description of the proposed action and alternatives (dopaa...

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) Supplemental Environmental Assessment

for Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center

Communications Infrastructure Upgrades

November 2014

Acronyms and Abbreviations1

% percent 2 ac acre(s) 3 APCO Association of Public Safety 4

Communications Officials 5 APWA American Public Works Association 6 BA/BE Biological Assessment and 7

Biological Evaluation 8 BBS Breeding Bird Survey 9 BLM Bureau of Land Management 10 BMP Best Management Practice 11 CAA Clean Air Act 12 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 13 CARB California Air Resources Board 14 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 15 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 16 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 17 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 18 CO carbon monoxide 19 CWA Clean Water Act 20 DEM Digital Elevation Model 21 DoD Department of Defense 22 DOPAA Description of the Proposed Action 23

and Alternatives 24 E-LMR Enterprise-Land Mobile Radio 25 e2M engineering-environmental Management, Inc. 26 EA Environmental Assessment 27 EO Executive Order 28 ESA Endangered Species Act 29 FLMPA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 30 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 31 Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan 32 FS Forest Service 33 FSH Forest Service Handbook 34 FSM Forest Service Manual 35 ft foot (feet) 36 GHG greenhouse gas 37 GIS Geographic Information System 38 GPS Global Positioning System 39 H2S di-hydrogen sulfide 40 LMR Land Mobile Radio 41 LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 42 MAA Management Agency Agreements 43 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 44 MCMWTC Marine Corps Mountain Warfare 45

Training Center 46

MCO Marine Corps Order 47 MHz Megahertz 48 mi mile(s) 49 MIS Management Indicator Species 50 MWL Microwave Link 51 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 52 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 53 NFPA National Fire Protection Association 54 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 55 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 56 NOx nitrogen oxides 57 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 58

Elimination System 59 NPS National Park Service 60 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 61 O3 ozone 62 PAC protected activity center 63 Pb lead 64 PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 65

diameter 66 PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in 67

diameter 68 RF radio frequency 69 ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 70 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 71 SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment 72 SIO Scenic Integrity Objective 73 SIP State Implementation Plan 74 SMS Scenery Management System 75 SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendments 76 SO2 sulfur dioxide 77 SOX sulfur oxides 78 TA Training Area 79 U.S. United States 80 UHF ultra high frequency 81 USC United States Code 82 USDA United States Department of Agriculture 83 USEPA United States Environmental 84

Protection Agency 85 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 86 USGS United States Geological Survey 87 USMC United States Marine Corps 88 VHF very high frequency 89 VOCs volatile organic compounds 90 VQO Visual Quality Objective 91

MCMWTC Communications Infrastructure Upgrades DOPAA November 2014

i

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

For the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center (MCMWTC) Communications Infrastructure Upgrades

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. Inside Front Cover

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.2.1 Mountain Warfare Training Center Training ............................................................ 1-2 1.2.2 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest ........................................................................... 1-3

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................ 1-4 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................. 1-4

1.4.1 Summary of Proposed Action ................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2 Proposed Project Location ......................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION .................................................................... 1-6 1.6 CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS ................................................................................................. 1-6 1.7 DECISION FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................... 1-7 1.9 TRIBAL COORDINATION/CONSULTATION ............................................................................... 1-7

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Communications Sites ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Project Components .................................................................................................. 2-9 2.1.3 Construction Activities ............................................................................................ 2-16 2.1.4 Equipment Installation ............................................................................................ 2-16 2.1.5 Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................... 2-16 2.1.6 Design Features and Best Management Practices ................................................... 2-17

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 .................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 2-20 2.4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 2-20 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD ............................................... 2-20

2.5.1 Use of Existing Forest Service-Only Communications Facilities ........................... 2-20 2.5.2 Shorter Towers ........................................................................................................ 2-21 2.5.3 Smaller Antenna Size .............................................................................................. 2-22 2.5.4 Locate Antennas off the Peaks ................................................................................ 2-22 2.5.5 Locate Equipment Shelters off Hilltops or Ridgelines ............................................ 2-22

2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY ....................................................................... 2-22

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

3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS .................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 3-2


ii

3.2.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................................ 3-2 3.3.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.4.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-2

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-4 3.5.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-4

3.6 AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.6.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-4 3.6.2 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.6.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-4

3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 3-4 3.7.1 Definition of Resources ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.7.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-4 3.7.3 Visual Quality Objectives ......................................................................................... 3-4 3.7.4 Concern Levels .......................................................................................................... 3-4

3.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION ................................................................................................. 3-4 3.8.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................................. 3-4 3.8.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-5

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

4.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS .................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.4.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.4.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 4-4

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 4-4


iii

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.5.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.5.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.5.4 No-Action alternative ................................................................................................ 4-4

4.6 AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.6.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.6.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.6.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.6.4 No-Action alternative ................................................................................................ 4-4

4.7 VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 4-4 4.7.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.7.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.7.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.7.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 4-4

4.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION ................................................................................................. 4-4 4.8.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.8.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.8.3 Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................. 4-4

CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Geographic Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts Analysis ....................................... 5-1

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils ............................................................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Water Resources ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.3 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.7 Visual Resources ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.8 Land Use and Recreation .......................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ..................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 6-1

CHAPTER 7 LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED ............................................... 7-1

CHAPTER 8 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................ 8-1


iv

Appendices

APPENDIX A PUBLC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY DATA ........................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ......................................................................... C-1

List of Figures

Figure Page

1-1 Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center Regional Location ......................................... 1-5 2-1 Proposed Communication Sites .................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Mean Peak Site Proposed Location .............................................................................................. 2-4 2-3 Sweetwater Site Proposed Location .............................................................................................. 2-5 2-4 9494 Site Proposed Location ........................................................................................................ 2-6 2-5 Demarcation Site Proposed Location ............................................................................................ 2-7 2-6 Coleville Site Proposed Location .................................................................................................. 2-8 2-7 Proposed Mean Peak Tower Design and Site Configuration ...................................................... 2-10 2-8 Proposed Sweetwater Tower Design and Site Configuration ..................................................... 2-11 2-9 Proposed 9494 Tower Design and Site Configuration ................................................................ 2-12 2-10 Proposed Demarcation Site Tower Design and Site Configuration ............................................ 2-13 2-11 Proposed Coleville Tower Design and Site Configuration ......................................................... 2-14 2-12 Little Wolf Creek Site Proposed Location .................................................................................. 2-18 2-13 Proposed Little Wolf Creek Tower Design and Site Configuration ........................................... 2-19

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1-1. USMC Battalion Organizational Structure ............................................................................... 1-3 Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 2-23


1-1

CHAPTER 1 1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 2

1.1 INTRODUCTION 3

The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) operates the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center 4 (MCMWTC) in Mono County, California on United States Forest System lands1 that are managed by the 5 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger District. Radio capability at MCMWTC is not 6 adequate to provide safe and reliable communications for MCMWTC. The USMC submitted a proposal 7 to improve and upgrade the communications infrastructure capability in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 8 Forest in the MCMWTC training areas. 9

