Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda2025August61.Call to Order 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Adoption of Agenda – Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting. 4.Meeting Minutes 4.A.May 21, 2025 Meeting Minutes 4.B.June 4, 2025 Meeting Minutes 4.C.July 2, 2025 Meeting Minutes 5.Committee Reports 6.Citizen Comments 7.Public Hearings 7.A.Rezoning #04-25 of Laurel Ridge Community College Foundation Inc (MDP Facilities Solutions) - (Mrs. Feltner) Submitted to rezone +/- 19.81-acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the HE (Higher Education) Zoning District with proffers for a technical trade facility. The property is generally located northeast of 131 Garland Snapp Drive, Middletown, and is identified by Property Identification Number 91-A-99B in the Back Creek Magisterial District. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2025 7:00 PM THE BOARD ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PC08-06-25MinutesMay21.pdf PC08-06-25MinutesJune4.pdf PC08-06-25MinutesJuly2.pdf PC08-06-25_REZ04-25_Redacted.pdf 1 7.B.Conditional Use Permit #05-25 for Arcola Towers (Frederick Water) - (Mrs. Peloquin) Submitted to construct a 150' tall wireless telecommunication tower. The property is located at 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-99 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 7.C.2025-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - (Mr. Bishop) This is a minor update to the CIP transportation section to clearly identify projects or components of projects that are under application with the Virginia Department of Transportation for funding under the Revenue Sharing Program and the Transportation Alternatives Program. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies. The Plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. If adopted, the CIP is based on the Comprehensive Plan. 8.Other 8.A.Current Planning Applications 9.Adjourn PC08-06-25_CUP05-25_Exhibits_Redacted.pdf PC08-06-25_CUP05-25_Redacted.pdf PC08-06-25_2025-2030_CapitalImprPlan_MinorUpdate.pdf 2 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes Title: May 21, 2025 Meeting Minutes Attachments: PC08-06-25MinutesMay21.pdf 3 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4193 Minutes of May 21, 2025 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on May 21, 2025. PRESENT: Tim Stowe, Chairman/Red Bud District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Shawnee District; Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Charles Markert, Red Bud District; Kevin Sneddon, Opequon District; Thomas Bottorf, Opequon District; Justin Kerns, Stonewall District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District; Vaughn Whitacre, Gainesboro District; Mollie Brannon, Member at Large. ABSENT: Charles S. DeHaven III, Stonewall District; Jeff McKay, Back Creek District. STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; Kayla Peloquin, Planner II; Amy L. Feltner, Planner I; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Guaranty Coordinator. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Stowe called the May 21, 2025 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon a motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Markert, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Brannon, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the March 19, 2025 and the April 2, 2025 meetings. ------------- 4 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4194 Minutes of May 21, 2025 COMMITTEES Transportation Committee – 05/12/25 Commissioner Brannon reported bids are being sent out to get some roads paved within the County. Frederick Water Commissioner Bottorf reported the Board did not have a meeting. He noted that due to the recent rain the quarries have raised a couple feet which is good for the water supply. Board of Supervisors – 05/14/25 Supervisor Liero, Board of Supervisor Liaison, reported the Board approved an Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code; additions to Define Chicken Coops and Provide Additional Regulations for Backyard Chickens and Chicken Coops in the RP, R4, and R5 Zoning Districts. The Board upheld the Planning Commission’s recommendation to exclude the RP Zoning District; the permit requirement proposal was denied; and the 6 month waiting period was changed to 3 months. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Stowe called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. Four residents of the Lake Frederick community spoke in opposition of the waiver for MREC. Two citizens spoke in support of the waiver for Glaize Development. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Stowe closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #02-23 for The Caterer, LLC (Arcola Towers) Action – Recommend Denial Kayla Peloquin, Planner II, reported this application is submitted to construct a 150’ tall wireless telecommunications tower. The property is located at 1930 Front Royal Pike, Winchester and is identified with Property Identification Number 76-2-A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. She shared a locations map and zoning map of the property. She continued, the Applicant proposes the tower would be located within a 1,346 square foot fenced compound consisting of 8’ tall chain link fence with privacy slats. She noted, the Applicant has provided a letter certifying the fall radius of 75’ from a certified professional engineer. Mrs. Peloquin explained, the Public Facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes a broadband and telecommunications section with a goal to “promote the development of a high-quality wireless telecommunications network throughout the County to serve its residents, while protecting the County’s visual landscape, historic resources, and natural resources”. She noted, the proposed tower 5 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4195 Minutes of May 21, 2025 generally helps the County to achieve this goal. Mrs. Peloquin concluded by sharing the Conditions recommended by Staff for this Application: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall not exceed 150’ in height. 3. The tower shall be available for co-locating personal wireless service providers. 4. A minor site plan meeting all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including additional regulations for commercial telecommunications facilities (§165-204.19) shall be approved prior to establishment of the use. 5. In the event the telecommunications tower is not constructed within twelve (12) months of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Johnathan Yates, representing the Applicant, stated there is a coverage deficit in the area of the proposed tower as the nearest tower is 1 ¼ miles away. T-Mobile will be the anchor tenant, and the monopole will be designed to accommodate three other broadband carriers. Mr. Yates stated this is an ideal property for the tower due to the commercial zoning and proximity to the highly traveled Front Royal Pike (Route 522). He continued, the tower has been approved by the FAA and the VA State Historic Preservation Office. Once all permits were approved, the tower could be constructed in less than 60 days, and it will not produce any noise or light. Mr. Yates noted, the application meets the ordinance requirements, and the Applicants are willing to work with adjoining residences to mitigate impacts such as through additional landscaping; the nearest residence is 175’ from the proposed tower location. Chairman Stowe called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Several residents spoke against the application due to the potential negative impacts on property values, potential health impacts, and altering the visual landscape next to a significant historic resource (Frederick Hall). A couple residents stated they utilize T-Mobile and do not experience coverage issues in the area relative to the nearby residences. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Stowe closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Yates stated he would be able and willing to meet with residents prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting to discuss the proposal. After discussion on the uncertainty of RF emissions on health, Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, said the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that towers cannot be denied by a local land use body due to RF emissions. Mr. Yates reiterated the proposed tower is well within the emissions limit set by the FCC. Planning Commission Members expressed concern that the tower is at a relatively low elevation and there seem to be better options for other tower locations. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kozel to recommend approval (motion failed) Yes: Stowe, Thomas, Kozel, Aikens No: Brumback, Sneddon, Bottorf, Markert, Kerns, Whitacre Abstain: Brannon Upon a motion made by Commissioner Brumback and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to recommend denial BE IT RESOLVED the Frederick County Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit #02-23 for The Caterer, LLC (Arcola Towers) 6 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4196 Minutes of May 21, 2025 Yes: Brumback, Sneddon, Bottorf, Markert, Kozel, Kerns, Whitacre No: Stowe, Thomas, Aikens Abstain: Brannon (Note: Commissioner DeHaven and Commissioner McKay were absent from the meeting) ACTION ITEMS Waiver #01-25 for MREC Shenandoah VA, LLC Action – Recommend Denial Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, reported this is a proposal to waive Zoning Ordinance §165- 202.04 requiring inter-parcel connections for a new Master Development Plan (MDP) submission. The properties included in the MDP are zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District and are located south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and north of the existing Lake Frederick development in the Opequon Magisterial District. He continued, MREC has submitted a revised Master Development Plan (MDP Revision 6) to change the housing types for the remaining sections; no changes to the overall number of units were proposed. Staff has informed the MDP applicants that MDP Revision 6 will not be approved without an inter-parcel connection to the west or an approved waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors. He shared a zoning map and a long range land use map of the property. Mr. Pearson reported, the current MDP (Revision 5) was administratively approved in 2021. There were 4 areas designated as “potential future access location (future access locations to be constructed as stub-outs or as access easements depending on the connectivity requirements of the network accepted into the state secondary Frederick Community and other parcels located south of the Route 277 corridor. These connections will allow existing residents pedestrian and vehicular access to commercial areas without the need to travel on arterial roads”. He continued, the Applicant’s letter references §165- 202.04 section i), that a connector street to an adjoining parcel is not likely to be needed; and iii), that an adjoining undeveloped parcel is not likely to be developed in a manner to make a connector street necessary or appropriate. Mr. Pearson noted, the Madison property is actively pursuing a rezoning application that is likely to be filed and considered this calendar year. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for interconnectivity and a mix of uses in this area that will benefit the many current and future residents of Lake Frederick. Planning Commission members discussed this item in length and expressed uncertainty over the timing of the extension of Rachel Carson Drive to Route 277 despite it being guaranteed as shown on the previously approved MDP. Mr. Pearson clarified that the waiver request is not for the extension of Rachel Carson Drive that will have a gated entrance from Route 277. The waiver is for building a stub out to the adjoining property (the Madison property) that is planned for Neighborhood Village and Mixed Use Commercial/Office so that should the Madison property develop, residents of Lake Frederick would be able to access the commercial areas without having to exit the community onto Route 277 and then make a left turn into the commercial area. Mr. Pearson acknowledged that the ordinance standard requiring inter-parcel connectors has not been enforced throughout the entirety of the project, however this MDP revision should require the connection as the circumstances of the adjoining property have changed and the ordinance requirement is applicable. Furthermore, if the Madison property develops in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the commercial uses will likely generate enough trips to warrant a signal at the intersection of their entrance and Route 277. This would allow residents to access a signalized protected left turn onto Route 277 rather than the stop bar currently planned at the Rachel Carson intersection with Route 277. When asked if Madison property supports the connection, Mr. Pearson stated their draft proffer 7 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4197 Minutes of May 21, 2025 statement accommodates the connection on their side, and they support the connection. Although the previous MDPs have included asterisks indicating potential future access locations to be constructed as stub-outs or access easements, none have been constructed or recorded as easements. Mr. Pettler with Harrison & Johnston on behalf of MREC Shenandoah stated this is the 6th revision to the MDP under consideration and Staff did not previously request a connection to the Madison property during any other revision. Mr. Petter described the reason for postponement of the waiver request as the Applicants were working with Planning Staff and VDOT to find a solution but were not able to find a practical solution. Frederick Water has stated they do not want a road on their property near the entrance to Route 277. Other potential solutions were putting the road through the proposed dog park and running it down the boundary line, however there are issues with power line easements, topography, and losing density. Furthermore, given the location of the planned minor arterial road, there are no viable alternatives for a connection to the Madison property and the waiver should be approved as the inter-parcel location in this vicinity to the Madison property is impractical. Mr. Pettler stated that although the Madison property is designated with long-range land use in the Comprehensive Plan, at this point it is simply a concept that may or may not be built in the future whereas Lake Frederick is currently being developed. Ultimately, approving the waiver would allow MDP Revision 6 to be approved, which in turn would allow the contract on this property to close that would allow the developer to ultimately pull building permits and complete the extension of Rachel Carson Drive to Route 277. Mr. Pearson added that subdivision plats must match the approved MDP to be approved and for the County to hold the bond for infrastructure. The Planning Commission discussed whether a signal will be placed at either the entrance to Lake Frederick or the Madison property from Route 277; Mr. Pearson stated at this time it is not known. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Bottorf and seconded by Commissioner Thomas BE IT RESOLVED the Frederick County Planning Commission recommends denial of Waiver #01-25 for MREC Shenandoah VA, LLC. Yes: Brannon, Brumback, Sneddon, Bottorf, Thomas, Kozel, Whitacre No: Markert, Kerns, Aikens (Note: Commissioner DeHaven and Commissioner McKay were absent from the meeting) Waiver #02-25 for Storage Solutions CB, LLC Action – Recommend Approval Chairman Stowe would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible conflict of interest. Kayla Peloquin, Planner II, reported this is a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance §144-24C requiring all new lots to have direct access to a public street. Painter-Lewis, representing the Applicant submitted a Master Development Plan (MDP) to subdivide a 27.12+/- acre property (Property Identification Number 33-2-A). One lot would be created for the existing commercial/warehouse building, one lot for the rail transload land bay, and one lot for rail car storage and stormwater management. She stated the property is zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District and is in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mrs. Peloquin explained, the draft MDP includes a main truck and car entrance along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) parallel to the Winchester and Western Railroad line. This is intended to be a right-in entrance only. The private road would be along the eastern portion of the property 8 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4198 Minutes of May 21, 2025 from Brucetown Road and would be a full movement entrance. She noted, VDOT has reviewed the draft MDP and stated that the new entrance must be brought up to current VDOT standards. Mrs. Peloquin concluded, the draft MDP cannot be approved without a waiver of the public street requirement as a new lot would be created that does not have direct access to a public street or right-of-way maintained by VDOT. The Planning Commission asked if VDOT has provided comments. Mrs. Peloquin stated VDOT has commented on the MDP and did not have an issue with the proposed private street, only that it must be built to current VDOT standards. Mr. Painter, representing the Applicant stated they believe the proposal is the best solution as VDOT prefers the full access entrance along Brucetown Road rather than Martinsburg Pike. He noted, the Applicant does not want the road to be public as it could lead to additional trips that may interfere with the operations. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by Commissioner Kozel BE IT RESOLVED the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Waiver #02-25 for Storage Solutions CB, LLC. (Note: Commissioner DeHaven and Commissioner McKay were absent from the meeting) Waiver #03-25 for Glaize Development, Inc. Action - Recommend Approval Amy L. Feltner, Planner I, reported this is a request for a waiver of the inter-parcel connection required in section §165-202.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and is in the Shawnee Magisterial District. She noted the current Master Development Plan (MDP) provides the required inter-parcel connection. Mrs. Feltner provided a history of the Master Development Plan (MDP). The initial MDP was approved in 1999 and revised in 2016 of which included nine phases of the Raven Wing subdivision and two phases of the Oak Dale Crossings subdivision. There were three inter-parcel connections proposed. The construction of the inter-parcel connection between Phase 3 of the Raven Wing subdivision and Oakdale Crossing II subdivision has been completed (Dewberry Drive). She continued, the inter-parcel between Oakdale II and Phase 9 Raven Pointe will be installed with the completion of Phase 9 subdivision construction (Summerfield Drive and Fairfield Drive). The inter-parcel connection of Underwood Lane and Phase 9 Raven Pointe is the inter-parcel connection that is the subject of the waiver request. She commented, the approved MDP indicates all three inter-parcel connections shall be completed and operational upon the completion of Phase 9 of the Raven Pointe subdivision or following the completion of the improvements to the segment of Senseny Road from the City of Winchester to Greenwood Road as indicated on the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan, whichever occurs first. She noted, currently there are not any near-term funded or planned projects to make significant improvements to this section of road. The Planning Commission discussed the future for Underwood Lane as it relates to widening and/or improvements. Underwood Lane currently is a 20-foot-wide existing asphalt road with an existing right-of-way of 40 feet belonging to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The remaining 20 feet of the 40-foot right-of-way not containing asphalt is currently the front lawn of the Underwood Lane residents. Widening of Underwood Lane would enable 2-way traffic but would lack any necessary area for the required sidewalks and drainage unless additional right-of-way was purchased. Ultimately, the improvements would be the financial responsibility of Frederick County and not the developer. The applicant asked the Planning Commission to also consider the additional impacts to Senseny Road, such as turn lanes, that would be necessary to create a safe connection of traffic flow onto Senseny Road from 9 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4199 Minutes of May 21, 2025 Underwood Lane. The Planning Commission discussed the option of denying the waiver and requiring bollards to disconnect street travel until Inverlee Way was constructed in the future. Although this path was complex, it is not an impossible option. It would likely require the developer to install a temporary turn around, and the County hold ownership of a portion of the road until such a time as it was opened for vehicular travel and could be accepted into the State system. Consideration was weighed on the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the inter-parcel connection. The denial of the waiver severely impacts the safety of the Underwood Lane residents. The approval of the waiver would negatively impact the efficiency of the traffic system for the Senseny/Greenwood area. Neither approach would result in a positive outcome. The Planning Commission asked for clarification of staff on the completion and future of Inverlee Way. Inverlee Way is the subdivision’s south entrance from Millwood Pike. Although Inverlee Way provides a connection to Taggart Drive, and ultimately to Crestleigh Drive and Senseny Road through the subdivision, Inverlee Way is the proposed minor collector that is intended to extend northward and connect to Senseny Road. If the adjacent parcel develops, the desire would be to proffer road improvements with the rezoning of the property that would include the construction of Inverlee Way and the connection to Senseny Road. The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Plan designates the adjoining area as an urban center. The implementation of the Comprehensive Plan is necessary for the construction of Inverlee Way. Currently, the property owner does not have interest in developing the property. The County has contemplated purchasing the right-of-way and the constructing Inverlee Way, but the property owner is not interested in selling at this time. From a county transportation planning perspective and, due to the lack of intention from the owner to develop the property, purchasing the right-of-way and constructing the minor collector may be a needed focus for the county due to the transportation needs in the Senseny/Greenwood area currently, as well as in the future. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Kozel and seconded by Commissioner Thomas BE IT RESOLVED the Frederick County Planning Commission recommends approval of Waiver #03-25 for Glaize Development, Inc. Yes: Brumback, Sneddon, Bottorf, Markert, Stowe, Thomas, Kozel, Kerns, Aikens No: Brannon, Whitacre (Note: Commissioner DeHaven and Commissioner McKay were absent from the meeting) ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed, and a motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Markert and unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Tim Stowe, Chairman ___________________________ Wyatt G. Pearson, Secretary 10 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes Title: June 4, 2025 Meeting Minutes Attachments: PC08-06-25MinutesJune4.pdf 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4200 Minutes of June 4, 2025 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 4, 2025. PRESENT: Tim Stowe, Chairman/Red Bud District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Shawnee District; Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Charles Markert, Red Bud District; Kevin Sneddon, Opequon District; Thomas Bottorf, Opequon District; Charles S. DeHaven III, Stonewall District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; Jeff McKay, Back Creek District; Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District; Vaughn Whitacre, Gainesboro District; Mollie Brannon, Member at Large. ABSENT: Justin Kerns, Stonewall District. STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; John A. Bishop, Assistant Director; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Guaranty Coordinator. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Stowe called the June 4, 2025 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Thomas led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon a motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kozel, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.. ------------- 12 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4201 Minutes of June 4, 2025 COMMITTEES Historical Resources Advisory Board – 5/16/25 Chairman Stowe reported the Board reviewed the rezoning application for Laurel Ridge Community College. The Board also continued discussion of use of historic preservation funding and noted formal action is needed to allocate any of the funds. City of Winchester – 5/20/25 Commissioner Burnett reported, a conditional use permit for the installation of a 6 foot fence was sent forward for approval. An ordinance to rezone 93 parcels totaling 92 acres was sent forward for approval and an ordinance to rezone 97 parcels totaling approximately 131 acres was also sent forward for approval. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Stowe called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Stowe closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Draft Update of the 2025-2026 Frederick County Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate Road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Planning Commission of Frederick County, in accordance with Section 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing in the Board Room of the Frederick County Government Center, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public comments on the proposed Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads for Fiscal Year 2026 through 2031 Frederick County and on the Secondary System Construction budget for Fiscal Year 2026. Action – Recommend Approval John A. Bishop, Assistant Director, reported this is a public hearing item to consider the update of the 2025-2026 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Summary of Changes: Interstate Plan: Removal of paragraph identifying the potential implementation of Route 37 East as an alternative to widening of I-81. 13 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4202 Minutes of June 4, 2025 Primary Plan: No changes at this time. Secondary Plan: No changes at this time. Mr. Bishiop continued, the Transportation Committee reviewed this item on May 12, 2025, and recommended approval with the correction of a typo in the Interstate Plan where Exit 317 was inadvertently entered as Exit 318 and to add a freight emphasis to the statements regarding rail transportation in the Interstate Plan. Chairman Stowe called for anyone who wished to speak regarding the Public Hearing to come forward. No one came forward and the Public Hearing was closed for the public comment portion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Brannon BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of the Draft Update of the 2025-2026 Frederick County Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. (Note: Commissioner Kerns was absent from the meeting) OTHER 2025-2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Wyatt G. Pearson, Director reported, The Code of Virginia §15.2-2223 authorizes localities to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans “with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development.” The Code requires the Comprehensive Plan to be updated at least every 5 years. He noted, Frederick County’s currently adopted plan last 5-year updates was in 2021; the last plan re-write was in 2010. Mr. Pearson shared the studies and updates that have been taking place: Background Studies: • Community Profile (Berkley Group) • Housing & Market Assessment (Partners for Economic Solutions, PES) • Land Use Cost Analysis Study (Tischler-Bise) • Transportation Model Update Community Profile (Berkley Group) • “Roadmap” to understanding where the County is today • Existing conditions analysis: o Population/demographics, housing, workforce, natural and historic resources, community health and safety, community facilities and infrastructure, land use, and transportation. • Foundation for community-oriented and data-driven decision making • Intended to replace “Appendix II” of the plan • Draft Community Profile under review by Staff Housing & Market Assessment (PES) • Project market conditions based on anticipated job and household growth and development trends. 14 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4203 Minutes of June 4, 2025 • Identify gaps between market demand and market offerings via a housing needs assessment. • Assess the adequacy of the County’s supply of commercial land based on the projected demand. • Demand for industrial land projected as well as absorption rates and whether existing planning areas are sufficient • Stakeholder interview conducted by PES the week of May 27th. Land Use Cost Analysis Study (Tischler-Bise) • Evaluate the full cost of land uses, particularly residential development. • Analysis regarding whether a surplus or deficit is created by different types of housing units, the impacts each land use has on a jurisdiction’s fiscal condition, and to identify the types of nonresidential land uses with a fiscal and economic benefit to the County. • Prototype Lots: Rural Lots, Suburban Lots, Incorporated Town Lots, Apartments, Age-Restricted Units, Retail, Office, Warehousing, Manufacturing, Data Center. • Stakeholders engaged analysis under. Transportation Model Update - (Mr. Bishop presented) • Modeling of existing transportation system through capacity analysis, alternatives assessment and land use and transportation interactions. • Additional evaluation of Planned roads such as future Route 37 segments, South Frederick Parkway and interchange, Tasker Road flyover, and others identified through the public input process or by leadership • Schedule and Consultant – TBD Public Participation Plan (PPP) – (Mr. Klein presented) • Comprehensive planning process should invite meaningful and robust community engagement. • (PPP) outlines how community stakeholders and partners will be engaged in the planning process for the development of the Plan. • Inclusive, transparent and integral o Open to all o Clear, documented and easily accessible o Occurs throughout o Critical to success of planning effort Project Timeline Stakeholder Interviews and Reconnaissance, Topic Based Events and Community Surveying, Prioritization and Plan Formulation, Community Meetings, Plan Presentation and Adoption. • July 1st start • Variety of public engagement strategies during each project phase • Joint work session after phase 1, 2, and 4 • Plan adoption anticipated in August 2027 15 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4204 Minutes of June 4, 2025 What’s Next? Phase 1 – Stakeholder Interviews and Community Reconnaissance (6-months) • Background studies completion • BOS and PC interviews • Needs assessment with other key stakeholders • Project website and photo inventory • Joint work session #1 (November 2025) The Planning Commission briefly discussed the Comprehensive Plan Update and appreciated the timeline and information that was presented. Mr. Pearson noted there are three (3) CPPA’s for this year and they are Meadow Brook Technology Park (Tract), Winchester Gateway 2, and Middletown Business Park. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed, and a motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kozel and unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Tim Stowe, Chairman ___________________________ Wyatt G. Pearson, Secretary 16 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes Title: July 2, 2025 Meeting Minutes Attachments: PC08-06-25MinutesJuly2.pdf 17 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4205 Minutes of July 2, 2025 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 2, 2025. PRESENT: Tim Stowe, Chairman/Red Bud District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Shawnee District; Charles Markert, Red Bud District; Kevin Sneddon, Opequon District; Thomas Bottorf, Opequon District; Justin Kerns, Stonewall District; Charles S. DeHaven III, Stonewall District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; Jeff McKay, Back Creek District; Vaughn Whitacre, Gainesboro District; Mollie Brannon, Member at Large. ABSENT: Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District. STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Guaranty Coordinator. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Stowe called the July 2, 2025 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Thomas led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon a motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Markert, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Markert, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the April 16, 2025 meeting. ------------- 18 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4206 Minutes of July 2, 2025 COMMITTEES Conservation Easment Authority – 6/26/25 Commissioner Markert reported the Authority held the election of officers. An update and discussion was held on the Board of Supervisors’ actions on PDRs. Frederick Water – 6/17/25 Commissioner Bottorf reported, the quarries remain at a good level and an update was provided on the chlorination of drinking water. Board of Supervisors – 6/11/25 Supervisor Liero, Board of Supervisor Liaison, reported the Board approved the Draft Update of the 2025-2026 Frederick County Interstate, Primary and Secondary Road Improvement Plans; a Waiver to the Subdivision Ordinance; and Waiver #03-25 Raven Pointe Section 9. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Stowe called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. A citizen spoke regarding the land assessment values and the use of I and we in discussions. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Stowe closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING 2025-2030 Agricultural and Forestal District Update. This is a Public Hearing to consider the renewal of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, Back Mountain, Double Church, Green Spring, Hayfield, Long Creek Farm, North Frederick, Red Bud, Reliance, South Frederick, South Timber Ridge, and White Hall Districts with a total of 17,617.95 acres. The total 17,617.95 acreage is within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing five year period. Properties that are incorporated into an Agricultural and Forestal District are guaranteed certain Protection as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia. Action – Recommend Approval Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator reported, the Code of Virginia requires localities to evaluate, add, renew, or remove properties from their Agricultural & Forestal Districts every five (5) years. The Districts are set to expire in August 2025, and the renewal of the Districts will run until August 2030. He continued, by establishing a District(s) and agreeing to continue using the property(s) for agricultural uses, the locality and the Commonwealth agree to protect and enhance the land and not take any actions that would have a negative effect on agricultural and forestry operations during 19 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4207 Minutes of July 2, 2025 the term of the District(s). Mr. Cheran continued, this program is voluntary, and land may be moved or added to a District at the landowner’s request and with the discretion of the Board of Supervisors within the five (5) year period. Currently, Frederick County has a total of thirteen (13) Districts. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on April 15, 2025, to review the thirteen (13) Districts for the 2025-2030 renewal and update. ADAC recommended approval of all the districts. Mr. Cheran reviewed each District and provided mapping: Albin Agricultural & Forestal District o The District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District o The District includes a total of fourteen (14) parcels o Four (4) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 1,014.45+/- acres Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District o The District includes a total of forty-three (43) parcels o Three (3) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 936.03+/- acres Back Mountain Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District o The District includes a total of one (1) parcel o One (1) property owner o 2025-2030 total of 489.91+/- acres Double Church Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Opequon Magisterial District o The District includes a total of seventeen (17) parcels o Twelve (12) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 693.87+/- acres Green Spring Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District o The District includes a total of fourteen (14) parcels o Four (4) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 870.32+/- acres Hayfield Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District o The District includes a total of six (6) parcels o Two (2) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 939.90+/- acres Long Creek Farm Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District o The District includes a total of fourteen (14) parcels o Four (4) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 1,076.90+/- acres 20 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4208 Minutes of July 2, 2025 North Frederick Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District o The District includes a total of sixteen (16) parcels o Seven (7) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 1,929.41+/- acres Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Stonewall and Red Bud Magisterial District o The District includes a total of fifty-nine (59) parcels o Twenty-one (21) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 1,204.43+/- acres Reliance Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Opequon Magisterial District o The District includes a total of six (6) parcels o Two (2) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 221.50+/- acres South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District o The District includes a total of one hundred forty-two (142) parcels o Fifty-two (52) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 5,905.84+/- acres South Timber Ridge Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District o The District includes a total of twenty-four (24) parcels o Tow (2) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 1,361.09+/- acres White Hall Agricultural & Forestal o The District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District o The District includes a total of seven (7) parcels o Three (3) property owners o 2025-2030 total of 974.30+/- acres Commissioner Kerns asked about the tax benefits of being in the Agricultural & Forestal District and if this was a positive or negative impact to the County. Mr. Cheran explained it is under a lower tax rate, it is a TDR benefit, and it protects the land from eminent domain. Commissioner Kerns also asked if a CUP could be on the land. Mr. Cheran stated yes, a CUP can be applied for. Commissioner McKay asked about the four parcels being removed from the South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District. Mr. Cheran commented this was part of a solar farm that needed to be removed. Chairman Stowe called for anyone who wished to speak regarding the Public Hearing to come forward. No one came forward and the Public Hearing was closed for the public comment portion. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Markert BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval of the 2025-2030 Agricultural and Forestal District Update to consider the renewal of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, Back Mountain, Double Church, Green Spring, Hayfield, Long Creek Farm, North Frederick, Red 21 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4209 Minutes of July 2, 2025 Bud, Reliance, South Frederick, South Timber Ridge, and White Hall Districts with a total of 17,617.95 acres. The total 17,617.95 acreage is within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing five year period. (Note: Commissioners Kozel and Commissioner Aikens were absent from the meeting) ------------- OTHER Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, reported work has been started on the Middletown Business Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment; recently started Zoning Ordinance Phase 1 update, now doing functional reorganization phase; the Community Profile document is almost finalized; and the Public Participation Plan was sent out to the Planning Commission and feedback is welcome. Chairman Stowe asked how long the Zoning Ordinance restructure will take. Mr. Pearson stated he anticipates 7 months. Commissioner Thomas thanked Staff for having the recent work session. He commented on the outcome conclusion of the work session. He feels the decision should have been based on facts and does not think that is what happened. Commissioner Thomas made a motion that the Board of Supervisors direct Planning Staff put together a package on data centers that would provide useful information for the Planning Commission members and the Board of Supervisors so that a better decision can be made. Commissioner DeHaven seconded the motion. The motion was passed with two commissioners voting no (Brannon and Whitacre. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed, and a motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bottorf and unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Tim Stowe, Chairman ___________________________ Wyatt G. Pearson, Secretary 22 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Public Hearings Title: Rezoning #04-25 of Laurel Ridge Community College Foundation Inc (MDP Facilities Solutions) - (Mrs. Feltner) Attachments: PC08-06-25_REZ04-25_Redacted.pdf 23 REZONING #04-25 Laurel Ridge Community College Foundation LLC (MDP Facilities Solutions) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 25, 2025 Staff Contact: Amy L. Feltner, Planner Executive Summary: Meeting Schedule Planning Commission: August 6, 2025 Action: Pending Board of Supervisors: September 10, 2025 Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number (PIN) 91-A-99B Address 131 Garland Snapp Drive, Middletown, VA Magisterial District Back Creek Acreage +/- 19.81-acres Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Institutional Proposed Zoning HE (Higher Education) Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Commercial East: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Commercial West: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Vacant Proposed Use This is a request to rezone +/-19.81-acres from RA (Rural Areas) Zoning Districts to HE (Higher Education) Zoning District with proffers for a technical trade facility. Positives Concerns The proposed rezoning implements the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Area Plan which enhances the existing educational institution and Laurel Ridge Community College which serve Frederick County and the broader region. Monetary contributions are included to off-set impacts to local fire and rescue services. The Middletown/Lord Fairfax Area Plan expressly stated that Frederick Water will be the party responsible for providing water and sewer in this area. The facility, and the proposed expansion, will continue to be served by the City of Winchester for public water and the Town of Middletown for public sewer services. That being said, Frederick Water does not have existing utilities 24 Page 2 of 4 The Owner, at no public cost, is dedicating the necessary right-of-way to allow Route 11/Valley Pike to be improved to its ultimate condition as a four-lane-divided highway which fully implements Plan policy specific to planned transportation improvements. proximate to the property in question. The applicant would need to extend service. Review Agency Comments: Review Agency Comment Date Comment Summary Status Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) June 26.2025 We agree with the findings of the Turn Lane Warrant Analysis and agree that no left turn lanes are required (transportation improvements associated with this rezoning), however, any future expansion or development (outside of the proposed GDP) will require modifications (left turn lanes) to the bookstore entrance based on the information given). Comments addressed FC County Attorney July 1, 2025 The acting County Attorney has reviewed the proposed Proffer Statement and has no legal objection to the form of the Proffer Statement. It is my understanding that the transportation/traffic impacts will be noted in the Staff Report. Frederick County Public Works April 9, 2025 A comprehensive review shall be performed at the time of site plan submittal. Recommended Approval Frederick County Fire Marshal April 8, 2025 No Comments at this time. A reminder that all new construction shall comply with the most current VA Building Construction code standards. Approved Frederick Water April 2, 2025 No Comments. Not served by Frederick Water. 25 Page 3 of 4 Town of Middletown 6/3/2025 No comments. No capacity issue for the proposed single bathroom per facility. City of Winchester 6/30/2025 At this time the City of Winchester is fine with a pass-through service, but awaits site plan for further review. Planning & Zoning Staff Analysis: Comprehensive Plan Conformance: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in November 2021, and the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Plan, amended in 2014, provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The Plan identifies these properties with an Institutional land use designation. In addition, the text of the Plan states the following: “The area encompassed by the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is envisioned to promote the continued growth of institutional land uses that enhance the existing educational institutions, LFCC, and the Middletown Elementary School. To that end, the plan calls for the establishment of approximately 140 acres of institutional land use that will serve the citizens of Frederick County and the broader region”. Transportation & Site Access The proposal is consistent with the planned improvements in the Comprehensive Plan. 26 Page 4 of 4 Proffer Statement, Generalized Development Plan (GDP), & Impact Analysis: Proffers (Revision Date 06/16/25 Staff Comment Proffer 1. Development and Use of the Property The proffer statement provides the property be developed with College, University, and Professional School uses in conformance with the future area plan. Proffer 2. Site Design No comment Proffer 3. Lighting No comment Proffer 4. Fire and Rescue No comment Proffer 5. Water and Sewer The area is not currently served by Frederick Water and will continue to be served by Middletown and the City of Winchester Proffer 6. Miscellaneous Proffer 6.1 is recommended based on the HRAB recommendations as specified. The generalized development plan (GDP) dated July 2, 2025, is included below and depicts proffer improvements. Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on this rezoning application. 