  A survey for noxious weeds will be conducted prior to construction along the project alignment. Infestation locations will be documented and provided to authorizing agencies.  Construction crews will receive preconstruction training regarding noxious weeds and measures designed to limit their spread. Areas of infestation will be discussed and identified.  Wash stations will be required at designated infestation areas and when entering Prescott N.F. and BLM lands. When crossing through areas where noxious weeds are present, vehicles would be washed before moving to the next area. Equipment will be power washed to remove soil and debris prior to leaving the infested area. Wash station filter fabric will be removed and disposed off in an acceptable landfill.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 53  Vehicles and equipment will be required to arrive at the work site clean, power washed, and free of soil and vegetative debris capable of transporting weed seeds or other propagules.

5.4 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES  TTTC will follow all prescribed measures identified in the Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan (Bassett 2011a), including barricading, trenching, monitoring, flagging, and avoidance. Most sites will be avoided or will have impacts to them reduced by placing the alignment within the road prism.  If any previously undetected or unreported cultural features or deposits are encountered during project-related activities, these activities must be discontinued in the immediate area of the remains and a qualified archaeologist must be consulted to evaluate their nature and significance. Protocols for discovery situations will be reviewed with the project construction contractor and project field inspection engineer during preconstruction meetings.  If any human remains or objects of patrimony are discovered during construction, all activities will be stopped and the discoveries will be reported to the Arizona State Museum as required by Arizona State Law (ARS 41-865).  If any previously undetected or unreported paleontological features or deposits are encountered during project-related activities, these activities must be discontinued in the immediate area of the feature, and the applicable land managing agency notified. The applicable land managing agency will determine when work may resume.

5.5 AIR QUALITY  Dust control measures will be implemented where potential for dust control problems exists by watering the construction site or limiting construction activities during high wind and dry conditions.  TTTC will adhere to all applicable air quality rules and regulations.

5.6 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY  Fire protection measures will be implemented. Operators will avoid parking equipment in areas of tall, dry grass and other highly combustible vegetation. Smoking will not be permitted outside of vehicles within the project alignment during construction. Appropriate fire suppression equipment will be present at all times during construction activities to prevent the spread of fire, including emergency radio communication.  All construction equipment will be well maintained and show no signs of leaks of fuels, lubricants or other fluids.  Equipment service and refueling procedures will not be conducted where there is potential for fuel spills to seep or wash into waterways or water bodies.  Traffic safety measures (i.e., proper signage and notice of worker presence) will be employed to ensure the safety of the traveling public on nearby roads during construction activities.  Should unforeseen discoveries of hazardous materials occur, TTTC will notify necessary land managing jurisdiction(s) and ADEQ.  In the event of a spill, workers would follow the requirements outlined in the Spill Prevention Plan to be prepared as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Authorizing agencies are to be contacted as soon as possible following a spill.  All trash and waste items will be removed daily.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 54 5.7 ACCESS AND ROADS  TTTC will assure that access along CR 5 and 68 is maintained throughout the duration of the project.  Access the project area will occur using existing roads.  Construction equipment will be stored in the ROW in such a manner as to maintain access.  Roads disturbed during construction activities would be restored to Yavapai County standards and to the satisfaction of authorizing agencies.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 55 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Federal, State, and local agencies, and Native American Tribes contacted throughout the planning and permitting phases of the project include:

6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Arizona Branch  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Arizona Natural Resources Conservation Service  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Prescott National Forest  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Field Office  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Flagstaff Sub-Office

6.2 STATE AGENCIES  Arizona Department of Agriculture, Plant Services Division  Arizona Department of Environmental Quality  Arizona Department of Transportation  Arizona Game and Fish Department  Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks  Arizona State Land Department

6.3 LOCAL AGENCIES  Yavapai County Permits  Yavapai County Public Works Department

6.4 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES  Yavapai Prescott  Yavapai-Apache  Fort McDowell Yavapai  Tonto Apache  Hopi  Hualapai Tribes

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 56 7: LIST OF PREPARERS

7.1 DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND RESEARCH This EA was prepared by Transcon Environmental, Inc., 3720 E. Southern Ave., Suite 218, Mesa, Arizona with assistance from:

 Roy Baker, GIS and Mapping  Everett Bassett, Cultural Resources  Dave Danley, Biological Resources  Jeff Davis, Project Manager  Heather Duncan, Cultural Resources  Beau Goldstein, Cultural Resources  Greg Gryniewicz, Biological Resources  Myrna Galaz, NEPA  Mike Shrum, Biological Resources

7.2 CONTRIBUTING PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS This EA was prepared with the contribution and review efforts of the following agency professionals:

 Joyce Cook, Bureau of Land Management  Linda Feidt, Table Top Telephone Company  Dennis Rankin, USDA Rural Development  Ken Simeral, Prescott National Forest  Richard Della Porta, Prescott National Forest  Linda Jackson, Prescott National Forest  James McKie, Prescott National Forest  Larry Bright, Prescott National Forest  Joel Shultz, Prescott National Forest  Cynthia Moody, Prescott National Forest  Sheila Sandusky, Prescott National Forest  Noel Fletcher, Prescott National Forest

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 57 8: REFERENCES American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2008 Noise is Difficult to Define! http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/noise.htm. Accessed January 2009.

Arizona Department of Commerce 2008a Seligman, Community Profile. http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/seligman.pdf. Accessed December 2008.