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) will analyze the potential environmental 10 consequences of constructing the communications upgrades and of continuing to operate the existing, 11 inadequate equipment (No-Action Alternative). The purpose of the proposed communications upgrades is 12 to facilitate and support the MCMWTC training activities. The training itself is addressed by other, 13 separate EAs, including Draft Environmental Assessment for Enhancement of Operations and Training 14 Proficiency at MCMWTC Bridgeport (Department of the Navy and U.S. Department of Agriculture 15 [USDA] Forest Service [FS] 2014, in-progress). The USMC and the USDA FS are cooperating agencies 16 for this SEA. The USMC is the action proponent, while the FS is the land owner and must approve and 17 authorize construction of the upgrades on the land it manages. 18

This SEA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 19 42 United States Code (USC) §§ 4321-4370, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality 20 (CEQ) Regulations, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508. This SEA has been 21 prepared under requirements of: 22

• USDA NEPA Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1b);23

• FS NEPA Procedures (36 CFR 220)24

• Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook and25 Amendment 1909.15-2004-4; and26

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 1950.27

This SEA also meets the separate NEPA requirements of the U.S. Navy and USMC, as codified in: 28

• U.S. Navy procedures for implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 775); and29

• Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A30 Cooperating Agencies31

1 There are multiple types of land, including National Preserves, National Forests, and National Grasslands, that are administered by the USDA Forest Service. These lands are known collectively as National Forest System lands (USDA FS 2014a.)


1-2

The USMC is both the action proponent and cooperating agency for this proposal. A cooperating agency, 1 according to CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.5) consists of “any Federal agency other than a lead agency 2 which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a 3 proposal (or reasonable alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action...” 4

1.2 BACKGROUND 5

The MCMWTC has conducted military training activities in the Bridgeport Ranger District of the 6 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest since 1951 under special-use authorizations in the form of special-use 7 permits, memorandums of agreement, or interagency agreements. The limited-use area of approximately 8 43,920 acres (ac) of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest land is used for training military services in 9 high-altitude mountain operations and cold weather survival. The MCMWTC training areas include: 10

• 532-ac base camp, owned by the Department of Defense [DoD]);11

• 43,920-ac limited-use area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forestlands, owned by the FS and12 authorized by special-use authorization BRI250;13

• 480-ac Sweetwater airstrip on Forest System land and authorized by special use-authorization14 BRI250;15

• 11,376-ac Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands containing the Leavitt Lake permit area16 authorized by temporary special-use permit; BRI 476:17

• 9,156-ac winter training area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands, owned by the FS18 and authorized by special-use authorization BRI250;19

• 8,178-ac summer and winter conditioning area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands,20 owned by the FS and authorized by special-use authorization BRI250;21

• 1,048-acres of training corridors in Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands, owned by the FS22 and authorized by special-use authorization BRI250; and23

• DoD lands operated by the U.S. Army at the Hawthorne Army Depot.24

A previous Environmental Assessment (EA) (Final Environmental Assessment for Marine Corps 25 Mountain Warfare Training Center Communications Infrastructure Upgrades, July 2010 [the 2010 EA]) 26 was completed, but the action the 2010 EA supported was never implemented. This SEA is being 27 prepared to analyze the impacts of a revised project that would construct communications sites at four 28 locations that were not analyzed in the 2010 EA. 29

Smaller site footprints for two of the locations analyzed in this SEA (Sweetwater and Mean Creek) were 30 previously analyzed under the 2010 EA. The 2010 EA also analyzed Little Wolf Creek site. However, it 31 was determined that the Little Wolf Creek site analyzed in the 2010 EA was not feasible for construction 32 and operation due to difficult winter access. The 9494 site was identified as a more suitable site location 33 than the Little Wolf Creek site analyzed in the 2010 EA. Three new sites (Coleville, Demarcation, and 34 9494) are analyzed in this SEA. The Little Wolf Creek site discussed in this SEA as Alternative 1 is about 35 one-quarter mile from the 2010 Little Wolf Creek site and was not previously analyzed; it is the fourth 36 new site analyzed in this SEA. 37

1.2.1 Mountain Warfare Training Center Training

The MCMWTC mission is to train all services in high-altitude mountain and cold weather tactics, 38 techniques, and procedures. The isolation, rugged terrain, and cold winter climate at MCMWTC provide 39


1-3

an ideal location for such training events. The elevation at MCMWTC ranges from 6,800 feet (ft) to 1 nearly 12,000 ft. Snow accumulation reaches several feet in winter months. 2

The training tempo at MCMWTC accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s with the construction of new 3 training barracks and other support facilities in lower and upper base camp areas. More recently, 4 increased operations in mountainous locations similar to those found in Afghanistan have also contributed 5 to an increase in the tempo of training at the MCMWTC. 6

Typically, eight to ten active duty battalions train at the MCMWTC each year, with each training course 7 lasting 3 weeks. A battalion consists of three to four companies and comprises a total of 500 - 1,200 8 Marines (see Table 1-1). Reserve units train at the MCMWTC occasionally during the summer in a large 9 scale exercise, named Javelin Thrust. Satellite and customized training programs for USMC and other 10 military units are conducted throughout the year. The winter operations schools involve courses in winter 11 mountaineering, cold weather bivouac, snow mobility, and avalanche safety training. Summer operations 12 schools include courses in rappelling and mountaineering, ropes courses, navigation, vehicle operation, 13 mountain warfighting, conducting operations in mountainous environments, mountain survival, and safety 14 exercises. 15

Table 1-1. USMC Battalion Organizational Structure 16

Infantry Unit Infantry Unit Composition

Number of Marines*

Battalion 3 to 4 Companies 500 – 1,200 Company/Battery 3 to 4 Platoons 150 Platoon 3 Squads 39 Squad 3 Fire Teams 13 Fire Team NA 4

Note: *Number of Marines is in addition to infantry. 17 Approximately 292 permanent personnel are on duty at MCMWTC. During periods of heavy training, up 18 to 2,400 people may be present in the MCMWTC and surrounding training area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe 19 National Forest at one time. In 2009 and 2010, the MCMWTC trained up to 15,000 military personnel 20 during the course of a year. The MCMWTC authorized-use area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 21 Forest is used recreationally for hunting, fishing, hiking, and snow sports. A special-use authorization 22 between USMC and the FS delineates the 43,920-ac limited-use area. Field training takes place in the 23 limited-use area. The FS oversees land management for the limited-use area. The 532-ac base camp is 24 owned and managed by the DoD. MCMWTC headquarters and facilities are located in base camp. 25

1.2.2 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Per 36 CFR 251.50, all uses of Forest System lands, improvements, and resources are characterized as 26 special uses. The FS is required to authorize special uses, including communications, by the issuance of a 27 special use authorization. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) authorizes the use of 28 Forest System lands for telecommunications uses. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FS 29 to facilitate the development and placement of telecommunications equipment on buildings and lands 30 they manage when placement does not conflict with the agency’s mission or future planned use of the 31 property. FSH 2709.11, Chapter 90, provides direction on site management for a variety of 32 communications uses on National Forest System lands. 33


1-4

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1

The purpose of the project is to provide a more robust safety and communications network for personnel 2 training, mission critical users, and first responders in compliance with the National Incident Management 3 System mandate contained in Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5. The communication system 4 would provide expanded coverage for the training areas in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest utilized 5 by MCMWTC, adjacent public lands, and the Hawthorne Army Depot. Improved communications would 6 provide for greater safety for MCMWTC users. The Proposed Action would bring the current 7 communications system into compliance with DoD directorates and reasonable safety standards and 8 improve the quality of the training experience at MCMWTC. 9