27 LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITY COLLEGESubdivision MIDDLETOWNELEMENTARY SCHOOLSubdivision £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 91 A 99B 173SKIRMISHER LN 500N BUCKTON RD 190MUSTANG LN 7354VALLEY PIKE 7338VALLEYPIKE 7328VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7165VALLEY AVE 7233VALLEYPIKE 7114VALLEYPIKE VALLEYPIKEVALLEYPIKESKIRMISHER LNMUSTANG LN GARLAND SNAPP DRVALLEYPIKEApplication Sewer and Water Service A rea Parcels µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 10, 202 5 £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 SKIRMISHERLNCOVILLESTDURSLEYCIR LARRICK LNC O U GIL L R D RILEY MILL LNMAINST QUINCEYMILL CTEDOLN GARLANDSNAPP DRMUSTANGLN MINERALSTVALLEY PIKEN BUCKTON RDMiddletown 0 420 840210 Feet REZ # 04 - 25: Lau rel Ridge Community CollegeEducational Foun dation Inc.PIN: 91 - A - 99BRezoning from RA to HEZoning M ap REZ #04-25 28 LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITY COLLEGESubdivision MIDDLETOWNELEMENTARY SCHOOLSubdivision £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 91 A 99B 173SKIRMISHER LN 500N BUCKTON RD 190MUSTANG LN 7354VALLEY PIKE 7338VALLEYPIKE 7328VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7165VALLEY AVE 7233VALLEYPIKE 7114VALLEYPIKE VALLEYPIKEVALLEYPIKESKIRMISHER LNMUSTANG LN GARLAND SNAPP DRVALLEYPIKEApplication Sewer and Water Service A rea Parcels µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 10, 202 5 £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 SKIRMISHERLNCOVILLESTDURSLEYCIR LARRICK LNC O U GIL L R D RILEY MILL LNMAINST QUINCEYMILL CTEDOLN GARLANDSNAPP DRMUSTANGLN MINERALSTVALLEY PIKEN BUCKTON RDMiddletown 0 420 840210 Feet REZ # 04 - 25: Lau rel Ridge Community CollegeEducational Foun dation Inc.PIN: 91 - A - 99BRezoning from RA to HELocation Ma p REZ #04-25 29 LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITY COLLEGESubdivision MIDDLETOWNELEMENTARY SCHOOLSubdivision £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 91 A 99B 173SKIRMISHER LN 500N BUCKTON RD 190MUSTANG LN 7354VALLEY PIKE 7338VALLEYPIKE 7328VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7180VALLEYPIKE 7165VALLEY AVE 7233VALLEYPIKE 7114VALLEYPIKE VALLEYPIKEVALLEYPIKESKIRMISHER LNMUSTANG LN GARLAND SNAPP DRVALLEYPIKEApplication Sewer and Water Service A rea Parcels Long R ange Land Use Mixed Use Industrial/O ffice Institutional µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 10, 202 5 £¤11 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 SKIRMISHERLNCOVILLESTDURSLEYCIR LARRICK LNC O U GIL L R D RILEY MILL LNMAINST QUINCEYMILL CTEDOLN GARLANDSNAPP DRMUSTANGLN MINERALSTVALLEY PIKEN BUCKTON RDMiddletown 0 420 840210 Feet REZ # 04 - 25: Lau rel Ridge Community CollegeEducational Foun dation Inc.PIN: 91 - A - 99BRezoning from RA to HELong Ra nge Land U se M a p REZ #04-25 30 31 32 33 34 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA D.B. 855 PG. 071 TM# 99-A-100 BRIAN J. AND JASON G. HESTER D.B. 862 PG. 675 TM# 84-A-78 99 100 101 102 103 105 106 107 108 VALLEY PIKE U.S. HIGHWAY 11 (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) D D D D DT S D S S X X X X X X X OHU X X X X X X X X X X X X X D D D D T TTOHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHUOHUOHU X OHUD WWW W W 95.0' 6.5'32.1' 74.4'4.0'33.4'9.4' 46.7'68.0' 9.3'38.7' 48.6'8.6' 13.8'8.1 ' A=49.2 8' A=41. 2 3' 6'' SAN 6'' SAN 720720 7 1 5 715 715 720720 720 7 2 0720720 725 725 7257257 2 5 73073 0730 730 7307 3 0730 730 730725725725 720720725 7257257257 2 0 720 725 7 2 5 72 0 720 718.6' 718.3' 717.7'718.5' 715.6' 713.4' 712.4' 716.6' 718.6' 722.5' 727.5' 727.6' 721.7' 728.6' 729.3' 728.4' 729.3' 729.3' 729.6' 729.4' 729.6' 728.5' 727.6' 727.6' 726.5'725.4' 724.5' 723.5' 723.3' 722.4' 722.5' 721.3' 721.4' 720.4' 720.7' 719.7' 723.4' 724.7'723.0' 728.6' 728.6' 729.6' 729.4' 730.5' 731.6' 731.3' 731.7' 730.2' 729.5' 729.4' 728.6' 729.7' 727.5' 728.0' 726.3' 726.4' 726.6' 723.4' 717.5' 717.0' 717.4' 727.6' 729.4' 730.4' 731.4' 729.6' 722.3' 723.4' 720.5' 719.5' 726.6' 724.4' 722.3' 721.5' 720.6' 719.5' 722.4' 727.5' 728.5' 728.5' 720.4' 724.4' 726.4' 728.7' 727.6' 727.5' 723.4' 726.6' 724.7' 723.5' 723.4' 724.4' 721.7' 721.8' 721.8'720.27' 719.34' 719.51'718.92' 719.38' 721.41' 719.65' 721.57' 722.71' 722.84' 723.66' 722.24' 722.14' 717.59'716.70' 719.47' 719.29'720.08' 719.96' U VALLEY PIKE U.S. HIGHWAY 11 (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA D.B. 855 PG. 071 TM# 99-A-100 KELVIN AND PAMELA HENSON D.B. 950 PG. 1653 TM# 91-A-99A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIAD.B. 855 PG. 071TM# 99-A-100100' BR L100' BRL100' BRL60' BRL 60' BRL 60' BRL 50' BRL50' B R L 100' BR L 100' BR L 100' BRLN 46°14'05" E 256.23' N 46°14'05" E 250.00' N 45°56'36" E 505.27' N 46°14'05" E 350.87' 1315.3 6 ' S 58°5 4 ' 5 8 " W 1 3 8 1 . 1 8 ' ( T O T A L )N 49°41'19" W480.86'S 27°43'40" E432.10'N 62 ° 1 6 ' 2 0 " E 250. 0 0 'S 27°43'41" E311.86'LAUREL RIDGE COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC. D.B. 849 PG. 199 INST.# 120014017 INST.# 220012396 TM# 91-A-99B "LOT 2' 19.807 AC EXISTING ZONE: RA EXISTING USE: ACCESSORY USE FOR EDUCATION LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING SETBACKS SOIL IDENTIFICATION SOIL LIMITS 6C JOB NO. SHEET NO. SCALE DESIGNED BY CHECKED BYDATEDRAWN BY DATEREVISION DESCRIPTIONYOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but notlimited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.20110 Ashbrook Place, Suite 100 | Ashburn, VA 20147TEL 703.726.1342 FAX 703.726.1345 www.timmons.comTHIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THENORTHERN VIRGINIA OFFICES:\105\71688-LRCC_Lineman_Training\DWG\Sheet\Rezoning\71688-C2.0-EXIST.dwg | Plotted on 7/2/2025 5:19 PM | by Sidd AcharSRA OAR WTV 03/24/2025 LRCC LINEMAN TRAINING FACILITYFREDERICK COUNTY - VA71688 AS SHOWN 07/02/2025 Lic. No. OSVALDO A. RAMOS 058649 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANC2.0 SCALE 1"=50' 100'50'0 NAD 83 35 100'60' 24'66' PROPOS E D 6,000 SF B L D G 12' 25' BRL 25' BRL 25' BRL15' BRL15' BRL50' BRL 50' BRL 50' BRL 15' BRL15' B R L 15' BRLCLIMBING POLES POLE RACKS POWERLINE POLES FUTUR E SUBST A T I O N OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP FUTURE BLDG 6 FUTURE BLDG 30'30'6 6 6 84'24'24' FUTURE ENTRANCE AND ROAD NETWORK FUTURE PARKING LOT EXPANSION 52.5'12.5'12.5'52.5'ROW DEDICATION ROW DEDICATION COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA D.B. 855 PG. 071 TM# 99-A-100 BRIAN J. AND JASON G. HESTER D.B. 862 PG. 675 TM# 84-A-78 99 100 101 102 103 105 106 107 108 VALLEY PIKE U.S. HIGHWAY 11 (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) D D D D DT S D S S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X D D D D T TTXWDWWW W W BLD.HT.= 4 3 ' + -15" HDPE15" H D P E 15" HDPE15" HDPE 18" HD P E 18" H D P E 18" HDPE 15" HDPE15" HDPE15" HDPE 15" HDPE 6 " H D P E I N O U T = 7 1 3 . 6 9 6" HD P E I N V IN= 7 1 4. 4 795.0' 6.5'32.1' 74.4'4.0'33.4'9.4' 46.7'68.0' 9.3'38.7' 48.6'8.6' 13.8'8.1 ' A=49.2 8' A=41. 2 3' STUDEN T U N I O N B U I L D I N G 2 STORY M A S O N R Y A N D M E T A L FF=719.9 4 A S P H A L T B A S K E T B A L L C O U R T 6'' SAN 6'' SAN 135.1'210.1'126.7' GRAVEL ASPHAL T ASPHAL T ASPHAL T ASPHALT CONC. BRICK WALL BRICK SIGN COLUMN (TYP)COLUMN (TYP)CONC. WALKCONC. WALK CONC. WAL K CONC. ASPHALT WALK GRAVELBRICK W A L L CROSSWALK(TYP)CONC. WALK HCRHCRHCRCONC. PAD (TO BE REMOVED) CONC. W A L K CONC . W A L K U C O N C . 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-6A 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-2A OLD CARS VALLEY PIKE U.S. HIGHWAY 11 (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA D.B. 855 PG. 071 TM# 99-A-100 KELVIN AND PAMELA HENSON D.B. 950 PG. 1653 TM# 91-A-99A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIAD.B. 855 PG. 071TM# 99-A-100TM# 84-A-22 IPF IRS IRF (DISTURBED) IRF IRF ONLINE 0.36' NE IRF ONLINE 0.46' SE N 46°14'05" E 256.23' N 46°14'05" E 250.00' N 45°56'36" E 505.27' N 46°14'05" E 350.87' 1315.3 6 ' S 58°5 4 ' 5 8 " W 1 3 8 1 . 1 8 ' ( T O T A L )N 49°41'19" W480.86'S 27°43'40" E432.10'N 62 ° 1 6 ' 2 0 " E 250. 0 0 'S 27°43'41" E311.86'18.4'27.8'40.00'40.00'LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED ROW DEDICATION PROPOSED SETBACKS JOB NO. SHEET NO. SCALE DESIGNED BY CHECKED BYDATEDRAWN BY DATEREVISION DESCRIPTIONYOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but notlimited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.20110 Ashbrook Place, Suite 100 | Ashburn, VA 20147TEL 703.726.1342 FAX 703.726.1345 www.timmons.comTHIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THENORTHERN VIRGINIA OFFICES:\105\71688-lrcc_lineman_training\DWG\Sheet\Rezoning\71688-C4.0-LAYO.dwg | Plotted on 7/2/2025 5:22 PM | by Sidd AcharSRA OAR WTV 03/24/2025 LRCC LINEMAN TRAINING FACILITYFREDERICK COUNTY - VA71688 AS SHOWN 07/02/2025 Lic. No. OSVALDO A. RAMOS 058649 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANC3.0 SCALE 1"=50' 100'50'0 NAD 83 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Public Hearings Title: Conditional Use Permit #05-25 for Arcola Towers (Frederick Water) - (Mrs. Peloquin) Attachments: PC08-06-25_CUP05-25_Exhibits_Redacted.pdf PC08-06-25_CUP05-25_Redacted.pdf 68 Stephens City Wireless Site Proposal Overview July 2025 69 Background / Justification •T-Mobile is seeking to improve wireless service in Stephens City in the Shawnee District of Frederick County based on residents’ complaints. •Arcola Towers is in the business of planning, obtaining approvals for, constructing, and managing multi -carrier wireless sites. •T-Mobile and Arcola have determined that the significant investment in a new wireless site is justified. •UPDATE: AT&T has signed a letter of intent to collocate on the tower. Verizon also has poor service in the area and will likely collocate in the future. 70 History / Timeline DEC 2022 T-Mobile asks Arcola to take over lease talks with the Secure Storage landlord to build a site SEP 2023 T-Mobile puts the project on hold due to funding OCT 2023 Ground lease signed between Arcola Towers and Secure Storage MAY 2024 NEPA, PHASE 1, Balloon Fly, Public Outreach, Design, Due Diligence Complete JUN 2024 Community Meeting held with over 100 attendees. Based on community and county feedback, we are asked to explore alternate locations, including the Water Authority property JUL 2024 T-Mobile approves the Water Authority property for their needs. Arcola starts lease negotiations with the Water Authority NOV 2024 Lease with Water Authority is executed DEC 2024 Application submitted for Frederick County agency review MAY 2025 All Frederick County agencies approve the site plan. Arcola submits Conditional Use Application to Frederick County JUL 2025 AT&T issues letter of intent to collocate. 71 Why is a Tower Needed? •T-Mobile has a service deficiency in its wireless network in the surrounding part of Stephens City, particularly in -building coverage. Existing cell sites are too far away. •AT&T and Verizon also have anecdotal poor in-building coverage in the area. •Residents are reporting low -quality connections in the area, resulting in a high number of user requests for service improvement. •Improving service cannot be accomplished with the existing infrastructure in the area; it can only be solved by the placement of a new tower. 72 Existing T-Mobile Sites in the Area 73 Coverage –Without 7HCH417C 74 Coverage –With 7HCH417C 75 Properties Considered Limited locations that would meet all County codes for a new tower with proximity to Wakeland Manor and surrounding communities.76 FAQs COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1.Location and Appearance: Where will it be placed? What will it look like? What is the visual impact? 2.Precedent: Do other similar towers exist in the county? 3.Safety: Does it represent a hazard? Is it safe? 4.Home Values: Do towers have a negative impact on property values? 77 1. Location and Appearance 78 Aerial Depiction of Site Location Site is surrounded by dense tree cover and located on utility property. •South: 400+ feet tree buffer •West: 500+ feet tree buffer •East: 1,400+ feet tree buffer 79 Site Plan Setback to closest residential property line is 361 feet. Setback to closest home is 431 feet. Closest property line setback is 155 feet to vacant wooded HOA lot.80 Tower Elevation / Ground Equipmnt 81 Balloon Fly Photo Map 82 Visual 1 83 Visual 2 84 Visual 3 85 Visual 4 86 Visual 5 87 Visual 6 88 Visual 7 89 Visual 8 90 Visual 9 91 Visual 10 92 Visual 11 93 2. Precedent •At least 3 towers in the county have been approved within 425’ to the closest off-site residential home •One has been approved at 121’ to the closest home •Our proposed tower is 431’ to the closest home with about a 300’ tree buffer between the tower and the home 94 Wireless Structures in Surrounding Area * * Excludes Rooftops and In -Building 2. Precedent 95 3. Safety 96 Commercial Wireless Carriers RF Safety The FCC provides detailed guidance and rules of monitoring and measuring emissions of Wireless Carriers Cell Sites. This is in the form of a bulletin called OET65 which was reviewed for 5G and updated in 2019. The FCC as well as several other groups were involved in producing OET65. Groups such as: –American National Standards Institute (ANSI) –Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) –National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 97 Ionizing vs Non-Ionizing There are two (2) types of Energy/Radio Waves –Ionizing •These are waves that can affect human DNA •Examples are: –Gamma rays –X-Rays •This is one of the reasons the nurse steps out of the room and you wear a lead overcoat when you get X-Rays at the dentist. –Non- Ionizing •These are waves do not affect human DNA •Examples are: –Car Radios –Television –Wi-Fi Access points and routers –Bluetooth headsets –Cellphones and Smartphones –Lightbulbs –Wireless Baby Monitors –TV remotes –Absorption of waves is proximity based, the closer you are to the antenna the more non-ionizing energy is absorbed. You will absorb 50% of the FCC’s General Public limit with yoursmartphone next to your ear versus 1.3% of the FCC’s General Public limit from the antennas when you are standing 20’ away from the proposed tower. –The further you walk away from the tower it decreases even more. 98 Frequency Bands / 5G There are two (3) types of 5G deployments 5G on existing bands in use –Carriers have been using these frequency bands already for 4G service –5G technology is being overlaid in place of 4G –Just like when 4G replaced 3G or 3G replaced 2G, same concept 5G on new bands –Carriers have been overlaying this new C-Band frequency block onto existing sites Millimeter wave – 28 & 39 GHz –These are the frequency bands used on small cells –They typically cover only 2 or 3 city blocks –Small cells are typically built in Urban or heavy suburban area –Small cells are usually placed on right of way light poles Regardless of what band is being used the FCC still regulates all wireless carriers and they must follow the FCC guidelines noted in OET bulletin 65 99 Specific RF Safety Report and NIER Analysis Report •The results of the analysis indicate that the power density levels in the generally accessible areas on the Ground level will not exceed the FCC’s MPE limit for both General Population and Occupational environment. •• The max theoretical cumulative % MPE (Occupational) is 1.3% inside the compound, which is not accessible to the General Public. This is 1.3% out of 100% permitted exposure allowed by the FCC. 100 101 4. Property Values Arcola commissioned an analysis of the impact of cell towers on property values from Christopher Harold of REACS Management, LLC. Methodology: • Real estate property value data was compiled from public property sales records and matched to tower construction dates. The analysis focused on five-year real estate value trends, as shorter-term trends were found to be less reliable. The metric used in comparison was the average sales price per square foot of finished real estate. Tower data was compiled from public records from the Federal Communications Commission database. •For each comparable tower, the average real estate value in the surrounding area was recorded one year prior to construction to determine a “control value” of home prices in the neighborhood prior to tower construction. The average home values were recorded again five years after tower construction. The growth over this period for these specific neighborhoods was then compared to the growth during the same period for the overall •Frederick County/City of Winchester market to determine if there was any correlation between tower proximity and real estate value growth. In the event that a specific community was built less than five years prior to this report, the data was taken as of the first day of sale in the community. The surrounding area/neighborhood was determined by a one-mile radius around where the tower was constructed. 102 103 Property Values within 500’ To further support the findings of this report, we analyzed three towers located within 500 feet of residential homes in Frederick County. Each case demonstrates that close proximity to a tower has not resulted in diminished property values. ADDRESS HEIGHT CLOSEST HOME VALUES W/IN 1 MILE (LAST YEAR) COUNTY RES VALUES (LAST YEAR) 121 SOLDIERS REST LN 266'422'$190.16 $216.54 161 TRINITY LN 140'121'$277.32 $216.54 4621 MIDDLE RD 180'415'$254.45 $216.54 (1)In two of three instances,the average property values in close proximity to a tower are higher in the past year,than the County/City wide market. (2)Furthermore,values for homes within 500 ’of these towers show median prices that meet or exceed both county/citywide benchmarks.Notably,one property near the Middle Road tower (2532 Middle Rd) sold at approximately 35%above the 22602 ZIP-code median. a.Example Comparable Sales: i.2717 Middle Rd:Sold May 2025 for $530,000 (5 bed /3 bath, $156/ft²) ii.2532 Middle Rd:Sold May 2025 for $565,000 (4 bed /3 bath, iii.