2008b Bagdad, Community Profile. http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/bagdad.pdf. Accessed December 2008.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2004 The Boulder Creek TMDL Implementation Plan. Publication # OFR 04-03, August 2004. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/status.html. Accessed December 2008.

2009 About ADEQ: Agency Wide Projects: Interactive GIS eMAPS. http://www.azdeq.gov/function/about/gis.html. Accessed March 2009.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 2008 Arizona Water Atlas (Draft). Volume 4: Upper Colorado River Planning Area. Volume 5: Central Highlands Planning Area. http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/Content/Find_by_Program/Rural_Programs/content/water_atlas /default.htm. Accessed December 2008.

Bright, Larry 2008 Personal communication with Larry Bright, Prescott N.F. Biologist, and David Danley, Transcon Biologist. December 16, 2008.

Brown, David E. 1994 Biotic Communities Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 315 pp.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1983 Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. Approved March 1983

Dalton, L.B., J.S. Price, and L.A. Romin. 1990. Fauna of Southeastern Utah and Life Requisites Regarding their Ecosystems. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Pub. No. 91-11. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 326 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2008 Nonattainment Areas Map – Criteria Air Pollutants. Geographic Area: Arizona. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/nonat.html?st~AZ~Arizona. Accessed December 2008.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2006 FEMA Map Service Center, Map Search. http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogI d=10001&langId=-1. Accessed January 2006.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 58 Prescott National Forest (Prescott N.F.) 1986 Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. November 1986. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/projects/pdf/Forest_Plan_republish_Dec2004.pdf.

2008 Recreational Activities. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/recreation/index.shtml. Accessed 2008.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 1998 Arizona Agave (Agave arizonica). Natural Heritage Central Databases (HHCD) information provided via the Boidiversity Conservation Data Source (BioSource) website.

US Census Bureau 2000 Demographic profiles: Bagdad, Seligman, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Profiles.shtml. Accessed December 2008.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1973 Soil Survey of Yavapai County, Arizona, Western Part. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in cooperation with Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station. General Soil Map, Compiled 1973.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page 59

APPENDIX A SCOPING SUMMARY

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company Appendix A TABLE A-1

SUMMARY OF AGENCY AND PUBLIC SCOPING RESPONSES Agency/ Date Individual Received Summary of Comment Response Kellis Ranch, 10/5/2009 Kellis Ranch has not granted a ROW TTTC will coordinate with Kellis Ranch Private to TTTC and that they are concerned and acquire appropriate permissions prior Landowners that it will be difficult to confine to initiation of construction. Construction construction to the existing roadbed of will be confined to the permitted road 20 to 30 feet wide. ROW. Arizona 10/6/2009 CWA Compliance: A Nationwide 12 permit package has Department of A Section 404 Permit from the U.S. been developed to address requirements Environmental Army Corps of Engineers may be associated with the CWA Section 401 and Quality required. 404. A SWPPP will be developed prior to construction activities and a Notice of A Section 402 AZPDES Construction Intent will be filed prior to construction General Permit is required. A SWPPP with the ADEQ. needs be developed, and a Notice of Intent filed with ADEQ. Arizona 9/29/2009 Limit impacts to native vegetation TTTC and their contractor will limit Department of impacts to vegetation to the extent Agriculture Recommend salvage or replant cactus feasible and will adhere to applicable and other protected plants. State laws and agencies requirements Remove hazardous materials properly. associated with protected and sensitive plant species. TTTC and their contractor will adhere to the all State and Federal laws and requirements associated with hazardous materials. These will be addressed in a Spill Prevention Plan as part of the SWPPP. Army Corps of 10/6/2009 The project may require a permit from All perennial and intermittent waters will Engineers the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for be directionally bored limiting potential impacting waters of the United States. impacts. A Nationwide 12 permit package has been developed to address requirements associated with the Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404. Bob and Joanne 9/26/2009 No objection to the project. TTTC and their contractor will implement Grossman BMPs to reduce transportation of soil Requests actions be taken to minimize fines. BMPs will be described in the transportation of fines to the Verde SWPPP. River. Tom Bailey 9/26/2009 Suggests overhead electric lines be Aerial installation of the fiber optic line installed instead of trenching. If must was considered. It was dismissed because trench, then make project a cost share aerial installation would not be optimal to facilitate future housing for long term operation and maintenance. development. Further, this would add visual intrusion to the landscape.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page A-1

APPENDIX B PROJECT ALTERNATIVES THROUGH THE PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST COMPARISON TABLES

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company Appendix B TABLE B-1 BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF

ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Land Use No Impact No Impact No Impact

Special No Impact No Impact No Impact Designations Recreation Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Minor inconveniences may result Minor inconveniences may result from slower traffic speeds where from slower traffic speeds where construction is occurring. construction is occurring. Water Quality No Impact No Impact No Impact

Floodplains No Impact No Impact No Impact

Wetlands and No Impact No Impact No Impact Riparian Soils No Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Compaction of soils would occur Potential compaction of soils by within previously compacted overland travel and construction road prism. activities would occur.

Impacts to soils would not exceed 37.22 acres (10 feet permanent ROW and 15 feet additional temporary work space).

Most disturbances to soils would be limited to the width of the construction equipment and result in approximately 14.09 acres of impact. Federally Listed No Impact No Impact No Impact Threatened and Endangered

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-1 TABLE B-1 BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF

ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Wildlife Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact General Wildlife – Localized, General Wildlife - Localized, short- short-term, indirect and direct term, indirect and direct impacts impacts from construction from construction activities could activities could occur to wildlife. occur to wildlife.