MCMWTC currently hosts a high level of training and will continue to train heavily into the future. The 10 current radio communications system is not compliant with the DoD and USMC Land Mobile Radio 11 Initiative. Two existing towers, installed in the 1980s at Mean Peak and Sweetwater, use multiple very 12 high frequency (VHF) radio nets. The geographic coverage provided by the current system does not 13 adequately cover the entire MCMWTC training area. The current coverage does not extend east of the 14 Sweetwater area to Hawthorne Army Depot. With the current coverage of 50 percent (%), communication 15 capability is compromised and emergency response is slow. Many of the training operations at 16 MCMWTC are potentially dangerous due to treacherous terrain and inclement weather, leaving training 17 units vulnerable to emergency situations with poor radio connectivity. 18

Enhanced communication is needed to improve the safety and quality of training operations. The evolving 19 technology requires more power and upgraded equipment shelters. The current system of two repeater 20 towers has no digital “backbone” or connectivity with first responder agencies or FS radio networks. 21

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION 22

1.4.1 Summary of Proposed Action

To accomplish the purpose of the Proposed Action, the USMC proposes to construct communications 23 towers and associated equipment, with authorization from the FS, at three locations on Forest System 24 lands (Mean Peak, Sweetwater, and 9494) and at two locations on lands owned by the DoD (Demarcation 25 Site and Coleville). All five of the communications facilities would have a standard facility package with 26 a communications tower, antennas, video cameras, electrical equipment shelter, power supply, and 27 perimeter security fence. The Mean Peak, Sweetwater, and 9494 sites would have a footprint of 28 approximately 110 ft by 55 ft. The Coleville site footprint would be 125 ft by 55 ft. The Demarcation site 29 footprint would be 84 ft by 50 ft. Each communication facility would have a new communication site plan 30 or an updated portion to an existing communication site plan. The Proposed Action and alternatives are 31 described in detail in Chapter 2 of this SEA. As noted above, the Proposed Action consists of five 32 proposed communications sites. Alternative 1 also consists of five sites, but the 9494 site is replaced by 33 the Little Wolf Creek Site. 34

1.4.2 Proposed Project Location

MCMWTC is a USMC facility located near the junction of State Highway 108 and U.S Route 395 in the 35 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (refer to Figure 1-1). MCMWTC facilities and operations on 36 44,932-ac of Forest System lands within Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 37 are authorized under a special use permit issued by the FS. MCMWTC headquarters is located off of 38 Highway 108 at Pickel Meadow, 21 miles (mi) northwest of Bridgeport, California and 100 miles south 39 of Reno, Nevada. The proposed Coleville site is located about 24 mi north of MCMWTC (Figure 1-1). 40 The proposed communications infrastructure upgrades would take place at five locations in the 41 Bridgeport Ranger District. All five sites are located in Mono County, California. 42

!̂(

!̂(

LakeOroville

MCMWTC

HawthorneArmy DepotU.S. 395

Junction withHighway 108

HoneyLake

PyramidLake

LakeTahoe

FolsomLake

WalkerLake

ComancheReservoir

MonoLake

Don PedroReservoir

Lake McClure(ExchequerReservoir)

San LuisReservoir

OwensLake

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

£¤95

£¤50

£¤395

£¤395

£¤95A

£¤101

£¤6

£¤50

£¤95

£¤50

£¤395

YosemiteNational Park

Kings CanyonNational Park

SequoiaNational Park

Death ValleyNational Park

WASHOECOUNTY

LASSENCOUNTY

LANDERCOUNTY

PERSHINGCOUNTY

TEHAMACOUNTY

PLUMASCOUNTY

BUTTECOUNTY

CHURCHILLCOUNTY

SIERRACOUNTY

LYONCOUNTY

YUBACOUNTY

STOREYCOUNTY

NEVADACOUNTY

PLACERCOUNTY

NYECOUNTY

DOUGLASCOUNTY

MINERALCOUNTY

EL DORADOCOUNTY

ALPINECOUNTY

SACRAMENTOCOUNTY

MONOCOUNTY

AMADORCOUNTY

CALAVERASCOUNTY

ESMERALDACOUNTY

TUOLUMNECOUNTYSAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY

STANISLAUSCOUNTY MARIPOSA

COUNTY

MADERACOUNTY

MERCEDCOUNTY

FRESNOCOUNTY

INYOCOUNTY

SANBENITOCOUNTY

MONTEREYCOUNTY

TULARECOUNTY

California

Nevada

Reno Fallon

CitrusHeights

Coleville

Lodi

Hawthorne

Stockton

Bridgeport

Modesto

Merced

Fresno

CarsonCity

Sacramento

Figure 1-1Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center

Regional Location0 30

Miles

0 45Kilometers

LegendHumboldt-ToiyabeNational ForestNational Park

Wilderness Area

!̂(

!̂(

California

CarsonCitySacramento

Reno

HawthorneSan

Francisco San JoseFresno Las

Vegas

LosAngeles

SanDiego

Nevada

K1 ' = 300 milesLegend

Humboldt-ToiyabeNational Forest

1-5


1-6

1.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 1

The MCMWTC has conducted military training activities in the Bridgeport Ranger District of the 2 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest since 1951 under special-use authorizations in the form of special-use 3 permits, memorandums of agreement, or interagency agreements. The Master Agreement between DoD 4 and the USDA, 1988, states that, “Military training activities on National Forest System lands are actions 5 which require the analysis of environmental impact in conformance with the National Environmental 6 Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutory and regulatory requirements.” In order to accomplish appropriate 7 NEPA compliance, the DoD and the USDA FS, are cooperating agencies for this project. Environmental 8 stipulations in the Master Agreement state that MCMWTC is responsible for compliance with all federal, 9 state, and local environmental regulations and additional FS requirements to protect natural resources and 10 the safety of public land users. 11

The Mean Peak and Sweetwater Communications facilities are authorized by special-use authorizations 12 that require the MCMWTC not to cause interference with FS operations or with other United States 13 (U.S.) Government radio communications now operating in the areas covered by the authorization. In the 14 event USMC communications uses cause interference, the USMC will correct causes of interference, or 15 shift to other frequencies which will not cause interference. The Sweetwater and Mean Peak sites are 16 covered by USDA FS Amendment for Special-Use Authorization Amendment #1 attached to and made 17 part of the BRI250 special use authorization for MCMWTC issued to USMC, dated May 14, 2014. The 18 purpose of the amendment is to authorize ancillary uses consisting of radio communications sites (USDA 19 FS 2014b). 20

Preliminary natural resource and cultural resource documentation has been completed for areas within the 21 limited-use area, but not at specific proposed communication sites. The Bridgeport Ranger District 22 maintains a large collection of environmental documentation for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 23 Monitoring and data collection projects are ongoing. Resource management direction is found in the 24 Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 25 Amendments (SNFPA) (described below). 26

1.6 CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS 27

The 1986 Toiyabe LRMP, as amended by the SNFPAs of 2001 and 2004, directs management on the 28 Bridgeport Ranger District. It provides the following direction specific to MCMWTC and communication 29 sites: (1) allow for general public use of the area in addition to USMC use; (2) coordinate and cooperate 30 with the USMC in fire suppression, search and rescue, and maintenance of Forest System roads within the 31 limited-use area; and (3) provide for public access to the Silver Creek road through and/or around the 32 base camp. 33

