Mogollon Communication Facility DW Tower LLC Apache ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · • This would be a low power communication facility (

PROPOSED ACTION

Mogollon Communication Facility DW Tower LLC

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Black Mesa Ranger District

August 11, 2017

PURPOSE AND NEED Background- The proposed project is needed to improve wireless personal communication services in eastern Arizona, principally east of Payson, Arizona along the State Route (SR) 260 corridor from Christopher Creek to the community of Forest Lakes; and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Woods Canyon and Willow Springs recreation areas where such services are currently not available and/or reliable. SR 260 is a major travel route serving the Tonto and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNF) and consequently experiences traffic by tourists and commerce. ASNF in this area is a major recreation destination. In response to this need to improve wireless service, DW Tower LLC (DWT) proposes to construct a new colocation tower facility for use by the licensed wireless carriers to serve this area. See Figure 1 for a project location map and Figure 2 for an aerial photo of the proposed location.

The rationale for the proposed Mogollon Communication Facility is based on holes in wireless telephone service between existing and planned communications sites and facilities. The proposed Mogollon facility along with existing and planned tower sites and facilities along the SR 260 corridor are part of a developing wireless communications system in the area. The FCC-licensed wireless carriers have made development of new sites and facilities and improving service in this area a priority for 2017.

Wireless signal propagation studies and user complaints indicate that the area in and around the ASNF Visitor Center, Woods Canyon and Willow Springs Lakes Recreational Areas, the SR corridor east and west of the Visitor Center, communities of Colcord Estates, Ponderosa Springs, and Gordon Canyon Estates area are currently not receiving adequate or reliable wireless service.

Typically in order to provide seamless wireless coverage for all of the licensed wireless providers, a tower is needed approximately every 7 miles unless extremely tall towers or mountain tops are used. Each provider has different technical needs in regards to distance between towers. The distance between towers is based on propagation characteristics of their radio frequencies. Therefore, in order to develop a colocation corridor plan that minimizes the proliferation of towers and meets the needs of all of the licensed carriers, all carrier propagation needs must be addressed. For instance, Verizon and AT&T have very different needs in regards to distance between towers because of differences in how far their signals will travel.

Purpose/Need/Objectives

• Improve wireless communication for the public and employee safety, such as search and rescues, medical emergencies and law enforcement needs.

• Improve wireless service for ASNF high use recreation areas including Willow Springs Lake, Woods Canyon Lake, the adjacent campgrounds and dispersed recreation areas on FR 300, and the SR 260 corridor east and west of the ASNF Visitor Center.

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 2 of 12

• Provide seamless wireless service on the SR 260 corridor between existing towers at Christopher Creek and Forest Lakes Estates.

• Provide reliable wireless service to private land parcels (Gordon Canyon, Colcord, and Ponderosa Springs Estates) below the rim south of SR 260.

• Improve wireless service in the area and maintain visual quality objectives.

PROPOSED ACTION The major components of the DWT proposed facility are as follows:

• A single 120 foot above ground level (AGL) free standing lattice tower or monopole-simulated tree tower would be constructed (Figures 3 and 4).

• An equipment building designed to house all tenants within a 100 feet by 100 feet lease area, enclosed by an 8 foot chain link fence, would be constructed on approximately 0.25 acres (Figure 5). The equipment building would be 50 ft. long by 12 ft. wide and 12 ft. high.

• The facility would be designed to initially accommodate three wireless carriers with the ability to accommodate local government and FS communications needs.

• The equipment building and tower would accommodate all tenants and would be owned and managed by DWT.

• Electrical power would be supplied from the existing overhead power line north of FR 300 and north of the proposed facility. An electric power line would be buried underground along the FR 300 within the right of way, extending 0.35 miles, and then along the access road to the equipment building, extending 0.36 miles, for a total of 0.71 miles (see Figures 1 and 2). An area approximately two feet wide and four feet deep would be required for the trenching, which is a total of 0.2 acres. All trenching would take place in previously disturbed ground within the shoulder of the roads.

• Forest Road 300I will be changed from a Level 1 road to a Level 2 Administrative Use Only road and maintenance responsibility will be done by DWT. A gate would be installed at the entrance of the road for security of the facility.

• The tower and equipment building would be painted a color determined by ASNF that would blend with the background.

• Tenants would primarily be wireless communications carriers (cellular, PCS, EMRS) operating using radio frequencies authorized by the FCC.

• No temporary use areas are anticipated. All construction activities would be contained within the lease area.

• This would be a low power communication facility (<1000 watts ERP). The location does not have the physical, social, or geographic characteristics for high power broadcast or other uses which would not be compatible with wireless.