$268/ft²) Trinity Lane Area: Mid-range home sold January 2025 for approximately $515,000 iv.Benchmarks: ZIP code 22602 median: $420,000; Winchester citywide median: $370,000 These findings reinforce the conclusion that cell tower presence—even within 500 feet of homes—does not inhibit property value growth and, in many cases, is consistent with or even exceeds regional appreciation rates. 104 Property Values – Conclusion 1.There is no pattern of real estate value depreciation resulting from cell tower construction. 2.Average growth of property values near towers exceeded average growth in the County, showing no correlation between tower proximity and property values. 3.In most cases, real estate values continued to appreciate at or above citywide averages. 4.New home developers are not deterred by a nearby tower when siting a new development. 5.Even home values within 500' of a tower are on par or higher than County averages. 105 Impact of Cell Tower Installations on Real Estate Values in Frederick County, VA Prepared for: Arcola Towers Prepared by: Christopher Harold, REACS Management, LLC VA Firm Broker License # 0226035964 VA Individual Broker License # 0225264078 Subject Tower: Arcola: Stephens City Monopole Executive Summary This report evaluates the potential effect on proximate real estate values associated with the installation of a 150-foot tall cell tower at 330 Lakeside Drive in Stephens City, Virginia. To assess the potential impact of tower construction on nearby property values, we analyzed real estate value trends in the proximity of nearby wireless towers and compared those values with trends across the larger Frederick County/City of Winchester market. We analyzed home values within a radius of one mile around 12 wireless towers constructed in Frederick County and the City of Winchester, and compared those values with average real estate values from (a) the year prior to tower construction and (b) five years post-construction. We also evaluated whether proximity of wireless towers would have any impact on new home development. We looked at new home communities in Frederick County/City of Winchester, built within the past five years, to determine if there was any difference in real estate value growth for communities built in close proximity to a wireless tower, compared to those not built in close proximity to a wireless tower. Methodology Real estate property value data was compiled from public property sales records and matched to tower construction dates. The analysis focused on five-year real estate value trends, as shorter-term trends were found to be less reliable. The metric used in comparison was the average sales price per square foot of finished real estate. Tower data was compiled from public records from the Federal Communications Commission database. For each comparable tower, the average real estate value in the surrounding area was recorded one year prior to construction to determine a “control value” of home prices in the neighborhood prior to tower construction. The average home values were recorded again five years after tower construction. The growth over this period for these specific neighborhoods was then compared to the growth during the same period for the overall Frederick County/City of Winchester market to determine if there was any correlation 106 between tower proximity and real estate value growth. In the event that a specific community was built less than five years prior to this report, the data was taken as of the first dale of sale in the community. The surrounding area/neighborhood was determined by a one-mile radius around where the tower was constructed. Key Point: The average growth of property values within a mile radius of a wireless tower exceeds the average growth of property values in the Frederick County/City of Winchester market overall We analyzed values around 12 wireless towers constructed in Frederick County/City of Winchester, comparing average real estate values from the year prior to tower construction with values five years post-construction. Out of 12 towers analyzed: The average growth of property values within a mile radius of a wireless tower exceeded the average growth of property values in the Frederick County/City of Winchester market overall. This indicates that there is no direct correlation between a tower sited in close proximity to a neighborhood and property value growth. (1) The average real estate value growth observed in Frederick County/City of Winchester for the representative five-year periods following tower construction was +4.34% per year. (2) The average real estate value growth observed within a one-mile radius of wireless tower for the representative five-year periods following tower construction was +7.15% per year. (3) Out of the 12 one-mile areas around towers analyzed, in eight instances the area around the tower had a higher-than-average growth, and in four instances the area around the tower had lower-than-average growth. *RES Values = Average dollar per square foot of finished real estate based on public sales records. *Prior 12 Mo = Data taken from period 12 months prior to tower construction. *Post 60 Mo = Data taken from period 60 months following tower construction. TOWER FCC FILE #CONSTRUCTED OWNER ADDRESS HEIGHT PRIOR 12 MO POST 60 MO GROWTH PRIOR 12 MO POST 60 MO GROWTH DELTA TOWER A 1059430 9/9/1998 CROWN CASTLE 700 TOWN RUN LN 195'$61.22 $85.12 39.06%$155.50 $236.21 51.90%12.8% TOWER B 1053229 1/1/2004 VERTICAL BRIDGE CC FM SINGHASS ROAD 195'$104.49 $139.09 33.12%$94.85 $142.61 50.36%17.2% TOWER C 1234139 2/24/2004 SBA INFRASTRUCTURE 311 CROSS JUNCTION RD 265'$105.74 $138.93 31.39%$89.88 $142.24 58.26%26.9% TOWER D 1232986 5/8/2004 SBA INFRASTRUCTURE 8926 N FREDERICK PIKE 199'$108.91 $138.46 27.14%$108.99 $165.61 51.95%24.8% TOWER E 1246347 3/16/2005 CCATT 1460 UNIVERSITY DR 129'$126.00 $134.11 6.44%$130.59 $138.34 5.93%-0.5% TOWER F 1265654 5/27/2009 VB-S1 ASSETS 2625 VALLEY AVE 100'$103.99 $97.58 -6.16%$103.05 $104.06 0.98%7.1% TOWER G UNKNOWN 1/25/2012 AT&T 2060 MARTINSBURG PK 128'$91.59 $109.40 19.44%$80.24 $117.27 46.15%26.7% TOWER H 1291699 3/28/2014 VB-S1 ASSETS 2633 PAPER MILL RD 91'$106.41 $120.29 13.04%$105.39 $116.25 10.31%-2.7% TOWER I 1296762 7/11/2016 CITY OF WINCHESTER 231 EAST PICCADILLY ST 150'$115.05 $138.29 20.20%$116.10 $125.28 7.90%-12.3% TOWER J 1298201 9/15/2016 HORVATH TOWERS V 375 BATTLAILLE DR 84'$115.96 $140.80 21.42%$115.84 $150.05 29.53%8.1% TOWER K 1302152 6/21/2017 VB-S1 ASSETS 501 WEST JUBAL EARLY DR 104'$120.27 $150.16 24.86%$131.11 $151.11 15.26%-9.6% TOWER L UNKNOWN 5/18/2021 CROWN CASTLE 161 TRINITY LN 140'$152.50 $198.97 30.48%$138.36 $277.32 100.43%70.0% FREDERICK COUNTY RES VALUES NEIGHBORHOOD RES VALUESCOMPARABLE TOWERS 107 Figure: Comparison of 5-Year Real Estate Value Growth in Tower-Adjacent Neighborhoods (1-Mile Radius) vs. Frederick County/City of Winchester Key Point: Property values in new home communities are not affected by proximity of wireless towers. Furthermore, new home developers are not deterred by proximity to wireless towers when siting new communities. We analyzed seven new home communities constructed since 2020 in Frederick County/City of Winchester, comparing growth of the home values in these communities sited within a mile of a wireless tower to the growth of the home values of communities sited outside of a mile radius of a wireless tower. The average growth of property values in the three communities built in close proximity (1 mile radius) to a wireless tower exceeded the average growth of the four communities that were not sited within close proximity of a wireless tower. This indicates that there is no negative impact between a tower sited in close proximity to a new home development and property value growth. It further indicates that proximity to a wireless tower is not a deterrent for new home developers. -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% A B C D E F G H I J K L5 YEAR REAL ESTATE VALUE GROWTHTOWER 5 YEAR REAL ESTATE VALUE GROWTH: NEIGHBORHOOD VS. CITYWIDE COUNTY GROWTH NEIGHBORHOOD GROWTH 108 (1) The average property value growth observed overall in these communities was 3.37% per year. (2) The average property value growth is those three communities sited within a mile of a wireless tower was 5.10% per year. All of these communities had existing towers within a mile radius before development began. (3) The average property value growth of those four communities sited outside a mile of a wireless tower was 2.70% per year. *RES Values = Average dollar per square foot of finished real estate based on public sales records. Key Point: Even home values within 500' of a wireless tower are on par or higher than County/City averages. To further support the findings of this report, we analyzed three towers located within 500 feet of residential homes in Frederick County. Each case demonstrates that close proximity to a tower has not resulted in diminished property values. (1) In two of three instances, the average property values in close proximity to a tower are higher in the past year, than the County/City wide market. (2) Furthermore, values for homes within 500’of these towers show median prices that meet or exceed both county/citywide benchmarks. Notably, one property near the Middle Road tower (2532 Middle Rd) sold at approximately 35% above the 22602 ZIP-code median. a. Example Comparable Sales: i. 2717 Middle Rd: Sold May 2025 for $530,000 (5 bed / 3 bath, $156/ft²) ii. 2532 Middle Rd: Sold May 2025 for $565,000 (4 bed / 3 bath, $268/ft²) NEIGHBORHOOD/D EVELOPMENT NEAREST TOWER LAT LONG HEIGHT TYPE OWNER TOWER CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPER RES VALUES AT DEVELOPMENT RES VALUES 2025 AVG. ANNUAL GROWTH SNOWDEN BRIDGE 1.6 MI 39.2241 -78.126 128'SST AT&T 2012 2020 BROOKFIELD 146.45$ 191.99$ 6.01% FREEDOM MANOR 1.0 MI 39.1393 -78.181 84'MP HORVATH TOWERS V 2016 2020 DR HORTON 139.98$ 189.92$ 6.72% SOUTHERN HILLS 0.5 MI 39.0664 -78.229 195'SST CROWN CASTLE 1998 2020 RICHMOND AMERICAN 155.50$ 236.21$ 9.36% RAVEN OAKS 1.2 MI 39.1656 -78.1536 129'MP CROWN CASTLE 2005 2021 RICHMOND AMERICAN 203.37$ 226.71$ 3.02% ABRAMS POINT 1.6 MI 39.1578 -78.107 266'SST AMERICAN TOWERS 1991 2022 RICHMOND AMERICAN 201.52$ 198.29$ -0.44% SENSENY RIDGE 0.4 MI 39.1578 -78.1073 266'SST AMERICAN TOWERS 1991 2023 LENNAR 193.44$ 190.16$ -0.76% VALLEY VIEW 2.0 MI 39.1239 -78.212 257'SST VB-S1 ASSETS 1996 2023 DR HORTON 216.62$ 215.14$ -0.31% ADDRESS HEIGHT CLOSEST HOME VALUES W/IN 1 MILE (LAST YEAR) COUNTY RES VALUES (LAST YEAR) 121 SOLDIERS REST LN 266'422'190.16$ 216.54$ 161 TRINITY LN 140'121'277.32$ 216.54$ 4621 MIDDLE RD 180'415'254.45$ 216.54$ 109 iii. Trinity Lane Area: Mid-range home sold January 2025 for approximately $515,000 iv. Benchmarks: ZIP code 22602 median: $420,000; Winchester citywide median: $370,000 These findings reinforce the conclusion that cell tower presence—even within 500 feet of homes—does not inhibit property value growth and, in many cases, is consistent with or even exceeds regional appreciation rates. Conclusion Based on this study: (1) There is no pattern of real estate value depreciation resulting from cell tower construction. (2) Average growth of property values near towers actually exceeded average growth in the County, showing no correlation between tower proximity and property values. (3) In most cases, real estate values continued to appreciate at or above citywide averages. (4) New home developers are not deterred by a nearby tower when siting a new development. (5) Even home values within 500' of a tower are on par or higher than County averages. Based on this study, the proposed 150’ cell tower at 330 Lakeside Drive in Stephens City is unlikely to have a material negative impact on nearby real estate values. Sincerely, Christopher Harold President, REACS Management, LLC VA Firm Broker License # 0226035964 VA Individual Broker License # 0225264078 110 111 112 113 Exhibit “1” 114 SITET-16100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026T-MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC115 SITE6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026C-1LEGENDLINE TYPESSIDE YARD (SOUTH)SIDE YARD (NORTH WEST)REAR YARD (NORTH EAST)MONOPOLE SETBACKS PROPOSEDREQUIRED221.5'155.0'361.1'FRONT YARD ( WEST)140'556.3'SITE NOTES155'120'120'116 6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026C-2117 6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026C-3118 6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026C-4119 C-56100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026120 A-16100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026121 S-16100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.ROCKVILLE, MD 20852PHONE: (202) 408-0960SUITE 430112 N. WASHINGTON STMIDDLEBURG, VA 20117PHONE: (571) 895 3990 SUITE 201CAMILLE SHABSHABLic. No. 044026122 Exhibit “2” 123 ^//^^/ W&t^/ February 26, 2025 Madi Kirven Arcola Towers RE: Proposed 150’ Sabre Monopole for Stephens City, VA Dear Madi, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced Sabre monopole for an Ultimate Wind Speed of 111 mph without ice and 30 mph + 1” ice, Risk Category II, Exposure Category B, and Topographic Category 1, in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA 222-H-2017 “Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas”. When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include several safety factors. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built-in safety factors. Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built-in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within the monopole shaft, above the base plate. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above leaning over and remaining in a permanently deformed condition. This would effectively result in a fall radius of 150’ at ground level. Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Industries. Sincerely, Robert E. Beacom, P.E., S.E. Engineering Manager 124 Exhibit “3” 125 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2024-AEA-12099-OE Page 1 of 7 Issued Date: 12/18/2024 COLLEEN KHAN ENTREX 6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD STE 430 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Monopole ARCOLA TOWERS - STEPHENS CITY Location:STEPHENS CITY, VA Latitude:39-06-17.89N NAD 83 Longitude:78-10-25.91W Heights:700 feet site elevation (SE) 152 feet above ground level (AGL) 852 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: Emissions from this site must be in compliance with the parameters set by collaboration between the FAA and telecommunications companies and reflected in the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process (such as power, frequencies, and tilt angle). Operational use of this frequency band is not objectionable provided the Wireless Providers (WP) obtain and adhere to the parameters established by the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process. Failure to comply with this condition will void this determination of no hazard. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M Change 1. This determination expires on 06/18/2026 unless: 126 Page 2 of 7 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Joe Burkhardt, at (404) 305-5958, or Joseph.CTR.Burkhardt@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2024-AEA-12099-OE. Signature Control No: 637566097-642284227 ( DNE ) Julie A. Morgan Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Frequency Data 127 Page 3 of 7 Map(s) cc: FCC 128 Page 4 of 7 Additional information for ASN 2024-AEA-12099-OE Part 77 authorizes the FAA to evaluate a structure or object's potential electromagnetic effects on air navigation, communication facilities, and other surveillance systems. It also authorizes study of impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under visual or instrument flight rules, as well as the impact on airport traffic capacity at existing public use airports. Broadcast in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz frequency (5G C band) currently causes errors in certain aircraft radio altimeters and the FAA has determined they cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function when experiencing interference from wireless broadband operations in the 5G C band. The FAA has adopted Airworthiness Directives for all transport and commuter category aircraft equipped with radio altimeters that prohibit certain operations when in the presence of 5G C band. This determination of no hazard is based upon those mitigations implemented by the FAA and operators of transport and commuter category aircraft, and helicopters operating in the vicinity of your proposed location. It is also based on telecommunication industry and FAA collaboration on acceptable power levels and other parameters as reflected in the FAA 5G C band evaluation process. The FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation is a data analytics system used by FAA to evaluate operational hazards related to aircraft design. The FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process refers to the process in which the telecommunication companies and the FAA have set parameters, such as power output, locations, frequencies, and tilt angles for antenna that mitigate the hazard to aviation. As the telecommunication companies and FAA refine the tools and methodology, the allowable frequencies and power levels may change in the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process. Therefore, your proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft provided the equipment and emissions are in compliance with the parameters established through the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process. Any future changes that are not consistent with the parameters listed in the FAA 5G C band compatibility evaluation process will void this determination of no hazard. 129 Page 5 of 7 Frequency Data for ASN 2024-AEA-12099-OE LOW FREQUENCY HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT 6 7 GHz 55 dBW 6 7 GHz 42 dBW 10 11.7 GHz 55 dBW 10 11.7 GHz 42 dBW 17.7 19.7 GHz 55 dBW 17.7 19.7 GHz 42 dBW 21.2 23.6 GHz 55 dBW 21.2 23.6 GHz 42 dBW 614 698 MHz 2000 W 614 698 MHz 1000 W 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 901 MHz 500 W 806 824 MHz 500 W 824 849 MHz 500 W 851 866 MHz 500 W 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 929 932 MHz 3500 W 930 931 MHz 3500 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 W 1670 1675 MHz 500 W 1710 1755 MHz 500 W 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1850 1990 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 1990 2025 MHz 500 W 2110 2200 MHz 500 W 2305 2360 MHz 2000 W 2305 2310 MHz 2000 W 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W 2496 2690 MHz 500 W 3700 3980 MHz 1640 W 130 Page 6 of 7 TOPO Map for ASN 2024-AEA-12099-OE 131 Page 7 of 7 Sectional Map for ASN 2024-AEA-12099-OE 132 Exhibit “4” 133 134 135 Exhibit “5” 136 112 W Washington St #201, Middleburg, VA 20117 | PO Box 2150, Middleburg, VA 20118 | 571.895.3990 | arcolatowers.com Arcola Towers: Stephens City Alternative Candidate Analysis Arcola Towers submits this document to address alternative candidates it considered during its selection process. T-Mobile has a specific search ring in Frederick County at the end of Lakeside Drive with a requested antenna centerline of 150 ft. Existing Structures in the Search Ring Arcola Towers was able to confirm there are no existing towers, or other structures closer to 150 ft. in height within the specified search ring, nor within a reasonable distance outside of the search ring. 137 112 W Washington St #201, Middleburg, VA 20117 | PO Box 2150, Middleburg, VA 20118 | 571.895.3990 | arcolatowers.com Existing Structures outside of the Search Ring Arcola Towers then located the nearest existing tower locations as shown on the attached map in a 1-mile radius: This map illustrates a 1-mile radius from the proposed tower and as shown on the map, there are no existing towers. The closest tower is 1.89 miles to the South of the search ring and will not cover the intended area. Conclusion As noted above, there are no existing structures of sufficient height within the described search ring, the closest existing tower to the Search Ring Center is 1.89 miles away, and is a Shentel 100 ft tower with T-Mobile is already on the tower. Arcola has leased a property from a willing landlord whose property will be developed in accordance with Frederick County regulations. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct: _________________ Ryan Foltz on behalf of Arcola Towers 138 Exhibit “6” 139 RF EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE REPORT Prepared for: 70RELOH Site: 6HFXUH6WRUHStephens City 3350 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA, 22655 39.10497, -78.173864 February 2, 2025 This site will be in compliance with FCC Regulations and MPE Limits: T-Mobile Is 0.587% of General Population (GP) Limit (0.117% of Occupational (Occ) Limit) Analysis completed using Waterford's NIERTool© software Only clients and client representatives are authorized to provide input data through the Waterford web portal. In securing that authorization, clients and client representatives warrant the accuracy of all input data. Waterford Consultants, LLC attests to the accuracy of the engineering calculations. Waterford also attests that the results of those engineering calculations are correctly summarized in this report. Copyright 2005-2019 NIERTool.com, LLC. All rights reserved 7430 New Technology Way Suite 150 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com Control # 107380 Frederick, MD 21703 $,1,*5,9)2+7/$(:12002&52)(66,21$/(1 *,1((552((57,0$/(;$1'(5 /LF1R SIGNED, 25 FEB 2025 EXPIRES, 30 APR 2026 140 RF EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT Site: 6WHSKHQV&LW\ 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA, 22655 Compliance Statement Subject site COMPLIES with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits of 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b)(3) and 1.1310. Ground Level Site Summary Predicted cumulative RF power density at ground level as a percentage of the FCC General Population limits. This result is the sum of the maximum ground level MPE for each RF emitter by band of operation. Sites below 100% are in full compliance. Source Predicted Power Density, % of Limit (GP) T-Mobile 600 MHz 0.067 % T-Mobile 700 MHz 0.045 % T-Mobile 1900 MHz 0.082 % T-Mobile 2100 MHz 0.394 % T-Mobile 11000 MHz 0.000 % Sum of Listed Sources 0.587% Page 1 of 21 - Control # 107380 141 . Page 2 of 21 - Control # 107380 142 Technical Framerwork: Basis for Compliance Statement The compliance framework is derived from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for preventing human exposure in excess of the applicable Maximum Permissible Exposure (“MPE”) limits listed in Table 1 of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310. Calculations using input data provided to Waterford by client or client's representative numerically confirm the subject site can operate at a 100% duty cycle without exceeding the FCC MPE limits in areas of uncontrolled access. At this site, the radio frequency (RF) power density resulting from each transmitter at any location may be expressed as a percentage of the frequency-specific limits and added to determine if 100% of the exposure limit has been exceeded. The FCC Rules define two tiers of permissible exposure differentiated by the situation in which the exposure takes place and/or the status of the individuals who are subject to exposure. General Population / Uncontrolled exposure limits apply to those situations in which persons may not be aware of the presence of electromagnetic energy, where exposure is not employment related, or where persons cannot exercise control over their exposure. Occupational / Controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment, have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure, and can exercise control over their exposure. Based on the criteria for these classifications, continuous exposure to RF power density levels below the FCC General Population limits is not hazardous. The FCC General Population limits are 5 times more restrictive than the Occupational limits.. Frequency (MHz) Limits for General Population/ Uncontrolled Exposure Limits for Occupational/ Controlled Exposure Power Density (mW/cm2) Averaging Time (minutes) Power Density (mW/cm2) Averaging Time (minutes) 30-300 0.2 30 1 6 300-1500 f/1500 30 f/300 6 1500-100,000 1.0 30 5.0 6 In situations where the predicted MPE exceeds the General Population threshold in an accessible area because of emissions from multiple transmitters, FCC licensees that contribute greater than 5% of the aggregate MPE share responsibility for mitigation. For any location where radiofrequency (RF) power densities exceed 100% MPE of the General Population limits, access controls with appropriate RF alerting signage must be available to be visible upon approach from any direction to provide notification of potential conditions within these areas. Subject to other site security requirements, occupational personnel should be trained in RF safety and equipped with personal protective equipment (e.g. RF personal monitor) designed for safe work in the vicinity of RF emitters. Waterford Consultants, LLC recommends that any work activity in these designated areas or in front of any transmitting antennas be coordinated with the wireless operators. Page 3 of 21 - Control # 107380 143 Predictive Modeling Based on the computational guidelines set forth in FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Bulletin 65 ("OET65"), Waterford Consultants, LLC has developed software to predict the overall MPE possible at any particular location given the spatial orientation and operating parameters of multiple RF sources. These theoretical results represent worst-case predictions as emitters are assumed to be operating at 100% duty cycle. The tabular analysis in this report calculates the spatial peak power density produced at ground level from each RF emitter. The far field power density in milliWatts per square centimeter is expressed as Sff = 33.4 x ERP / R2 where ERP is the Effective Radiated Power along a specific azimuth in Watts and R is the distance from the antenna radiation center in meters. The antenna manufacturer’s horizontal and vertical radiation patterns have been considered in determining the ERP in any direction. This computation is based on the maximum ERP and includes a 1.6-fold increase in field strength due to ground reflection. The result provides a conservative estimate of spatially averaged power density at ground level and may be higher than predicted MPE in the graphical plots described below. As the limits are frequency dependent, the contribution of any RF source at a specific location may be expressed as a percentage of the FCC General Population MPE limits at the associated operating frequency. The percentage contributions from all RF sources are added to determine the overall exposure level. If this result is less than 100%, the predicted cumulative exposure level is below the General Population limits set forth in the FCC Rules. The cumulative MPE depicted on the summary page is the summation of maximum MPE values for each emitter regardless of antenna orientation. A graphical plot of calculated spatially averaged RF power density, based on the Cylindrical Model as described in OET65, predicts spatially averaged MPE conditions at areas in near proximity to the antenna. In the vertical display, predicted MPE is depicted at the center of the 6 ft vertical zone that a person could occupy. Page 4 of 21 - Control # 107380 144 Qualifications of Waterford With more than 100 team-years of experience, Waterford Consultants, LLC [Waterford] provides technical consulting services to clients in the radio communications and antenna locating industry. Waterford retains professional engineers who are placed in responsible charge of the processes for analysis. Waterford is familiar with 47 C.F.R. § § 1.1307(b)(3) and 1.1310 along with the general Rules, Regulations and policies of the FCC. Waterford work processes incorporate all specifications of FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Bulletin 65 ("OET65"), from the website: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety and follow criteria detailed in 47 CFR § 1.1310 "Radiofrequency radiation exposure Limits". Within the technical and regulatory framework detailed above, Waterford developed tools according to recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Permissible exposure limits are band specific, and the Waterford computerized modeling tools correctly calculate permissible exposure based on the band(s) specified in the input data. Only clients and client representatives are authorized to provide input data through the Waterford web portal. In securing that authorization, clients and client representatives attest to the accuracy of all input data. Waterford Consultants, LLC attests to the accuracy of the engineering calculations computed by those modeling tools. Furthermore, Waterford attests that the results of those engineering calculations are correctly summarized in this report. Page 5 of 21 - Control # 107380 145 Antenna Inventory #Operator Make Model Freq (MHz) Az (deg) Tilt (deg) HorBW (deg) Ant (ft) TPO (w)Paths Loss (db) Ant Gain Utilization % Radiated Power (W) RC AGL (ft) 1 T-Mobile RFS APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 600 600 0 0 67.08 7.992 5 4 0.6 13.09dBd 100 3259.270 ERP 145 2 T-Mobile RFS APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 600 600 160 0 67.08 7.992 5 4 0.6 13.09dBd 100 3259.270 ERP 145 3 T-Mobile RFS APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 600 600 270 0 67.08 7.992 5 4 0.6 13.09dBd 100 3259.270 ERP 145 4 T-Mobile RFS APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 700 700 0 0 60.94 7.992 5 4 0.6 13.17dBd 100 3319.860 ERP 145 5 T-Mobile RFS APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 700 700 160 0 60.94 7.992 5 4 0.6 13.17dBd 100 3319.860 ERP 145 6 T-Mobile RFS APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 700 700 270 0 60.94 7.992 5 4 0.6 13.17dBd 100 3319.860 ERP 145 7 T-Mobile COMMSCOPE HBXX-6516DS-VTM 00DT 1900 1900 0 0 66 4.258 5 4 0.6 17.12dBi 100 8240.690 EIRP 145 8 T-Mobile COMMSCOPE HBXX-6516DS-VTM 00DT 1900 1900 160 0 66 4.258 5 4 0.6 17.12dBi 100 8240.690 EIRP 145 9 T-Mobile COMMSCOPE HBXX-6516DS-VTM 00DT 1900 1900 270 0 66 4.258 5 4 0.6 17.12dBi 100 8240.690 EIRP 145 10 T-Mobile ERICSSON SON_AIR3246 B66 dlMACRO TB 2100 2100 0 0 45 5 5 4 0.6 19.07dBd 100 21181.850 EIRP 145 11 T-Mobile ERICSSON SON_AIR3246 B66 dlMACRO TB 2100 2100 160 0 45 5 5 4 0.6 19.07dBd 100 21181.850 EIRP 145 12 T-Mobile ERICSSON SON_AIR3246 B66 dlMACRO TB 2100 2100 270 0 45 5 5 4 0.6 19.07dBd 100 21181.850 EIRP 145 13 T-Mobile RFS SC2-W100AC 11000 300 0 3.2 2 5 4 0.6 34.5dBi 100 563.470 EIRP 145 Page 6 of 21 - Control # 107380 146 ELEVATION DETAIL [Predicted MPE depicted at the center of the 6 ft vertical zone that a person could occupy Page 7 of 21 - Control # 107380 147 TOP DOWN DETAIL Page 8 of 21 - Control # 107380 148 GROUND LEVEL MPE BY RF EMITTER The maximum ground level MPE along the azimuth of orientation for each RF emitter by band of operation  is listed below. The computational approach is described in the Predictive Modeling section.  