Per FSH 2709.11.90.3, communications sites must be designated in a decision document. The designation 34 may be reflected in a separate NEPA decision document or in a land management plan or amendment or 35 revision to a land management plan. The proposed uses must be consistent, or be made consistent by 36 amendment of applicable LRMP. The communication sites at Mean Peak and Sweetwater are designated 37 communication sites in the Toiyabe LRMP, but the Toiyabe LRMP would need to be amended to 38 designate the undeveloped sites on Forest System lands (9494 [Proposed Action] or Little Wolf Creek 39 [Alternative 1]). The FSH and FSM provide guidance for activities on National Forest lands. Guidance 40 relevant to the Proposed Action is addressed in FSH 2709.11–Special Uses Handbook; Chapter 90–41 Communications Site Management; and FSM 2300–Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resources, 42 Chapter 2380–Landscape Management. 43


1-7 DRAFT DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

1.7 DECISION FRAMEWORK 1

Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisor, for those sites located on Forest System lands, will 2 decide to: (1) implement the Proposed Action for those sites on Forest System lands, (2) implement an 3 alternative to the Proposed Action, or (3) decide whether further environmental documentation is needed. 4

Following administrative approval of communications site management plans and engineering plans by 5 the FS, the FS would authorize the issuance of special use authorizations to MCMWTC for those sites on 6 Forest System lands in accordance with the standards and guidelines in the plans. The communications 7 site management plan contains the principles and technical standards adopted in site designation. The 8 communications site management plan provides direction for day-to-day operations of the 9 communications site and, along with the communications use lease, is the means by which 10 noncompliance is measured. The communications site management plan must delineate the types of uses 11 that are appropriate at the site and the technical and administrative requirements for management of the 12 site. 13

1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 14

Public scoping is an important aspect of the environmental analysis process. The process not only informs 15 the public about the Proposed Action and alternatives, but it allows for the identification of the issues and 16 concerns that are of interest to the affected populace. Scoping provides opportunities for government 17 agencies, interest groups, and the general public to identify alternative approaches to meet the purpose 18 and need, and provide input into the resource analysis performed in the SEA. The public is invited to 19 review and comment on the Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) during the 20 public review period from November 26, 2014 through December 26, 2014. A legal notice of availability 21 for the DOPAA was published on November 26, 2014 in The Record Courier, the Reno Gazette-Journal, 22 and the Sierra Scoop. The DOPAA was placed on the Marine Corps website 23 (http://www.MCMWTC.usmc.mil/), and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest website 24 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/htnf/). Hard copies of the DOPAA were delivered to the Bridgeport Branch 25 Library (94 North School Street in Bridgeport, CA); the U.S Forest Service Bridgeport Ranger District 26 (75694 Highway #395, Bridgeport, CA); and the Coleville Branch Library (111569 Highway #395, 27 Coleville, CA). Public and agency comments on the DOPAA will be considered during preparation of the 28 Draft SEA. A more detailed discussion of the issues and resource concerns raised during public scoping 29 will be included in Appendix A of the Draft SEA. 30

1.9 TRIBAL COORDINATION/CONSULTATION 31

On November 26, 2014, a project notification/scoping letter was mailed to the Antelope Valley Band of 32 Paiute, Coleville, CA; Benton Paiute Reservation-Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, Benton, CA; Bishop 33 Reservation-Paiute Shoshone, Bishop, CA; Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians, West Point, CA; Mono 34 Lake Kutzadika Indian Community, Lee Vining, CA; Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California, 35 Bridgeport, CA; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, Tuolumne, CA; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 36 California, Gardnerville, NV; and Yerington Paiute Tribe, Yerington, CA. 37

http://www.mwtc.usmc.mil/

http://www.fs.usda.gov/htnf/


1-8

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]


2-1

CHAPTER 2 1

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2

MCMWTC proposes to upgrade the communications infrastructure to provide a more robust safety and 3 communications network for personnel training at MCMWTC. The FS is the land management agency 4 with authority to designate FS communications sites and authorize tower and associated facilities 5 construction and use of Forest System lands. 6

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 7

The Proposed Action is to upgrade communications infrastructure for MCMWTC as follows by: 8

• Replacing communications towers and associated facilities at the existing Mean Peak and9 Sweetwater designated communication sites on Forest System land in the Bridgeport Ranger10 District;11

• Constructing a new communications site on Forest System land in the Bridgeport Ranger District12 (the proposed 9494 site);13

• Constructing a new communications tower and associated facilities on DoD land at base camp14 (the proposed Demarcation site); and15

• Constructing a new communications tower and associated facilities on DoD land at the Coleville16 site.17

The proposed communications repeater sites were identified because they could provide 100% radio 18 coverage of the MCMWTC training areas, to include the Hawthorne Army Depot and upgrade the 19 MCMWTC communications system to an Enterprise-Land Mobile Radio (E-LMR) system for 20 MCMWTC’s Dispatched Police, Fire, and Range Safety network. The E-LMR network would combine 21 MCMWTC’s Dispatched Police, Fire, and Range Safety network into an integrated simulcast system 22 consisting of microwave-connected voice and data services and radio communications links. This would 23 enable automatic computer coordination and control of broadcast communications from relay sites based 24 on user locations within the training area. The Proposed Action would supply signal redundancy through 25 a digital backbone and a high-capacity microwave transmission system for reliable communications 26 capability for MCMWTC. These sites would contain the entire infrastructure essential to sustain the 27 communications elements installed at the hilltops including equipment shelters, power systems and 28 antenna towers. 29

If selected, the decision would designate the new sites as FS communications sites (FSH 2709.11, 91[2]), 30 and following administrative approval of communications site management plans by the FS, authorize the 31 issuance of special use authorizations to MCMWTC in accordance with the standards and guidelines in 32 the plans. 33

2.1.1 Communications Sites

All five proposed communications sites are located within the Bridgeport Ranger District of the 34 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Four of the proposed communications sites are within the MCMWTC 35 training area and one site (Sweetwater) is further east in the Bridgeport Ranger District, but outside the 36 training area. The site locations, as well as site access roads, are illustrated on Figure 2-1. 37

ÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

N E VA D A

C A L I F O R N I A

KÑ

KÑAÖ

AÖ

Topaz

Alpine County

Tuolumne County

Lyon

Douglas County

Mono County

Mono County

Mean Peak SiteSweetwater Site

Little Wolf Creek Site

Demarcation Site

Coleville Site

9494 Site

Coleville

Pickel MeadowSonoraJunction

Walker

Figure 2-1Proposed Communication Sites0 5

Miles

0 5Kilometers

Legend

ÊÚ Tower Sites

Road ClassPrimarySecondaryTertiaryMCMWTC Training AreaState BoundaryCounty Boundary

2-2


2-3

Two of the communication sites (Mean Peak and Sweetwater) have existing FS and/or MCMWTC 1 communications infrastructure in place. The Mean Peak and Sweetwater communications facilities are 2 authorized for use by the MCMWTC under the amendment to special-use authorization BRI250 issued by 3 the FS to the MCMWTC on May 14, 2014 (USDA FS 2014b). A new special-use authorization would be 4 needed for the 9494 site, which has no existing communications infrastructure. The Demarcation and 5 Coleville sites are on DoD land and thus would not need special-use authorizations from the USDA FS; 6 they are also undeveloped with no existing communications infrastructure. All the proposed sites are 7 described below. The approximate locations of the five sites are depicted over 7.5 minute United States 8 Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles in Figures 2-2 through 2-6. 9