• All radio facilities shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the Motorola R56 standards and/or other applicable recognized industry standards.

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 3 of 12

• DWT would re-align the existing Rim Trail to bypass the tower facility. The alignment would be determined by ASNF and constructed by DWT.

• Total area of ground disturbance including the communication facility and buried power line is 0.27 acres.

PROPOSED TOWER FACILITY LOCATION DWT proposes to construct a single low power colocation wireless communication facility at a location referred to as Mogollon on lands under the jurisdiction of the ASNF. The proposed facility lies within Section 36, T11N, R13.5E, Gila and Salt River Base Meridians (Figure 1).

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 4 of 12

Figure 1- Location Map

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 5 of 12

Figure 2- Project Aerial Map

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 6 of 12

Figure 3 –Tower Location Photo with Simulated 120 foot AGL Lattice Tower

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 7 of 12

Figure 4 – Conceptual Drawing – Lattice Tower

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 8 of 12

Figure 5 – Conceptual Drawing – Facility Area

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 9 of 12

Photo Simulations

The boom truck seen in Figure 3 was used to create photo simulations of a 120 foot lattice tower in the proposed communication facility location. The surrounding recreation areas and major roads including SR 260 were driven by Forest Service and DWT Tower staff to see where the boom and proposed tower might be seen. Four photo points were established where the boom could be obviously seen and pictures were taken. These were the only locations where the tower is obviously visible. Other locations may allow for potential visibility between gaps in tress however it would not be obvious to the casual observer. Simulations were created from the pictures at those photo points for two types of towers, including a free standing lattice type tower and a tree tower, see Appendix A, PROPOSED MOGOLLON TOWER PHOTO SIMULATION, for before and after photographs and a complete summary of simulations that compare a 120 foot lattice tower, and a 120 foot tree tower. Appendix A also includes a tower comparison that gives the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of towers. After evaluation of the simulations the free standing lattice tower was brought forward as the proposed tower type. There wasn’t a clear advantage to picking the tree tower after consideration of visual effects. The disadvantages on the uses and future expansion that the tree tower presented were substantial enough to make the lattice tower more preferable at this location.

COMMUNICATION FACILITY SELECTION PROCESS Communication Facility locations considered in the proposed action area on FS land The DWT Facility Development Team considered 15 potential locations for the proposed communication facility on FS land. DWT conducted a propagation study of the 15 alternative tower locations near the FS visitor center. Locations that would not meet the purpose and need were eliminated because they would not provide adequate signal strength to service objective areas. The study was narrowed to 5 alternatives that were studied in detail. The studies concluded that the proposed tower location is technically feasible and is recommended to be carried forward in detailed analysis.

Other location options were dismissed from further consideration as follows:

Locate the facilities on private land Potential tower locations on private land were investigated. A high topographic feature such as a mountain top or ridge line is preferred location for a communications tower location because wireless signals operate by line of site. A high elevation tower location would not be blocked by other topographic features or trees and would transmit greater distances. There is no private land in the target area located on mountain tops or a high topographic feature. Typically private land within public lands is the result of homesteading and is bottom land suitable for agriculture.

Locate the facilities at an existing communication site or facility Existing communications facilities were investigated on both private and forest lands. Only one established forest communication site is located in this part of the Forest, at the Brookbank Communications Site near Forest Lake Estates. Existing towers at Colcord and Christopher Creek were also looked at. Neither of these towers or the communications site at Brookbank would provide coverage to the target area. The tower at the proposed Mogollon Site will fill in the gap in coverage between the towers at Colcord and Christopher Creek and Brookbank Communications Site. It was determined that there are no existing facilities that would provide wireless service to the target area. The proposed Mogollon tower facility is the only location in

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 10 of 12

the area with vehicle access and electrical power that provided the topographic position to provide wireless service for the targeted area.

Use of a short tower at the proposed facility Using a shorter tower at the proposed locations was considered to address visual quality concerns. A shorter tower would have less visual impact as viewed from SR 260 and other areas in the Forest. However, lower antennae position on the shorter tower would result in reduced signal propagation or a smaller area of wireless service requiring additional towers. Developing additional tower facilities in the area would be necessary to meet service objectives because of the use of shorter towers which would not meet the purpose and need objective to improve wireless service in the area, while maintaining visual quality objectives. Multiple towers would cumulatively increase the effects on visual and other resources in the area.

STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION a. Soil replacement and stabilization –Hydrologic Conditions, Water Resources, Water

Quality, and Soils Implementation of the proposed project could have an impact on water quality due to increased sediment to the watershed caused by road construction on steep inclines on erodible soils, causing gullying if mitigation measures are not implemented. Regular maintenance of the existing road and stipulations identified by ASNF would mitigate concerns of gullying, sediment movement off the site and effects to water quality in the watershed.

b. Vegetation removed during construction (i.e., trees, shrubs, etc.) The area has sparse ponderosa pine and Gambel oak cover being the site of a recent heavy fuel treatment cut. Ponderosa pine and Gambel oak are the only tree species on the area. However up to 18 ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed in construction. Thirteen of these trees are seedlings (7), or 12.0 inches (“) diameter breast height (dbh) or less. Five ponderosa pine trees are between 12.0” and 17.9” dbh. There are no trees greater than 18.0” dbh that would need to be removed. There are 14 Gambel oak trees that would need to be cleared that are 4.9” diameter root collar (drc) or less, and 1 tree that is 7.0” drc. Most of the Gambel oak occurs in two clumps, one at the northwest corner, and one at the southeast corner. These clumps contain approximately 75 sprouts. There is very sparse ground vegetation, with only a few clumps of bunch grass and a few forbs present. These are only potential trees to be cleared as several may be retained through slight adjustments to the boundary of the area if they don’t conflict with tower construction. Efforts would be made to retain as much of the tree vegetation as possible.

• All slash from vegetation clearing would be lopped and scattered.

• ASNF seeding specifications would be applied to the disturbed area until acceptable success standards are met.

c. Limiting access to right-of-way – The lease area would be fenced. The access road off of FR 300 would be gated and restricted to administrative use only.

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 11 of 12

MITIGATION MEASURES

Soil and Water Erosion Mitigation:

a. Re-establish vegetation on soil disturbance resulting from use of the access road. Seed all disturbed soil including the road bed with a certified weed free seed mix approved by the ASNF.

b. The Lease Holder would perform road maintenance as needed and as specified by the ASNF to insure drainage features are functioning properly.

c. The Lease Holder would inspect erosion control features on the access road and communication facility on a bi-annual basis and report the findings to the ASNF.

d. The Lease Holder would perform any needed maintenance identified within a time frame acceptable to the ASNF.

Noxious Weeds Mitigation:

• Noxious weeds would be inventoried. Noxious and invasive plant infestations would be documented by the Lease Holder before construction begins, and findings would be reported to the ASNF.

• Construction equipment would be pressure washed at a location on private land to remove any soil or vegetative material before entering ASNF lands.

• After construction, the Lease Holder would inspect the roadway and communication facility area of disturbance during each growing season to detect establishment of invasive species.

• The Lease Holder would remove any invasive/noxious weed species infestations from the ROW area that become established after construction by implementing a treatment plan developed by the Lease Holder and approved by ASNF.

• Seed mixtures, if needed for reseeding disturbed ground, would be certified weed free.

Vegetation

• All slash from vegetation clearing would be lopped and scattered.

• Reclamation – Reclamation plans would be submitted to address rehabilitation needs should the communication facility be removed in the future and would include, but not be limited to: The lease area would be graded after the removal of structures to match the pre-existing and surrounding contours. ASNF seeding specifications would be applied to the disturbed area until acceptable success standards are met.

Visual Quality Mitigation: Two tower types were considered and compared in the visual analysis. In addition to the free standing lattice tower a monopole tree tower was considered. After comparing the two types of towers at the four viewpoints, the lattice type tower was carried forward as the proposed action. The visual differences between the two tower types weren’t considered substantial enough to make the tree tower style more preferable than the lattice style tower. Visual effects were generally the same or less impacting with the lattice style tower. When the limitations on functionality of the tree tower was considered and combined with the limited change in the effects on the visual resource it was determined that the lattice tower would be carried forward as

Proposed Action Mogollon Communication Facility

Page 12 of 12

the proposed action. See Appendix A for a detailed comparison of the two tower types and photo simulations of the two towers at the viewpoints.

• The towers, antennae, and microwave dishes would be treated with a product called “Natina” that would make all shiny galvanized surfaces turn a dark rust brown color. This treatment has proven to be very effective in blending the tower with the skyline and surroundings.

• A common microwave system is suggested to be required. A common microwave system requires fewer dishes and smaller tower thereby reducing visual impacts.

• The equipment shelters would be painted a color selected by ASNF that would blend with the surrounding landscape.

• The chain link compound fence would be treated with Natina.

• The Lease Holder would reroute the Rim Trail alignment that would bypass the communication facility. The Lease Holder would construct the trail bypass in accordance with specifications and alignment determined and directed by ASNF. Re-alignment of the trail is in process and would be finalized as the visual effects from the communication facility and tower become more evident, but would be decided in this decision.