Habitat – No potential habitat Habitat – Impacts to chaparral and would be removed. juniper/grassland habitat types would result from construction Migratory Birds – Potential activities. Impacts are expected to impacts to migratory birds may be temporary since areas of occur if construction occurs disturbance will be reseeded per during the breeding season Prescott N.F. instructions. (March 1-August 31). Impacts are anticipated to be limited Impacts are not anticipated to exceed through the application of 37.22 acres (10 feet permanent mitigation measures described in ROW and 15 feet additional Section 5. temporary work space).

No habitat for migratory birds Most disturbances to these habitat would be removed. types would be limited to the width of the equipment and result in approximately 14.09 acres of impact.

Migratory Birds – Potential impacts to migratory birds may occur if construction occurs during the breeding season (March – August 31). Impacts are anticipated to be limited through the application of mitigation measures described in Section 5.

There is potential that habitat for migratory birds maybe impacted.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-2 TABLE B-1 BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF

ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Vegetation No Impact Potential Impact: No Impact Impacts would occur to chaparral and juniper/ grassland communities. Impacts would be temporary. Where feasible larger trees would be avoided through minor route realignment or trimming of branches. Areas of ground disturbance would be reseeded per Prescott N.F. direction.

Impacts to vegetation would not exceed 37.22 acres (10 feet permanent ROW and 15 feet additional temporary work space).

Most disturbances to vegetation would be limited to the width of the equipment and result in approximately 14.09 acres of impact.

Noxious weeds are found generally along the country road ROW throughout the entire project alignment. There is potential that noxious weeds could be transferred on to Prescott N.F. administered lands. Mitigation measures described in Section 5 would limit potential impacts. Regional Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Forester’s Northern Goshawk Northern Goshawk Sensitive Species The project alignment crosses The project alignment crosses approx. 1.0 mile of Camp Wood approximately 1.0 mile of Camp PFA for the Northern goshawk. Wood PFA for the Northern The project may impact a pair of goshawk. The project may impact a individuals due to construction pair of individuals due to disturbance during the breeding construction disturbance during the season. These impacts are not breeding season. These impacts are likely to cause a trend towards not likely to cause a trend towards listing of the species. listing of the species.

No impacts to habitat. No impacts to habitat.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-3 TABLE B-1 BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF

ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Management No Impact Generally, the project will not No impact Indicator Species change the seral stage or vegetation characteristics within the project area or on a forest-wide level. Although the project may have temporary impacts to individuals of some Management Indicator Species, it would not impact the habitat and population trends for any Management Indicator Species. Cultural No Adverse Effect: No Adverse Effect: No Impact Resources Six NRHP-eligible cultural sites Six NRHP-eligible cultural sites are are located along the project located along the project alignment alignment within the Prescott within the Prescott National Forest. National Forest. Through Through application of mitigation application of mitigation measures there would be no adverse measures there would be no effect to cultural resources. adverse effect to cultural resources. Air Quality Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Minor short term impacts from Minor short term impacts from construction equipment exhaust construction equipment exhaust and and dust created during dust created during construction construction activities. activities. Visual Resources Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Impacts would be low since Vegetation removal would be visible construction would occur within in some areas associated with the previously disturbed road juniper/ grassland vegetation bed. ROW signs placed to note communities. Areas disturbed the presence of the would be reseeded per Prescott N.F. telecommunications cable would instruction. ROW signs placed to be visible. note the presence of the telecommunications cable would visible. Transportation Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Short term minor impact may Short term minor impact may occur occur during construction during construction activities activities resulting in minor resulting in minor rerouting around rerouting around construction construction equipment. equipment. Noise, Radio, No Impact No Impact No Impact Television Interference Public and No Impact No Impact No Impact Worker Safety

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-4 TABLE B-1 BAGDAD TO COUNTY ROAD 5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF

ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Wildfire Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact There is potential that There is potential that construction construction activities could activities could result in creation of result in creation of fires. fires. Construction would occur in vegetated areas for approximately Because construction would 12.79 miles. occur within the disturbed roadbed, potential for starting There is potential that construction fires would be reduced. Through activities could result in fires. the application of mitigation Through the application of measures outlined by the Prescott mitigation measures outlined by the N.F. impacts are anticipated to be Prescott N.F. impacts are anticipated limited. to be limited. Hazardous No Impact No Impact No Impact Materials Employment and No Impact No Impact No Impact Income Demographic No Impact No Impact No Impact Trends Environmental No Impact No Impact No Impact Justice Community Potential Impact: Potential Impact: Potential Impact: Resources Rural communities would have Rural communities would have Rural communities greater access to more reliable greater access to more reliable and would not have greater and enhanced communication enhanced communication services. access to more reliable services. and enhanced telecommunications services. Current facilities which are outdated and unreliable would continue to serve communities in the project area. Approximate $1,801,116 $1,016,766 No Cost Project Construction Cost

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-5 TABLE B-2 TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Land Use No Impact No Impact No Impact

Special No Impact No Impact No Impact Designations Recreation Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Minor inconveniences may Minor inconveniences may result from result from slower traffic slower traffic speeds where speeds where construction is construction is occurring. occurring. Water Quality No Impact No Impact No Impact

Floodplains No Impact No Impact No Impact

Wetlands and No Impact No Impact No Impact Riparian Soils No Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Compaction of soils would Potential compaction of soils by occur within previously overland travel and construction compacted road prism. activities would occur.