2.1.1.1 Mean Peak Site 10

The Mean Peak site is an existing FS communications site designated in the Toiyabe LRMP (pages IV-11 101) as joint FS and MCMWTC use on a relatively barren, rocky hilltop, permitted to MCMWTC under a 12 special use permit (Figure 2-2). The existing FS/MCMWTC communications facility would be removed 13 and new facilities would be configured for shared use between FS and the MCMWTC. Mean Peak is 14 proposed as a core repeater site to connect the Demarcation Site with points north of the MCMWTC base 15 camp. The tower site complex would be situated in a project area measuring 110 ft by 55 ft (0.138 ac). 16 The site would be surrounded by a 110 ft by 55 ft perimeter security fence. Site access would be provided 17 by the existing, unpaved designated Forest System Road 32059B continuing to the rough, unfinished non-18 Forest System Road PM18A, which is drivable to the site. The Proposed Action would not include any 19 new road construction or reconstruction (such as concrete or asphalt surfacing, or culverts). Site-specific 20 road maintenance during construction, such as grading, may be authorized with prior FS notification. 21

2.1.1.2 Sweetwater Site 22

The Sweetwater site is an existing FS communications site designated in the Toiyabe LRMP (pages IV-23 117). The site is situated on a broadly rounded hilltop with rocky outcrops (Figure 2-3). The existing 24 MCMWTC communications facility would be removed. The Sweetwater site would extend the range of 25 the communications system to the east of the MCMWTC base camp area, allowing connectivity with the 26 Coleville site. The equipment at Sweetwater would have the interoperability radio group that is used to 27 connect MCMWTC personnel with radio systems in the surrounding area. The tower site complex would 28 be situated in a project area measuring 110 ft by 55 ft (0.138 ac). The site would be surrounded by a 110 ft 29 by 55 ft perimeter security fence. Site access would be provided by the existing, unpaved designated 30 Forest System Road 32167 (refer to Figure 2-1). The Proposed Action would not include any new road 31 construction or reconstruction (such as concrete or asphalt surfacing, or culverts). Site-specific road 32 maintenance during construction, such as grading, may be authorized with prior FS notification. 33

2.1.1.3 9494 Site 34

The undesignated and undeveloped 9494 site is on a rugged, local peak with rocky substrate in the 35 western region of the MCMWTC limited-use area on Forest System lands (Figure 2-4). The site would 36 provide coverage for the southwestern extent of the MCMWTC limited-use area. The site complex 37 would be situated in a project area measuring 110 ft by 55 ft (0.138 ac). The site would be surrounded by 38 a 110 ft by 55 ft perimeter security fence. Site access would be provided by the existing designated Forest 39 System Brownie Creek Road (refer to Figure 2-1). 40

The 9494 site is not designated in the Toiyabe LRMP, and would require that the Toiyabe LRMP be 41 amended. 42

43

ÊÚ

Mean Peak Site

Figure 2-2Mean Peak Site Proposed Location0 500

Meters

0 2,000Feet

TA-17

Legend

ÊÚ Proposed Communication Tower

2-4

ÊÚ

Sweetwater Site

Figure 2-3Sweetwater Site Proposed Location0 500

Meters

0 2,000Feet

TA-17

Legend


2-5

ÊÚ9494 Site

Figure 2-49494 Site Proposed Location0 500

Meters

0 2,000Feet

TA-17

Legend

ÊÚ Proposed Communication TowerState Land

2-6

ÊÚ

Demarcation Site

Figure 2-5Demarcation Site Proposed Location0 500

Meters

0 2,000Feet

TA-17

Legend

ÊÚ Proposed Communication TowerState Land

2-7

ÊÚColeville Site

Figure 2-6Coleville Site Proposed Location0 500

Meters

0 2,000Feet

TA-17

Legend


2-8



2.1.1.4 Demarcation Site 1

The Demarcation site is located on DoD property, directly behind the training command post in the 2 MCMWTC base camp area (Figure 2-5). The site is undeveloped, but is semi-disturbed due to previous 3 activity at MCMWTC. The Demarcation site would be the primary communications hub for the base 4 camp, connecting headquarters with the remaining sites in the system. The tower site complex would be 5 situated in a project area measuring 84 ft by 50 ft (0.096 ac). The site would be surrounded by an 84 ft by 6 50 ft perimeter security fence. The site is accessible via an unpaved DoD access road, which is the last 7 approximately 0.25 mi of the Marine Loop Road leading north from MCMWTC. 8

2.1.1.5 Coleville Site 9

This site is located on DoD property in the military family housing complex north of Coleville, California 10 (Figure 2-6). The Coleville site is the northernmost site included in the Proposed Action. The undeveloped 11 site is dominated by rock and gravel substrate with an unpaved DoD access road to the southwest. The 12 communications facility at Coleville would provide connectivity from MCMWTC to points eastward and 13 support continuity of operations in the event of an emergency at the Demarcation Site. The tower site 14 complex would be situated in a project area measuring 125 ft by 55 ft (0.158 ac). This site would be 15 surrounded by a 125 ft by 55 ft perimeter security fence. The Coleville site can be accessed by a 16 maintained DoD dirt road and a paved highway (U.S. Route 395) is nearby (refer to Figure 2-6). 17

2.1.2 Project Components

Generally, all the communications facilities would have a standard facility package with a 18 communications tower, antennas, video cameras, electrical equipment shelter, power supply, and 19 perimeter security fence. Each communications facility would have either a new communication site 20 plan or the existing communication site plan would be updated. 21

Figures 2-7 through 2-11 show the proposed site design for each site. All the sites except the 22 Demarcation site would have a photovoltaic (solar) array. 23

2.1.2.1 Communications Tower 24

One communications tower would be constructed at each proposed site. The proposed communications 25 towers are designed as self-supporting structures that do not need guy wires. The tower would consist of 26 a three-legged galvanized steel structure with approximately 15 ft between each leg at the base and 27 tapering toward the top. The tower height would be 70 ft at all sites. 28

The towers would be mounted on a concrete slab, foundation, and/or piers. Exact details of design would 29 be determined during engineering soil/geotechnical studies that would be performed for the antenna tower 30 footings, solar arrays, and equipment shelter before the final design of these facilities. 31

The top of each tower would be equipped with a lightning control device. The towers would be shorter 32 than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommended maximum height of 199 ft (USFWS 33 2000) and would not be equipped with electrical lighting. The steel towers would be finished and allowed 34 to weather naturally as specified in FSH 2709.11, Chapter 90 and the Visual Resources Report (KTU+A 35 2008). All paint colors would be reviewed for approval by the FS before issuance of special use 36 authorizations. 37

All-weather video cameras would be installed at each tower site to provide tower site security. 38