The maximum MPE b y operator and band is contributive to the cumulative ground level MPE summary table presented above. T-Mobile Stephens City RFS - APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 700 160° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 700 MHz Limit (GP):466.000 µW/cm^2 ERP Height Downtilt (Watts)3319.860 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.210 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.045 % Page 9 of 21 - Control # 107380 149 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ COMMSCOPE - HBXX-6516DS-VTM 00DT 1900 0° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 1900 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)8240.690 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.818 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.082 % Page 10 of 21 - Control # 107380 150 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ COMMSCOPE - HBXX-6516DS-VTM 00DT 1900 160° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 1900 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)8240.690 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.818 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.082 % Page 11 of 21 - Control # 107380 151 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ ERICSSON - SON_AIR3246 B66 dlMACRO TB 2100 0° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 2100 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)21181.850 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:3.937 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.394 % Page 12 of 21 - Control # 107380 152 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ ERICSSON - SON_AIR3246 B66 dlMACRO TB 2100 160° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 2100 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)21181.850 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:3.937 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.394 % Page 13 of 21 - Control # 107380 153 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ ERICSSON - SON_AIR3246 B66 dlMACRO TB 2100 270° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 2100 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)21181.850 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:3.937 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.394 % Page 14 of 21 - Control # 107380 154 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ RFS - SC2-W100AC 300° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 11000 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)563.470 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.001 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.000 % Page 15 of 21 - Control # 107380 155 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ RFS - APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 700 0° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 700 MHz Limit (GP):466.000 µW/cm^2 ERP Height Downtilt (Watts)3319.860 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.210 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.045 % Page 16 of 21 - Control # 107380 156 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ RFS - APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 700 270° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 700 MHz Limit (GP):466.000 µW/cm^2 ERP Height Downtilt (Watts)3319.860 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.210 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.045 % Page 17 of 21 - Control # 107380 157 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ RFS - APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 600 0° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 600 MHz Limit (GP):400.000 µW/cm^2 ERP Height Downtilt (Watts)3259.270 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.267 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.067 % Page 18 of 21 - Control # 107380 158 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ RFS - APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 600 160° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 600 MHz Limit (GP):400.000 µW/cm^2 ERP Height Downtilt (Watts)3259.270 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.267 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.067 % Page 19 of 21 - Control # 107380 159 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ RFS - APXVAARR24 43-U-NA20 00DT 600 270° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 600 MHz Limit (GP):400.000 µW/cm^2 ERP Height Downtilt (Watts)3259.270 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.267 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.067 % Page 20 of 21 - Control # 107380 160 T-Mobile 6WHSKHQV&LW\ COMMSCOPE - HBXX-6516DS-VTM 00DT 1900 270° Sector Maximum Exposure Limit - 1900 MHz Limit (GP):1000.000 µW/cm^2 EiRP Height Downtilt (Watts)8240.690 (feet)145.000 (Degrees)0 Maximum power density at ground level:0.818 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Exposure Limit:0.082 % Page 21 of 21 - Control # 107380 161 Exhibit “7” 162 163 Exhibit “8” 164 NEPA Report December 2, 2024 Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Trileaf # 750196 Prepared For: Prepared By: Arcola Towers Trileaf Corporation 112 W Washington St #210 8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 301 Middleburg, VA 20117 Towson, MD 21286 165 NEPA Report Summary Site Name/Location: Stephens City/Trileaf # 750196 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W Project Description: Arcola Towers proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an 1. Is the facility located in an officially designated wilderness area? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(1)] Yes No Data Sources: Site Reconnaissance Review of 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Map (Appendix B) National Wilderness Preservation System Website (www.wilderness.net) 2. Is the facility located in an officially designated wildlife preserve? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(2)] Yes No Data Sources: Site Reconnaissance Review of 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Map (Appendix B) US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Map (Appendix B) 3. Will the facility: (i) affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats; or (ii) jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species; or is it likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(3)] Yes No Conditional Clearance Data Sources: Site Reconnaissance Review of US Fish & Wildlife Service Critical Habitat and Federally Listed Endangered Species (Appendix D) Informal Biological Assessment (Appendix D) VA Department of Conservation & Recreation and Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources 4. Will the facility affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(4)] Yes No Data Sources: Site Reconnaissance Cultural Resource Investigation (Appendix E) State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 Review (Appendix E) 5. Will the facility affect an Indian religious site? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(5)] Yes No Data Sources: Site Reconnaissance Correspondence with Native American Tribes via FCC TCNS (Appendix F) Review of Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Reservation Map (Appendix B) 6. Will the facility be located in a "floodplain", and not be placed at least one (1) foot above the base flood elevation of the floodplain? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(6)] Yes No Data Sources: Review of FEMA Flood Map (Appendix B) 7. Will the construction of the facility involve significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion)? [47 CFR 1.1307 (a)(7)] Yes No Data Sources: Site Reconnaissance Review of 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Map (Appendix B) Review of US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map (Appendix B) Review of USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey Map (Appendix B) 8. Will the antenna tower or supporting structure be equipped with high intensity white lights and located in a residential neighborhood, as defined by the applicable zoning law? Yes No Data Sources: Construction Drawings (Appendix A) It is assumed that clients will not utilize high intensity white lights in residential areas 9. Will the facility cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation in excess of Commission-adopted guidelines? Yes No Data Sources: Construction Drawings (Appendix A) and/or interviews with clients Clients will comply with the established criteria regarding radio frequency exposure limits, as established at the time of this report 166 December 2, 2024 Signature Date Reggie Torres Trileaf Corporation Name Company 167 1 NEPA Report Introduction Trileaf Corporation (Trileaf) completed a NEPA Review for the above-referenced Arcola Towers (Arcola Towers) site. The purpose of a NEPA Review is to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Trileaf performed extensive research by consulting with appropriate state and federal agencies and reviewing readily available published lists, files, data, and maps to provide our clients with a complete NEPA document. The following summarizes the scope of work Trileaf performed in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) rules implementing NEPA (47 CFR Section 1.1307 (a) (1) through (8) to determine whether any of the below listed FCC special interest items would be affected by the proposed action. Referenced materials are included as attachments, where applicable and available. Arcola Towers proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed project site is located at approximately 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 at 39° 6’ 17.89” North latitude and 78° 10’ 25.91” West longitude. During Trileaf’s site reconnaissance, it was observed that the site is currently forested land, and the areas surrounding the site are currently residential properties. 1. Will the facility be located in an officially designated wilderness area? Trileaf reviewed the USGS 7.5-minute topographic map titled “Stephens City” Quadrangle, VA and information from the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) (http://www.wilderness.net) to determine if the site is located within an officially designated wilderness area. There are currently twenty-four (24) officially designated wilderness areas in the State of VA. The closest wilderness area to the project site is the Shenandoah Wilderness Area, which is located approximately 22 miles southwest of the project site. Based on this review, the project site is not located within an officially designated wilderness area. 2. Will the facility be located in an officially designated wildlife preserve? Trileaf reviewed the USGS 7.5-minute topographic map titled “Stephens City” Quadrangle, VA, and information from the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) System (http://www.fws.gov/refuges) to determine if the site is located within an officially designated wildlife preserve or refuge. Based on this review, the project site is not located within an officially designated wildlife preserve or refuge. A copy of the NWR System map is located in Appendix B. 168 2 3. Will the facility (i) affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat; or (ii) likely jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species or likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973? The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1536), as amended, protects endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. As interpreted and implemented by 50 CFR 402, Section 7 of the ESA directs Federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior, to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. It also requires every Federal agency to ensure that any action it authorizes, funds or carries out, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or results in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. On September 18, 2024, a Trileaf representative visited and photographed the project site to conduct an Informal Biological Assessment (IBA). In addition, Trileaf reviewed the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitat information and determined that the site is not located within designated critical habitat. Based on the results of our assessment, impacts to listed and/or proposed, threatened and endangered species or critical habitats resulting from the proposed action are not anticipated. Therefore, Trileaf determined that the proposed project site will have “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” on the species, their habitats, or designated critical habitats. Copies of the IBA and critical habitat review are located in Appendix D. FEDERAL On October 25, 2024, Trileaf reviewed the Section 7 Consultation guidance set forth by the USFWS – Virginia Ecological Services Field Office. On October 30, 2024, USFWS asked if the project could avoid tree removal and trimming during the time of year restrictions from April 1- November 15 to minimize the potential impacts to the Indiana Bat, and for Trileaf personnel to complete the new Northern Long Eared Bat and Tricolored Bat Rangewide Determination Key. Trileaf confirmed that the project would avoid tree removal and trimming during this time period and completed the new determination key. USFWS had no additional comments. Therefore, as Trileaf confirmed a time of year restriction and the project would have no effect on listed or proposed threatened or endangered species and no further comments were received from USFWS, no further consultation with the USFWS was required. A copy of the USFWS’ Section 7 guidance and comments are located in Appendix D. STATE On October 25, 2024, Trileaf submitted project information to the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR). Due to staffing limitations DWR will not be commenting on this project. On November 20, 2024, the DCR responded, “There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR’s jurisdiction in the project vicinity. New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re-submit a completed order form and project map for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six months has passed before it is utilized (November 20, 2024).” A copy of the DCR response is located in Appendix D. 4. Will the facility affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places? 169 3 Trileaf referred to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission dated September 2004 to determine if the project site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure, or object, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on an Indian Religious Site. A search of the National Historic Landmarks (NHL), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files, and a field survey was conducted by Mr. Michael Hart, Secretary of Interior-qualified Architectural Historian employed by Trileaf , to identify any cultural resources within the area of direct effects and within a 0.50-mile radius for visual effects. It was determined that there were no historic properties identified within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects, and no historic properties identified within the APE for visual effects. Additionally, the identification process did not locate archaeological materials that would be directly affected, or sites that are of cultural or religious significance to Tribes/NHOs. Documentation of these reviews was submitted to the SHPO via Form 620 on October 10, 2024. The SHPO concurred that the proposed undertaking would have no direct or visual effects on historic properties in a response letter dated November 8, 2024. A copy of the SHPO concurrence letter, Form 620, and associated documents are located in Appendix E. On October 8, 2024, and October 4, 2024, Ms. Kayla Peloquin at the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board, and the Newtown History Center were notified of the proposed project and invited to comment on the proposed project’s potential effect on Historic Properties as well as indicate whether they are interested in consulting further on the proposed project. Additionally, a legal notice regarding the proposed telecommunications tower construction was posted in the Winchester Star on October 10, 2024. No comments from the local government, historical society, or legal notice have been received by Trileaf. Copies of the correspondence and legal notice are located in Appendix E. NATIONAL SCENIC TRAILS On October 5, 1999, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, Personal Communications Industry Association, Appalachian Trail Conference, American Hiking Society, and representative Managing and Supporting Trails Organizations (MSTOs) for the National Scenic Trails signed a resolution for the Siting of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Near National Scenic Trails. This resolution states that if a wireless telecommunications or site management company plans a new or significantly expanded facility within one mile of a National Scenic Trail, it will notify the non-profit group that supports the trail. In order to determine if the site is located within one mile of a National Scenic Trail, Trileaf reviewed