Impacts to soils would not exceed 38.76 acres (10 feet permanent ROW and 15 feet additional temporary work space).

Most disturbances to soils would be limited to the width of the construction equipment and result in approximately 15.5 acres of impact. Federally Listed No Impact No Impact No Impact Threatened and Endangered

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-6 TABLE B-2 TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Wildlife Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact General Wildlife – Localized, General Wildlife - Localized, short- short-term, indirect and direct term, indirect and direct impacts from impacts from construction construction activities could occur to activities could occur to wildlife. wildlife. Habitat – Impacts to juniper/grassland Habitat – No potential habitat habitat types would result from would be impacted. construction activities. Impacts are expected to be temporary since areas Migratory Birds – Potential of disturbance will be reseeded per impacts to migratory birds may Prescott N.F. instructions. occur if construction occurs during the breeding season Impacts are not anticipated to exceed (March 1-August 31). Impacts 38.76 acres (10 feet permanent ROW are anticipated to be limited and 15 feet additional temporary work through the application of space). mitigation measures described in Section 5. Most disturbances to these habitat types would be limited to the width of No habitat for migratory birds the equipment and result in would be removed. approximately 15.5 acres of impact.

Migratory Birds – Potential impacts to migratory birds may occur if construction occurs during the breeding season (March – August 31). Impacts are anticipated to be limited through the application of mitigation measures described in Section 5.

There is potential that habitat for migratory birds maybe impacted.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-7 TABLE B-2 TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Vegetation No Impact Potential Impact: No Impact Impacts would occur to juniper/ grassland communities. Impacts would be temporary. Where feasible larger trees would be avoided through minor route realignment or trimming of branches. Areas of ground disturbance would be reseeded per Prescott N.F. direction.

Impacts to vegetation would not exceed 38.76 acres (10 feet permanent ROW and 15 feet additional temporary work space).

Most disturbances to vegetation would be limited to the width of the equipment and result in approximately 15.5 acres of impact.

Noxious weeds are found generally along the country road ROW throughout the entire project alignment. There is potential that noxious weeds could be transferred on to Prescott N.F. administered lands. Mitigations measures described in Section 5 would limit potential impacts. Regional Forester’s No Impact No Impact No Impact Sensitive Species Management No Impact Generally, the project will not change No impact Indicator Species the seral stage or vegetation characteristics within the project area or on a forest-wide level. Although the project may have temporary impacts to individuals of some Management Indicator Species, it would not impact the habitat and population trends for any Management Indicator Species. Cultural Resources No Adverse Effect: No Adverse Effect: No Impact Three NRHP-eligible cultural Three NRHP-eligible cultural sites are sites are located along the located along the project alignment project alignment within the within the Prescott N.F. Through Prescott N.F. Through application of mitigation measures application of mitigation there would be no adverse effect to measures there would be no cultural resources. adverse effect to cultural resources.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-8 TABLE B-2 TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Air Quality Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Minor short term impacts from Minor short term impacts from construction equipment exhaust construction equipment exhaust and and dust created during dust created during construction construction activities. activities. Visual Resources Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Impacts would be low since Vegetation removal would be visible construction would occur in some areas associated with within the previously disturbed chaparral and juniper/ grassland road bed. ROW signs placed to vegetation communities. Areas note the presence of the disturbed would be reseeded per telecommunications cable Prescott N.F. instruction. ROW signs would visible. placed to note the presence of the telecommunications cable would visible. Transportation Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact Short term minor impact may Short term minor impact may occur occur during construction during construction activities resulting activities resulting in minor in minor rerouting around construction rerouting around construction equipment. equipment. Noise, Radio, No Impact No Impact No Impact Television Interference Public and Worker No Impact No Impact No Impact Safety Wildfire Potential Impact: Potential Impact: No Impact There is potential that There is potential that construction construction activities could activities could result in creation of result in creation of fires. fires. Construction would occur in

Because construction would vegetated areas for approximately 12.79 miles. occur within the disturbed roadbed, potential for starting There is potential that construction fires would be reduced. activities could result in fires. Through the application of Through the application of mitigation mitigation measures outlined measures outlined by the Prescott N.F. by the Prescott N.F. impacts impacts are anticipated to be limited. are anticipated to be limited. Hazardous No Impact No Impact No Impact Materials Employment and No Impact No Impact No Impact Income Demographic No Impact No Impact No Impact Trends Environmental No Impact No Impact No Impact Justice

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-9 TABLE B-2 TALKING ROCK TO SELIGMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRESCOTT N.F. ADMINISTERED LANDS Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative Alignment Entirely within Resource Road Prism Proposed Alternative No Action Community Potential Impact: Potential Impact: Potential Impact: Resources Rural communities would have Rural communities would have greater Rural communities greater access to more reliable access to more reliable and enhanced would not have and enhanced communication communication services. greater access to services. more reliable and enhanced telecommunications services. Current facilities which are outdated and unreliable would continue to serve communities in the project area. Approximate $1,174,122 $310,797 No Cost Project Construction Cost

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page B-10

APPENDIX C PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST APPROVED SEED MIXTURE

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company Appendix C

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page C-1

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page C-2

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page C-3

APPENDIX D FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company Appendix D TABLE D-1 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES IN