PERIMETERFENCE

EQUIPMENTSHELTER ANDGENERATOR

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

TOWER110 FEET

55 FE

ET TOWER

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

PERIMETERFENCE

FUEL

PLAN VIEWTOWER

ELEV

ATIO

N IN

FEET

0 -

20 -

40 -

60 -

80 -

FIGURE 2-7PROPOSED MEAN PEAK TOWER DESIGN AND SITE CONFIGURATION

VHF/UHF STICK ANTENNA

MICROWAVE DISH ANTENNA

2-10

PERIMETERFENCE


PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

TOWER 110 FEET

55 FE

ET TOWER

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

PERIMETERFENCE

FUEL

PLAN VIEWTOWER

ELEV

ATIO

N IN

FEET

0 -

20 -

40 -

60 -

80 -

FIGURE 2-8PROPOSED SWEETWATER TOWER DESIGN AND SITE CONFIGURATION



2-11

PERIMETERFENCE


PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

TOWER 110 FEET

55 FE

ET TOWER

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

PERIMETERFENCE

FUEL

PLAN VIEWTOWER

ELEV

ATIO

N IN

FEET

0 -

20 -

40 -

60 -

80 -

FIGURE 2-9PROPOSED 9494 TOWER DESIGN AND SITE CONFIGURATION



2-12

TRANSFORMERAND ATSPERIMETER

FENCE

EQUIPMENTSHELTER

TOWER84 FEET

50 F

EE

T

PERIMETERFENCE

PEDESTRIANGATE

TRANSFORMERAND ATS

PLAN VIEWTOWER

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FE

ET

0 -

20 -

40 -

60 -

80 -

FIGURE 2-10PROPOSED DEMARCATION SITE TOWER DESIGN AND SITE CONFIGURATION



2-13

PERIMETERFENCE

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAYEQUIPMENT

SHELTER

TOWER


PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

PERIMETERFENCE

TOWER

125 FEET

55 FE

ET

TRANSFORMERAND ATS (BACKUP)

FUEL

PLAN VIEWTOWER

ELEV

ATIO

N IN

FEET

0 -

20 -

40 -

60 -

80 -

FIGURE 2-11PROPOSED COLEVILLE TOWER DESIGN AND SITE CONFIGURATION

2-14


2-15

2.1.2.2 Antennas 1

Two types of antennas would be attached to each communications tower. Parabolic ‘dish’ antennas 2 transmit microwave frequencies and provide wireless reachback capability. Dipole ‘stick’ antennas would 3 be used for very high frequency and ultra high frequency (VHF/UHF) transmission. The antennas require 4 a physical separation from each other to function properly; therefore, height and size requirements have 5 been incorporated into the tower design and antenna arrangement. A total of 10 to 12 antennas and a 6 microwave dish would be mounted on each tower. The engineering details and frequencies at each tower 7 would be determined based on interference studies, but would be within an established range of 8 acceptable frequencies. Exact details of design would be determined during engineering soil/geotechnical 9 studies that would be performed for the antenna tower footings, solar arrays, and equipment shelter before 10 the final design of these facilities. 11

The Mean Peak site would be configured for shared use with the FS and would support additional FS 12 antennas. Antenna placement would satisfy the needs of both agencies. 13

The VHF and UHF antennas would support tactical and non-tactical voice radio communications. The 14 non-tactical radio network would be implemented at the industry-standard Association of Public Safety 15 Communications Officials (APCO) P25 compliant trunked system. This would meet USMC compliance 16 requirements and would assure over-the-air compatibility with other commercial and Government users in 17 the area. 18

Antennas and microwave dish covers would be finished in non-reflective shades and equipped with bird 19 protection devices as specified in FSH 2709.11, Chapter 90. 20

2.1.2.3 Equipment Shelter 21

The equipment shelter would be used to house computer controls and electronic equipment. The structure 22 would be approximately 51 ft long by 26 ft wide and 18 ft high at each site. The shelters would be 23 assembled at each site from prefabricated modular panels made of insulated steel. The shelters would be 24 mounted on concrete slabs, foundations, and/or piers. All the shelters would have three rooms. The Mean 25 Peak, Sweetwater, 9494, and Coleville Sites would have an equipment room to house the main electronics 26 suite, a mechanical room for an internal heating and cooling system, and one room for the solar batteries 27 (as described below in Section 2.1.2.4). The internal heating and cooling systems would be powered by 28 external propane tanks. The Demarcation site would have two equipment rooms for electronics, and one 29 mechanical room. The internal heating and cooling systems for this site would be electrical. At sites on 30 Forest System lands (Mean Peak, Sweetwater, and 9494), the equipment shelters would be painted a non-31 reflective shade as specified in FSH 2709.11, Chapter 90 and the Visual Resources Report (KTU+A 32 2008). All paint colors for these sites would be reviewed for approval by the FS before issuance of special 33 use authorizations. 34

2.1.2.4 Main Site Power Sources 35

The main power source for the Mean Peak, Sweetwater, and 9494 sites would be a 94 ft by 23 ft two-tier 36 planar, ground-mounted photovoltaic (solar) array. The total height of the solar array would be 37 approximately 50 ft. The main power source for the Coleville site would be a 20 ft planar (single tier) 38 ground mounted solar array. The solar batteries are sealed with a hydrogen venting valve in case of 39 accidental overcharging. The solar arrays would be mounted on concrete slabs, foundations, and/or piers. 40 Facilities at the Demarcation site would be powered by commercial utilities routed to a transformer near 41 the site. The estimated length of power line needed to reach the site is about 500 ft. 42


2-16

2.1.2.5 Backup Power 1

Backup power for the Mean Peak, Sweetwater, and 9494 sites would be provided by a propane-fired 2 generator supplied from a 500-gallon propane tank outside the equipment shelter. The generator and 3 propane tank would be mounted on concrete slabs, foundations, and/or piers. For the Coleville site, an 4 automated transfer switch from the solar panel array to commercial utility would supply back up power if 5 needed. At the Demarcation site, backup power would be supplied from the MCMWTC base camp 6 backup generator through an automatic transfer switch. 7

2.1.3 Construction Activities

Site access for the Coleville and Demarcation sites would be provided by existing unpaved designated 8 DoD roads. Road improvements would be made to allow for transportation of all construction equipment 9 and materials. Improvements are limited to road widening and stabilizing via unimproved road methods. 10 No asphaltic or concrete road work would occur on these roads or at the sites. Personnel would access the 11 site via truck. Equipment used to construct the site would consist of an excavator to excavate earth for 12 foundation construction, utility trenching, and general site preparation, a drill rig as an alternate method of 13 excavation for pylon foundations, bulldozer for clearing and grubbing area within the fence line, and 14 power and manual hand tools for detailed work. Power at the site during construction would be from 15 diesel/propane generators. If diesel generators rated at 50 horsepower or greater are used, the appropriate 16 emissions permit(s) would be obtained from the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. 17

For the 9494, Mean Peak, and Sweetwater sites, the same road improvements as described in the 18 paragraph above would be made to Forest System roads. However, due to access road limitations, all 19 heavy construction equipment, and large project components (such as the towers, concrete for foundations 20 and pads, antennas, etc.,) would be air lifted by helicopter to the site. During construction, a temporary 21 staging area for helicopter landing and takeoff would be sited in flat areas with little plant cover within 22 the surveyed project area, defined by the approximate location of a 110 ft by 55 ft communications site 23 complex and an additional 100 ft buffer zone for a total of 1.8 ac. Personnel would access the site via 24 truck. The same construction equipment, methods, and power sources as described above for the Coleville 25 and Demarcation sites would be used for the 9494, Mean Peak, and Sweetwater Sites. 26