YAVAPAI COUNTY Suitable Species Status Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Yellow-billed cuckoo C No This species occurs mainly in streamside cottonwoods, willow Coccyzus americanus groves, and, to a lesser extent, larger mesquite bosques. It is found in southern, central, and extreme northeastern Arizona. The riparian habitat known to support this species does not occur in the project area. Desert pupfish E No This species occurs in clear shallow waters of springs, small Cyprinodon streams, and marshes at elevations below 5,000 feet. It is macularius considered extirpated in much of Arizona but has since been reintroduced in various counties, including the Verde River in Yavapai County. The reintroduced and native populations of this species are not located near the project area. Southwestern willow E No This species breeds at lower elevations in dense cottonwood, flycatcher willow, and tamarisk communities along rivers and streams. Empidonax traillii Critical habitat for this species occurs along the Verde River. extimus The riparian habitat known to support this species is not found among the project area. Gila chub E Yes See discussion on 3.3.1. and 4.4.1. Gila intermedia Headwater chub C No This chub species is found in the Gila River basin, and is Gila nigra believed to be a hybrid of G. robusta and G. intermedia. It occurs between 4,000 feet and 6,500 feet in elevation. There are no known records of headwater chub within the project area and the project area is not within the Gila River Basin. Roundtail chub C No This species inhabits mid-elevation streams and rivers of cool to Gila robusta warm water within riparian habitat where good cover is present. It is most commonly present at elevations between 2,000 and 5,000 feet, but it can vary from 1,210 to 7,220 feet. It has been documented in the Verde River east of Highway 89. It is associated with mainstream habitats and tributaries, as well as in the canals of Phoenix, and some creeks of the Tonto Basin Watershed. The project is west of Highway 89. There are no known occurrences of this species in the project area. California condor E No This species can be found in high desert canyonlands and Gymnogyps plateaus at various elevation. There is a release site located in californianus the Vermillion Cliffs (Coconino County). In Arizona, the designated experimental/nonessential area is within a polygon formed by Highway 191, I-40, and Highway 93, and extends north of Arizona-Utah and Nevada borders. It typically roosts and nests in steep terrain harboring rock outcrops, cliffs as well as caves. Open grasslands and savannahs are an important component foraging habitat for this species. There is no suitable roosting habitat for this species within the project area. Installation of a buried fiber optic cable is not expected to impact foraging habitat.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page D-1 TABLE D-1 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES IN

YAVAPAI COUNTY Suitable Species Status Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Bald eagle T No The Sonoran population distinct population segment of the bald Haliaeetus eagle is still protected as threatened under the ESA. This leucocephalus population does occur within Yavapai County. Most of the bald eagle nesting and roosting sites are associated with the Verde River or local lakes in the Prescott area. There is no suitable nesting or roosting habitat for the bald eagle within the project area. Bald eagles may forage within the project area during hunting seasons. This project would have no impacts to any bald eagles or their habitat. Spikedace T No This species occurs in moderate to large perennial streams with Meda fulgida gravel cobble substrates and moderate to swift velocities. T his species has been documented in the Verde River. Critical habitat has been designated for this species along the Verde River. The project is not located along waterways that support this species. Black footed ferret E No This species is typically found in grassland plains, often Mustela nigripes associated with prairie dog towns. There is no wild black- footed ferret population currently known to exist in Arizona. A reintroduced population can be found in Aubrey Valley, Coconino County, Arizona. This species is not known to occur along the project alignment. Gila trout T No Gila trout have been introduced into the Grapevine Botanical Oncorhynchus gilae Area on the Prescott N.F.. This project is not near the botanical area and would not impact this species. Gila topminnow E No This fish species occurs in small to moderate sized streams, Poeciliopsis springs, cienegas and margins of larger bodies of water occidentalis generally in shallows. This species is usually associated with occidentalis emergent or aquatic vegetation at elevations below 4,500 feet. It is found in several counties in Arizona. In Yavapai County it is found within the Verde River system. The project is not located along waterways that support this species. Colorado pikeminnow E No This species is found in warm turbid rivers with high silt Ptychocheilus lucius content. This species is considered extirpated from Arizona. Two experimental non-essential populations were reintroduced in the Salt River and Verde River drainages. The area of reintroduction occurs south of Talking Rock to Seligman segment of the project. Arizona cliffrose E No This species requires gentle slopes with gravelly, sandy loam Purshia subintegra soil, associated with limestone. This species grows at elevations between 2,000 to 4,000 feet. The species does not occur within the project area. The specific soil needed for this species is not found within the project area. Page springsnail C No This species is located in Page Spring and several nearby Pyrgulopsis morrisoni springs in the Verde Valley, Yavapai County, and central Arizona. The area of known inhabitance for this species is approximately 80 miles away from the project area.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page D-2 TABLE D-1 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES IN

YAVAPAI COUNTY Suitable Species Status Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Chiricahua leopard T No This amphibian species requires permanent or almost frog permanent waters. It will use natural as well as man-made Rana chiricahuensis water sources. Primary habitat for this species is oak, mixed oak and pine woodlands. It may range into chaparral, grassland, and desert habitats. This species is known to occur at elevations between 3,300 and 8,900 feet, southeast of the Verde River. The project is located northwest of the Verde River. Mexican spotted owl T No This owl species is found in dense multi-storied closed canopy Strix occidentalis forests with many snags and downed logs, as well as canyons at lucida elevations from 4,100 to 9,000 feet. This species is unevenly distributed in forested subalpine and montane coniferous forests statewide. There is not suitable habitat for this species within the project area. Northern Mexican C No This species uses three general habitat types: 1) ponds and garter snake cienegas; 2) lowland riparian forests; and 3) upland stream Thamnophis eques gallery forests. This species has been largely extirpated across megalops its historic range, but is still found in some drainages of the Mogollon Rim. The species may have historically occurred along perennial or intermittent waterways along the project area but would not presently be expected to occur along waterways. Loach minnow T No Currently occurs in portions of the upper Gila River (NM), San Tiaroga cobitis Francisco River, Blue River, Aravaipa Creek, Eagle Creek, White River, and Black River (AZ). They are extirpated from the Verde River drainage. Found in moderate to swift flow velocities with shallow water with gravel and cobble substrates. Occurs on the Apache-Sitegreaves and Gila national forests. This project would not impact the species or its habitat. Razorback sucker E No This species is found in backwaters, flooded bottomlands, side Xyrauchen texanus channels, and reservoirs. In the Lower Colorado River Basin populations are isolated to Mohave Lake, Mead Reservoir and the Colorado river below Lake Havasu. Experimental nonessential populations have been reintroduced into the Verde River. Critical habitat has also been designated along the Verde River. The large river habitat known to support this species does not occur among the project area. USFWS categories: Endangered (E) – Taxa in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; Threatened (T) – Taxa likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; Candidate (C) –Species for which the USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened. Candidate species, however, are not protected legally because proposed rules have not been issued; Proposed Endangered (PE) – Any species for which a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register to list the species as endangered under the Endangered Species Act; Proposed Threatened (PT) – Any species for which a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register to list the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Source: USFWS database [http.//ifw2es.fws.gov/Endangered Species/lists/])

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page D-3

APPENDIX E PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company Appendix E TABLE E-1 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES FOR THE PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST Suitable Species Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Tonto Basin agave No This species grows in well-drained soils on benches and edges of slopes in Agave delamateri a small geographic area in Central Arizona, which includes the Verde Valley area of Yavapai County. The project does not occur in the Verde Valley, and there is no bench habitat that would be impacted within the project area. Phillips’ agave No This species was originally known from several isolated populations in Agave phillipsiana Grand Canyon National Park. It has been recently associated with several archeological sites in the Middle Verde Valley, including near Tuzigoot, Page Springs, Sedona, and along the Hassayampa River south of Prescott, and has been associated with habitation sites and agave processing tools. The project does not encounter the known locations of this species. Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort No This plant species is found in association with oak and pine forests at Arenaria aberrans elevations of 5,500 to 9,000 feet in southeast Yavapai County along Highway 89. This species is not known to occur in the project area. The project is not located in the southeast portion of Yavapai County. Greene milkweed No This species can be found in grassland and savannah habitats, and is Asclepias uncialis uncialis known to occur in Santa Cruz County. Historic records indicate populations may have also occurred in Yavapai and Coconino counties. Although this species may be historically occurred on the Prescott N.F., it is not currently known to occur there. Cochise sedge No A single patch of this species is found in the Hieroglyphic and Mazatzal Carex ultra Mountains of Yavapai County. It requires moist habitat associated with perennial streams or springs in riparian areas or oak-pine woodlands. The habitat known to support this species is not found among the project alignment. Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil No This species can be found in rocky slopes and canyons in grasslands, oak, Desmodium metcalfei pinyon-juniper, and riparian forests. It is fairly widespread, though uncommon in Arizona, and it can be found in Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai counties. The rocky slope and canyon habitats preferred by this species are not located in the project area. Rock dwelling fleabane No This species occurs on sheer canyon walls, moist north-facing slopes, Erigeron saxatalis steep solid rock, and bedrock outcrops in canyons above the Mogollon Rim. It is known to occur in Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona. There is no suitable rock substrates located within the project area. Heathleaf wild buckwheat No This species is found on Chevelon Butte in Coconino County and the Eriogonum ericofolium Verde Valley in northeast Yavapai County within dry gravelly or rocky var. ericofolium limestone and gypsum soils. It is associated with creosote bush and desert scrub vegetation communities, but can occur up to pinyon-juniper woodlands. The project is not located within the known range of this species. The project occurs in the western portion of Yavapai County. Ripley wild buckwheat No Populations of this species occur in Maricopa, Coconino, Mohave and Eriogonum ripleyi Yavapai counties. It occurs on sandy clay soils on the edges of sandstone mesas, and is associated with pinyon-juniper vegetation communities. This species inhabits areas of eastern Yavapai County along the Verde River. The project is located in the northwestern portion of Yavapai County and is not within the species known habitat.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page E-1 TABLE E-1 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES FOR THE PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST Suitable Species Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Flagstaff pennyroyal No This species is found within Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona and Hedeoma diffusum is associated with rock pavement, cliff, limestone, and sandstone break habitats in ponderosa pine vegetation communities. In Yavapai County it is found in the far northeast section bordering Coconino County. The habitat known to support this species does not occur among the project area. Eastwood alum root No This species is found at Crown King and Senator mines in the Prescott Heuchera eastwoodiae region of Arizona as well as various locations on the Tonto and Coconino national forests. It is associated with rocky areas on hillsides and streams between 4,900 to 6,000 feet. It is found in central Yavapai County. The project is located in northwest Yavapai county, distant from the known populations of this species. Broadleaf lupine No This species is found in the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and southern Weaver Lupinus latifolius spp. mountains and Cottonwood Creek in Yavapai County. It grows along leucanthus streams and among rocks and boulders in canyon bottoms from 4,800 to 7,000 ft. in elevation. The project does not occur in the known localities of this species. Flagstaff beardtongue No This species is found in dry ponderosa pine forests within Mohave, Penstemon nudiflorus Yavapai and Coconino counties south of the Colorado River. It can be found between 4,500 and 7,000 feet in elevation. The project will be restricted to the roadway within ponderosa pine forest habitats and will not likely encounter this species, Arizona phlox No This phlox species grows on open areas of exposed limestone within Phlox amabilis pinyon-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine-gambel oak communities from 3,500 to 7,800 feet in elevation. No exposed limestone substrate was observed within the project area. Hualapai milkwort No This species is found among desert grasslands and juniper woodlands at Polygala rusbyi elevations from 3,000 to 5,000 feet in Mohave and Yavapai counties. Records document this species near Drake, Arizona. The project is not located near the known occurrences of this species. Mearns sage/ Verde Valley No This species is found in central Arizona in the Verde Valley, Yavapai sage County, and near Sedona, Coconino County. It is found among open Salvia dorii spp. mearnsii creosote bush-shrub communities on gypseous limestone substrates at elevations between 3,250 and 3,800 feet. The soil and habitat types known to support this species do not occur within the project area.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page E-2