2.1.4 Equipment Installation

The proposed communications infrastructure upgrade would be constructed in three phases. Phase I 27 would link the Sweetwater, Mean Peak, and 9494 sites. In Phase II, the E-LMR network consisting of 28 MCMWTC’s Dispatched Police, Fire, and Range Safety network would be realigned to bring all five sites 29 online with an integrated simulcast trunking system consisting of microwave-connected voice and data 30 services and radio communications links. This would enable automatic computer coordination and control 31 of broadcast communications from relay sites based on user locations within the training area. Phase III 32 would implement the microwave signal link from Mean Peak to Sweetwater and integrate the Digital 395 33 backbone from the Demarcation site to the Coleville site. The Digital 395 backbone is a new, 34 583-mile-long, high-speed, commercial fiber-optic communications network that runs from Reno, 35 Nevada, to Barstow, California, mainly along U.S. Route 395. The completion of Phase III would provide 36 connectivity further to the east of MCMWTC. 37

2.1.5 Operations and Maintenance

Except for the Demarcation site, the communications sites are intended to be “off the grid” type facilities 38 that would only require part-time occupation for the purpose of conducting maintenance and operational 39 checks. The Demarcation site would be powered by a commercial utility, thus it would not be considered 40



“off the grid.” The facilities, except the Coleville site, would transmit/relay/collect/repeat 1 communications to other towers and radios throughout the installation, training area, Coleville, and 2 surrounding areas. The Coleville site would provide connectivity from MCMWTC to points eastward and 3 support continuity of operations in the event of an emergency at the Demarcation site. 4

Improving communications reduces risks associated with training, improves training effectiveness, and 5 provides for reduced response times and improved information flow during emergency operations. 6

2.1.6 Design Features and Best Management Practices

Design features and best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to reduce or avoid 7 potential impacts to resources that could result from construction of the proposed project. In general, the 8 project, including all construction-related activities, is required to comply with federal, state, and local 9 laws, guidelines, or standards specific to each resource (i.e., water quality, soils, cultural or biological 10 resources). Any necessary project permits as required by these laws would be obtained. Lahontan Water 11 Quality Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction storm water 12 permits would be obtained. All project activities would comply with the applicable FS-wide standards and 13 guidelines and BMPs as described in the Toiyabe LRMP (USDA FS 1986, 2001, 2004). The applicable 14 resource sections of the Toiyabe LRMP are discussed in Chapter 4 of this document. The FS will review 15 and approve each site-specific engineering site plan before issuance of special use authorizations. The 16 special use authorizations must be issued before construction can begin. Resource-specific design features 17 and BMPs will be described in the analysis sections of Chapter 4 of the SEA. 18

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 19

This alternative would be identical to the Proposed Action except that the Little Wolf Creek site would be 20 developed rather than the 9494 site. The other four sites (Mean Peak, Sweetwater, Demarcation, and 21 Coleville) would be developed as described for the Proposed Action. 22

The undesignated and undeveloped Little Wolf Creek site is located on Forest System land on a rugged, 23 local peak with rocky substrate in the western region of the MCMWTC limited-use area (Figure 2-12). 24 Site access would be provided by the existing, unpaved designated Forest System Road 32062 and by 25 non-Forest System Road PM30. This site is located in Mono County, California. 26

Similar to the 9494 site, the Little Wolf Creek site would provide coverage for the southwestern extent of 27 the MCMWTC limited-use area. The Little Wolf Creek site is not designated in the Toiyabe LRMP, and 28 would require that the Toiyabe LRMP be amended. The Little Wolf Creek site plans would be reviewed 29 for approval by the FS before issuance of a special use authorization. 30

The Little Wolf Creek site would have the same project area and project components as described for the 31 9494 site. The Little Wolf Creek site would be surrounded with a 110 ft by 55 ft perimeter fence (Figure 32 2-13). The same construction equipment and methods would be used as described for the 9494 site (i.e., 33 helicopters would bring all heavy equipment and large construction components to the site). During 34 construction, a temporary staging area for helicopter landing and takeoff would be sited in flat areas with 35 little plant cover within the surveyed project area, defined by the approximate location of a 110 ft by 55 ft 36 communications site complex and an additional 100 ft buffer zone for a total of 1.8 ac. Personnel would 37 access the site via truck. 38

ÊÚ

Little Wolf Creek Site

Figure 2-12Little Wolf Creek Site Proposed Location0 500

Meters

0 2,000Feet

TA-17

Legend


2-18

55 FE

ET

110 FEETTOWER



FIGURE 2-13PROPOSED LITTLE WOLF CREEK TOWER DESIGN AND SITE CONFIGURATION

2-19


2-20

2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1

Under the No-Action Alternative, the USMC would not improve/upgrade the communications 2 infrastructure at MCMWTC. The FS would not designate one new communication site or issue three 3 special-use permits for construction, use, and maintenance of the three communication facilities on Forest 4 System Lands. The No-Action Alternative is the same as existing conditions. While the No-Action 5 Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, it does provide a background 6 level against which to analyze the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and 7 Alternative 1. 8

2.4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 9

As established by the purpose and need, USMC must upgrade its communications infrastructure at 10 MCMWTC to provide a safe training environment. Consideration of alternatives forms an important part 11 of the NEPA process. Project alternatives were explored internally by USMC and through discussion with 12 the FS. Due to the functionality of VHF/UHF and microwave frequencies, the ideal location for 13 communications sites is at peaks and plateaus. An initial pool of candidate sites was identified by 14 Navy/USMC engineers. 15

The key parameters used for site selection were natural resources, existing infrastructure and road access, 16 and engineering specifications. Candidate sites were selected to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, 17 critical resource areas, cultural resource sites, and wilderness areas. In addition, candidate sites that are 18 generally free of large trees and dense vegetation were selected, reducing the amount of clearing and 19 environmental disturbance that may occur. 20

Sites with existing communications equipment and available road access were generally preferred over 21 remote, undeveloped sites for both environmental and logistical concerns. 22

Engineering specifications include the height of towers, number and types of antennas, size and 23 placement of the antennas, and power options. A line-of-sight must exist from tower to tower to provide 24 the digital backbone. Towers placed further apart would require larger dish antennas to transmit across 25 longer distances. The antennas must have certain separation distances along the tower to prevent 26 frequency interference. Therefore, site selection and engineering design are interacting variables in 27 developing project alternatives. Based on the specific arrangement of candidate sites, the tower height and 28 antenna requirements are developed through computer analysis of area coverage and microwave link 29 (MWL) path analysis. 30

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD 31

The following alternatives were considered during project planning and scoping, but were eliminated 32 from full analysis based on the reasons described below. 33

2.5.1 Use of Existing Forest Service-Only Communications Facilities

Under this project alternative, MCMWTC would use the existing FS-only communications facilities 34 without modification (i.e., no new towers would be constructed). No new communications sites would be 35 developed. 36

The existing FS towers are approximately 30 to 50 ft tall. These towers provide radio communication for 37 the FS only and do not currently have the equipment or capacity to support the purpose and need for the 38 MCMWTC communications system. There must be adequate physical separation between antennas to 39


2-21

avoid frequency interference. The FS towers are not tall enough to provide suitable anchoring locations 1 for MCMWTC antennas. 2