TABLE E-2 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT OFREGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE

WILDLIFE SPECIES FOR THE PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST Suitable Species Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Northern goshawk Yes See Section 3.4.4 Accipiter gentiles Longfin dace No This species’ habitat varies from intermittent desert streams to high Agosia chryogaster mountain perennial creeks. It is typically found in small streams with low water. Intermittent streams are encountered along the project alignment; however, these creeks will not be disturbed as a result of construction. Arizona toad Yes See Section 3.4.4 Bufo microscaphus microscaphus Common black-hawk No This raptor species inhabits riparian habitats between 1,750 and 7,080 feet Buteogallus anthracinus in elevation. It is found along remote streams draining the Mogollon Rim, the Big Sandy, Virgin, and Gila River drainages. No stick nests were observed along potentially suitable riparian habitat within the project area. Desert sucker No This fish species is found in flowing pools and rapids of the Gila River Catostomus clarki Basin and Bill Williams River tributaries. No perennial waters are present within the project area. The intermittent waters present will not be impacted by construction activities. Sonora sucker No This species is common in the Gila and Bill Williams River systems, and Catostomus insignis less common in the Salt River. It prefers deep, quiet pools. No perennial waters are present within the project area. The intermittent waters present will not be impacted by construction activities. Western yellow-billed No This species inhabits riparian woodlands consisting of cottonwoods and cuckoo willow groves, and large mesquite bosques. It is found in southern, Coccyzus americanus central, and extreme northeast Arizona at elevations ranging from 90 to occidentalis 6,710 feet. The habitat known to support this species is not found in the project area. There are no known occurrences within the project area. Pale Townsend’s big-eared No Summer day roosts for this species are located in caves and mines in wide bat range of habitat types. Summer night roosts are often in buildings. Winter Corynorhunus townsendii hibernation sites are within cold caves, lava tubes, and mines in upland pallescens habitats near the Grand Canyon and in southeastern Arizona. No suitable caves, mines, or buildings for roosting are encountered along the project alignment. American peregrine falcon No Prime habitat for the American peregrine falcon is usually considered to Falco peregrinus be steep, sheer cliffs overlooking habitat associated with ample avian prey species. In addition, the presence of open habitat is necessary. This species occurs throughout Arizona wherever suitable habitat is present. It is found in a wide variety of plant communities at elevation ranging from 400 to 9,000 feet. There is no suitable cliff habitat within the project area. Roundtail chub No This species inhabits mid-elevation streams and rivers of cool to warm Gila robusta water within riparian habitat where good cover is present. It is most commonly present at elevations between 2,000 and 5,000 feet, but it can vary from 1,210 to 7,220 feet. It has been documented in the Verde River east of Highway 89. It is associated with mainstream habitats and tributaries, as well as in the canals of Phoenix, and some creeks of the Tonto Basin Watershed. The project is west of Highway 89. There are no known occurrences of this species in the project area. Desert tortoise Yes See Section 3.4.4 Gopherus agasizii

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page E-3 TABLE E-2 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT OFREGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE

WILDLIFE SPECIES FOR THE PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST Suitable Species Habitat Rationale of Habitat Assessment Western red bat No This species is a summer resident in Arizona. It roosts in broad-leaf Lasiurus blossevillii woodland and riparian areas, especially in large cottonwood trees. The project will not impact any cottonwood or broad leafed vegetation. Pocketed free-tailed bat No This species is found among arid low elevations of desert scrub and pine- Nyctinomops oak forests. Associated with areas of high cliffs and rugged outcrops. It femorosaccus roosts in crevices of high cliffs and rocky outcrops, but can use manmade structures as well. The project will not impact any buildings, cliffs or rocky outcrops which may be used by this species as roosting sites. Abert’s towhee No This species is generally found in woodland areas with a dense understory, Pipilo aberti generally along, along desert streams and rivers. In Arizona, it can be found along desert river corridors in the central, southeastern, and northwestern portions of the state. The project will not affect any vegetation along streams in the area. Verde rim springsnail No This species range is restricted to two springs (Nelson Place Spring Pyrgulopsis glandulosa Complex) that form the headwaters of Sycamore Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona. It occurs at 5,280 feet in elevation in freshwater-benthic and spring-springbrook habitat. This species’ known range is not within the project area. Brown springsnail No This species is endemic to Brown Spring in northwestern Arizona. The Pyrgulopsis sila springs known to harbor this species are located distant from the project area. No springs will be impacted as a result of the project. Lowland leopard frog Yes See Section 3.4.4 Rana yavapaiensis Plains harvest mouse No This species is found in grasslands, desertscrub, or chaparral with well Reithrodontomys developed ground cover. Although this species has a wide range, montanus occurrences are patchy and discontinuous and it is considered rare throughout its range. There is potential that this species and its habitat maybe found along the project alignment impacts to this species are not anticipated as construction would occur in areas with road corridors. Mexican garter snake No This species uses three general habitat types: 1) ponds and cienegas; 2) Thamnophis eques lowland riparian forests; and 3) upland stream gallery forests. This species megalops has been largely extirpated across its historic range, but is still found in some drainages of the Mogollon Rim. The species may have historically occurred along perennial or intermittent waterways along the project area but would not presently be expected to occur along waterways. Narrow-headed garter No This species lives in permanent flowing streams found in pinyon-juniper snake and pine-oak woodlands, and up into ponderosa pine forests. It occurs at Thamnophis rufipunctatus elevations ranging from 2,440 to 8,080 feet. It is found in central and eastern Arizona in upland drainages of the White Mountains, along the Mogollon Rim, and into Oak Creek Canyon. It occurs in Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo and Yavapai counties. This species is not known to occur in the project area.

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page E-4

APPENDIX F PRESCOTT NATIONAL FOREST FIRE REQUIREMENTS

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company Appendix F R3-CT7.22 CT7.22 - EMERGENCY FIRE PRECAUTIONS (5/2008)

Contractor will restrict operations in accordance with the attached Emergency Fire Precaution Schedule. When there is a predicted change, Forest Service shall inform the Contractor by 6:00 pm, Mountain Standard Time (7:00 pm MDT),of the predicted change in the Industrial Fire Precaution Plan. The procedure for the Forest Service to notify the Contractor of a change shall be stated in the timber sale fire plan required by BT7.1. The Project Manager may, after consultation with the Forest Supervisor, adjust the predicted Industrial Fire Precaution Plan for local weather conditions in construction area. Changes in the predicted Industrial Fire Precaution Plan shall be agreed to in writing.

EMERGENCY FIRE PRECAUTION SCHEDULE FIRE RESTRICTION/CLOSURE “STAGE” “STAGED” RESTRICTION LEVELS INDUSTRIAL FIRE PRECAUTION PLAN NO RESTRICTIONS A STAGE I B STAGE II C STAGE III (PARTIAL FOREST CLOSURE) ** C or D STAGE IV (TOTAL FOREST CLOSURE) D RED FLAG WARNING D (Issued by National Weather Service)

** Partial Forest Closure: Construction areas which are outside the boundaries of the partial forest closure may continue to operate under Industrial Fire Precaution Plan “C” operating criteria as agreed upon between the Project Manager and Contractor in writing.

Construction areas within the boundaries of the proclaimed partial forest closure area are to operate under Industrial Fire Precaution Plan ―D”.

Staged restriction levels are determined by the Line Officer in conjunction with Fire Management Officer(s) and Project Manager(s). The process is a mix of quantitative and subjective measures which allows Line Officers a broad level of discretion considering local conditions and issues when deciding to implement fire restrictions and/or area closures.

INDUSTRIAL FIRE PRECAUTION PLAN - DESCRIPTION A - Normal Fire Precautions (CT7.2) No fire guard required. B - Normal Fire Precautions (CT7.2) except designated areas for smoking and warming or cooking fires require a written permit. Contractor will provide fire guard (CT7.21). C - All power saws and mechanical fellers except for mechanical fellers equipped with hydraulic shears will shut down from 9:00 am until 8:00 pm Mountain Standard Time (10:00 am to 9:00 pm MDT), except chainsaws may be used from 9:00 am until 2:00 pm Mountain Standard Time (10:00 am to 3:00 pm MDT), for limbing on landings cleared to mineral soil. Loading is authorized to continue from 12:00 noon until 2:00 pm, Mountain Standard Time (1:00 pm to 3:00 pm MDT) on landings cleared to mineral soil. Construction equipment must be out of the construction area to a surfaced road by 2:00 pm, Mountain Standard Time (3:00 pm MDT). Shutdown from 12:00 noon until 8:00 pm Mountain Standard Time (1:00 pm to 9:00 pm MDT); all machine treatment of slash; mechanical equipment used for shearing, bunching, or delimbing; skidding; cable yarding; blasting; welding; metal cutting; and clearing. Operations on mineral soil involving road excavation, watering, grading, surfacing, rock crushing, and/or other equipment maintenance may continue. No smoking, warming, or cooking fires are permitted at any time. Contractor will provide fire guard (CT7.21).

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page F-1 D - Shutdown all operations; except operations on mineral soil involving road excavation, watering, grading, gravel surfacing, and rock crushing may continue with special Forest Service permit. Contractor will provide fire guard (CT7.21).

Talking Rock to Seligman and Bagdad to County Road 5 Telecommunications Projects, Environmental Assessment Table Top Telephone Company page F-2