Based on the discussion presented above, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the 3 Proposed Action. Consequently, it was considered but eliminated from further discussion/analysis in this 4 SEA. 5

2.5.2 Shorter Towers

All of the MCMWTC communications sites under this alternative would be constructed according to 6 design parameters specified by the FS. The FS identifies criteria for evaluating communications sites, 7 including tower design, setback requirements, and height restrictions (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 90). No 8 specific design limitations are provided in FSH 2790.11; instead, the FS evaluates resource concerns and 9 technical requirements on a site-specific basis. 10

The FS Radio Specialist recommends that microwave dishes be placed only high enough on the towers to 11 avoid radio frequency (RF) exposure limits to people on the ground (10 ft in most locations), and that 12 VHF/UHF repeaters use antenna combiners to minimize the number of antennas. These guidelines are 13 recommended to limit the tower height to 40 ft. 14

Microwave dishes need to be placed at least 10 ft high, enough to avoid RF exposure limits on the 15 ground. However, for adequate coverage, microwave antennas must be high enough to provide a clear 16 line-of-sight from one tower to another. At the proposed sites, microwave dishes at 10 ft above ground 17 would not provide clear line-of-sight and the required 99.995% signal propagation reliability needed for 18 the microwave link between towers. In addition to the microwave dish antennas, the omni-directional 19 stick antennas must have approximately 10 ft in height vertical separation to avoid interference. The 20 antenna manufacturer recommends at least 10 ft, and preferably 20 ft, of vertical separation with antennas 21 mounted collinearly to provide signal isolation. 22

Antenna combiners are suitable for E-LMR frequencies in the range from 380 to 400 megahertz (MHz). 23 At lower frequencies (30 to 174 MHz) that would be used for tactical and non-tactical communications in 24 the proposed MCMWTC networks, antenna combiners are not suitable and separate antennas are 25 required. 26

A microwave link path analysis and link budget were calculated to determine acceptable tower height. 27 Based on antenna configuration and line-of-sight requirements, 40 ft towers would not provide suitable 28 coverage and antenna separation. 29

The 70 ft tower design was determined to be acceptable for all six sites. The initial analysis indicated that 30 a taller tower (100 ft or greater) may be required at the Little Wolf Creek site, based on elevation and 31 individual site characteristics. By exploring different combinations of engineering options and microwave 32 link path analysis, MCMWTC was able to configure the site with a 70 ft tower. Shorter towers would not 33 allow adequate signal relay from this site or the other sites. Line-of-sight and vertical separation 34 requirements would be compromised. 35

Based on the discussion presented above, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the 36 Proposed Action. Consequently, it was considered but eliminated from further discussion/analysis in this 37 SEA. 38


2-22

2.5.3 Smaller Antenna Size

The microwave link path analysis performed by MCMWTC engineers explored different antenna size and 1 mounting options. This analysis was based on 70 ft tower height. The path analysis indicated that a 2 combination of 8 ft and 6 ft antennas would provide greater than 99.995% signal propagation reliability 3 for links across the entire system. Using a combination of smaller antennas (4 ft and 6 ft diameter), 4 reliability fell below 99.995% for linkages between some of the towers. Furthermore, the reduced antenna 5 size would not allow for future capacity to be incorporated into the current design. Even with the smaller 6 antennas, a 70 ft tower was still required to maintain line-of-sight in the path analysis. 7

This alternative would not meet the system reliability requirements and would not substantially change 8 the engineering requirements for the tower itself or the support structures compared with the Proposed 9 Action. Therefore, this alternative was considered but eliminated from further discussion/analysis in this 10 SEA. 11

2.5.4 Locate Antennas off the Peaks

Under this alternative, towers and antennas would be located off peaks. However, towers and antennas 12 must be located on peaks to achieve the goal of appropriate communication to meet training needs. 13 Locating the antennas off the peaks would not allow for communication across long distances, which 14 would require building more towers and would greatly increase the potential for impacts to occur. 15 Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Consequently, it 16 was considered but eliminated from further discussion/analysis in this SEA. 17

2.5.5 Locate Equipment Shelters off Hilltops or Ridgelines

Under this alternative the equipment shelters would be located off hilltops or ridgelines. However, to 18 properly operate and maintain the towers and associated equipment, all equipment including towers and 19 shelters must be co-located. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the 20 Proposed Action. Consequently, it was considered but eliminated from further discussion/analysis in this 21 SEA. 22

2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 23

The environmental consequences associated with implementation of the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, 24 and No-Action Alternative are presented and compared in Table 2-1. For a detailed description and 25 analysis, refer to Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. 26


2-23

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No-Action Alternative Topography, Geology, and Soils Erodibility, hazard, and soil productivity.

No change to current condition of topography, geology, and soils. Therefore, no significant impact to topography, geology, and soils would occur.

Minerals No change to current conditions of mining or mineral resources. Therefore, no significant impact to mining or mineral resources would occur.

Surface water No change to current condition of surface water resources. Therefore, no significant impact to surface water resources would occur.

Groundwater No change to current condition of groundwater resources. Therefore, no significant impact to groundwater resources would occur.

Public Health and Safety No change to current condition of public health and safety. Inadequate MCMWTC communications infrastructure would remain active with limited coverage and incomplete capability across the training area within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Therefore, no significant impact to public health and safety would occur.

Biological Resources Vegetation No change to current condition of any

biological resources. Therefore, no significant impact to vegetation would occur.

Fish, Wildlife, and Migratory Birds

No change to current condition of any biological resources. Therefore, no significant impact to fish, wildlife, and migratory birds would occur.


2-24

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No-Action Alternative Special-status species No change to current condition of any

biological resources. Therefore, no significant impact to special-status species would occur.

Cultural Resources No change to current condition of any cultural resources. Therefore, no significant impact to cultural resources would occur.

Air Quality Existing conditions would remain unchanged and no significant impacts to air quality would occur. Therefore, no significant impact to air quality would occur.

Visual Resources No change to current condition of visual resources. Existing communications infrastructure at Mean Peak and Sweetwater would remain active and visible from surrounding viewsheds. The 9494, Coleville, and Demarcation sites would remain undeveloped. Therefore, no significant impact to visual resources would occur.

Land Use and Recreation No change to current land use and recreation. Inadequate MCMWTC communications infrastructure would remain active with limited coverage and incomplete capability across the training area within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Therefore, no significant impact to land use and recreation would occur.


CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Chapters 1 and 2

KTU+A. 2008. Final Mountain Warfare Training Center Communications Infrastructure Upgrade Visual Resources Report. September.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan. Toiyabe National Forest.

_____. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/. Accessed on 18 July 2014.

_____. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/. Accessed on 18 July 2014.

_____. 2014a. Land Areas Report Definition of Terms. Retrieved from website on 3 November. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/definitions_of_terms.htm

_____. 2014b. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Amendment for Special-Use Authorization Amendment 1. Auth, ID BRI250. Signed May 5 2014.

USFWS. 2000. Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers. Washington, DC. 14 September. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdf. Accessed on 18 July 2014.

Navy 2008. ELMR. Retrieved from website on 20 November 2014. http://www.doncio.navy.mil/uploads/1024ELU32586.pdf


http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/definitions_of_terms.htm

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdf

http://www.doncio.navy.mil/uploads/1024ELU32586.pdf

description of the proposed action and alternatives (dopaa...

Documents