information from the National Park Service (NPS) National Trails System created by the National Trails System Act of 1968. Based on this review, the project site is not located within 1 mile of a National Scenic Trail. A copy of the trails map is located in Appendix B. 5. Will the facility affect any Indian religious sites? Trileaf referred to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for Review of Effects on Historic 170 4 Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission dated September 2004 to determine if the project site is located in or on an Indian Religious Site. On September 30, 2024, Trileaf submitted project information through the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) to the FCC who initiated contact with the tribes on October 4, 2024. As of November 29, 2024 all tribes have confirmed clearance either directly or by default via the FCC referral process. Trileaf determined that the subject Property is not located on or near a Native American Religious or Sacred Site. However, if archaeological remains or resources are unearthed during construction activities, Trileaf recommends that the client stop construction and notify our office immediately. Tribal consultation documentation and associated correspondence is located in Appendix F. 6.Will the facility be located in a floodplain and not be placed at least one (1) foot above the base flood elevation of the floodplain? Trileaf reviewed the relevant Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel #51069C0350E, dated January 29, 2021, to determine if the project was located within the 100-year floodplain. Trileaf determined that the property is located in Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. Therefore, the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. A copy of the FEMA FIRM showing the project site location is located in Appendix B. 7. Will the construction of the facility involve significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion)? Trileaf determined through site reconnaissance, review of the relevant USGS 7.5-minute topographic map titled “Stephens City” Quadrangle, VA, and review of the relevant USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html) that there are no federally designated wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Trileaf’s site assessment did not reveal any evidence of potential wetlands or hydrophytic vegetation located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Additionally, a review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov) did indicate hydric soils at the project site. Based on this review, no designated wetland areas were located within the vicinity of this project and no significant changes in surface features resulting from the proposed undertaking are anticipated. Copies of the soil map and wetlands map are located in Appendix B. 8. Zoning/High Intensity White Lights/Radio Frequency As a standard practice, Arcola Towers does not construct facilities requiring high intensity white lights that are to be located in residentially zoned neighborhoods. According to Arcola Towers, high intensity white lights will not be used for towers less than 500 feet in height. 9. Radio Frequency 171 5 FCC licensees transmitting from antennas mounted on Arcola Towers owned antenna structures will comply with the established criteria regarding radio frequency exposure limits in accordance with the Second Report and Order, as well as the FCC Code of Federal Regulations [47 CFR § 1.1307, § 1.1310] published at the time of this report. Conclusion A NEPA Review of the proposed undertaking was performed by Trileaf Corporation in conformance with the FCC rules and regulations for implementing NEPA; 47 CFR 1.1301 to 1.1319. Based on data obtained during the Site visit, consultation with government agencies, and a review of readily available information from other sources, the preparation and filing of an Environmental Assessment will not be required and no further NEPA-related action is required for the proposed undertaking. Qualifications Reggie Torres Project Scientist Group Manager 172 Appendix A Site Plans 173             !  "  #$%  % $ & & ! "!!         174         ! "#$% % $&&!"!!        %'                      !!!!175     ! "#$! % !    % $&& " !       176     ! "#$! % !    % $&& " !       "177     ! "#$! % !    % $&& " !       178      ! "#$! % !   % $&& " !       179      !"  #$" % "   % &&!#!!"       180      !  "#$ %    % $&&!"!!       181 Appendix B Site Maps 182 Stephens City Quadrangle, Virginia (2022) Contour Interval = 10 Feet Scale 1 Inch = ~2,400 Feet Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.893” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.909” W à North Site Vicinity Map Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Site Location 183 Site Location & Surrounding Properties Site Location Aerial Photographs (2017) Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Easement 184 Stephens City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine September 12, 2024 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:7,523 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. 185 1DWLRQDO)ORRG+D]DUG/D\HU),50HWWH  )HHW Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/13/2024 at 4:05 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. /HJHQG OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS  % The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.  ƒ :ƒ 1 ƒ :ƒ 1 Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 186  &XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW 6RLO0DS   ƒ  1 ƒ  :ƒ  1ƒ  :ƒ  1 ƒ  :ƒ  1 ƒ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²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ish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Map à North USFWS – Wildlife Refuge Map Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Site Location 190 North American Migration Flyways à North Migratory Bird Flyways – Location Map Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Site Location 191 National Park Service National Historic Trails and Scenic Routes à North National Park Service – Trails and Routes Map Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Site Location 192 Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Reservation Map à North Bureau of Indian Affairs – Reservation Map Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Site Location 193 Appendix C Site Photographs 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 Appendix D Documentation of Officially Designated Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Preserves and Endangered Species 209 VERSION 3.1 ‘ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061 Date: Self-Certification Letter Project Name: Dear Applicant: Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Virginia Ecological Services online project review process. By submitting this letter, in conjunction with your project review package to our office for review, you are certifying that you have completed the online project review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions provided, using the best available information to reach your determinations. From the date of receipt, our office has 60 days (50 CFR § 402.13(c)(2)) to review your project package. If we do not concur with the Section 7 determination(s) provided or if we have any questions/concerns regarding the information provided, you will be contacted. If you are not contacted during the 60-day review period, this letter and your project review package, complete the review of your project in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended (ESA). This letter also provides information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this self-certification letter to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained in our records. The ESA Section 7 Determination Table in the enclosed project review package summarizes your ESA analyses and determinations. These analyses resulted in a “no effect” and/or a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat. 210 VERSION 3.1 Page 2 The use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package resulted in reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the not likely to adversely affect determination(s) for proposed/listed species and proposed/designated critical habitat provided in the ESA Section 7 Determination Table. Should project plans change, surveys expire, or information on the distribution or status of proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat become available/change, this letter is no longer valid and you must submit an updated project package. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing Section 7 of the ESA, the accuracy of official species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. Information about the online project review process including instructions and use, species information, and other information regarding project reviews within Virginia is available on our website (https://www.fws.gov/office/virginia-ecological-services/virginia-field-office-online- review-process). If you have any questions, please contact Troy Andersen of this office at (804) 824-2428. Sincerely, Cindy Schulz Field Supervisor Virginia Ecological Services Enclosures - project review package 211 Informal Biological Assessment Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City / Trileaf #750196 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.893” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.909” W Trileaf performed an Informal Biological Assessment for the subject site. The purpose is to document whether the proposed undertaking will affect listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, designated critical habitats, wetlands, and migratory birds. A project description, site photographs, topographical maps, wetland maps, and soil maps are included in this report. Proposed Project Description: The Site is located at 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655, and consists of the proposed construction of a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed structure site is approximately 699.8 feet above mean sea level. Site and Surrounding Habitat: The Site is currently located within forested land. During the area reconnaissance, trees along the access road, and generally throughout the area were identified to be removed. A tree survey was not conducted, however using the provided photographs it is assumed that the stand is a young deciduous stand with an average diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches. The surrounding habitat within a 0.5 mile radius of the proposed site consists predominantly of residential development. To the north is forested land. To the east is forested land, followed residential development. To the south is residential development, followed by Brandylion Drive, followed by residential development, followed by Vincent Drive, followed by more residential development. To the west is forested land, followed by residential development, followed by Lakewood Drive, followed by more residential development. The current habitat is not mapped as critical habitat, nor does it qualify as sufficient habitat for Federal or State listed species. Wetlands: Trileaf has reviewed the topographic map, soil composition, as well as the National Wetlands Inventory Map to determine if the proposed lease area and easements would have an impact on any wetlands or require significant amounts of fill or grading. Trileaf determined that the site is not located in a recognized national wetland area. Trileaf performed a field visit and identified surface water bodies. Additionally, a NWI mapped Riverine is located adjacent to a portion of the proposed access road that is adjacent to the riverine is existing. Trileaf recommends soil erosion control methods along the access road adjacent to the riverine in order to prevent any incidental fill from construction. Using local maps in combination with an area reconnaissance the following water bodies have been identified in the table below: 212 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 Water Body Type Water Body Name Direction from Structure Distance from Structure Freshwater Pond Retention Pond SW 180 feet Riverine Unnamed S 250 feet Freshwater Pond Retention Pond SW 340 feet Riverine Unnamed E 520 feet Freshwater Pond Unnamed NE 1,135 feet Migratory Birds: The proposed Site and design process for this project could not conform to all the USFWS recommendations to decrease potential effects on migratory birds. Therefore, it has included mitigating factors such as structure placement within minimally sensitive areas, avoiding placement near wetlands and large water bodies, limiting structure height to 152 feet, and eliminating the need for guy wires or FAA obstruction lighting. While the proposed Site is located near the Atlantic flyway, our site investigation has determined that the project area is not located in an NWI mapped wetland, waterway, wildlife refuge, national wilderness area, native grassland or forest area, ridgeline, mountain top, coastline or area commonly known to have high incidences of fog or low clouds, where migratory birds may be found. Based upon the efforts undertaken during this IBA as well as the current data made available, we have concluded that this project will not have a significant effect on migratory birds; however, the presence of migratory birds cannot be ruled out. Soils: According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia the Site is underlain by Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, and Weikert- Berks channery silt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes. Clearbrook soils consist of somewhat poorly drained soils that are formed from residuum formed from acid shale and sandstone and are found in hills. The depth to the most restrictive feature is 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock. The depth to the water table is about 3 to 12 inches. A typical profile of Clearbrook soil consists of a surface layer of channery silt loam extending from 0 to 7 inches, subsurface layers of very channery silt loam extending in two (2) distinct layers from 7 to 14 inches and 14 to 23 inches, extremely channery silty clay loam extending from 23 to 27 inches, and bedrock extending from 27 to 31 inches. Bowers soils have no frequency of flooding or ponding. Weikert soils consist of well drained soils that are formed from gray and brown acid residuum weathered from shale and siltstone and/or fine grained sandstone and are found in ridges. The depth to the most restrictive feature is 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock. The depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. A typical profile of Weikert soil consists of a surface layer of slightly decomposed plant material extending from 0 to 1 inches, subsurface layers of channery silt loam extending from 1 to 4 inches, very channery silt loam extending from 4 to 10 inches, extremely channery silt loam extending from 10 to 16 inches, and bedrock extending from 16 to 26 inches. Weikert soils have no frequency of flooding or ponding. Berks soils consist of well drained soils that are formed from residuum weathered from shale and siltstone and/or fine grained sandstone and are found in ridges The depth to the most restrictive 213 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 feature is 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock. The depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. A typical profile of Berks soil consists of a surface layer of slightly decomposed plant material extending from 0 to 1 inches, subsurface layers of channery silt loam extending from 1 to 7 inches, very channery silt loam extending from 7 to 14 inches, extremely channery silt loam extending from 14 to 36 inches, and bedrock extending from 36 to 46 inches. Berks soils have no frequency of flooding or ponding. Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, is not considered a hydric soil, however, Weikert- Berks channery silt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, is considered a hydric soil and surface water was observed. Threatened or Endangered Species: Trileaf has researched the listed or proposed threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat for the project area. This includes any such species that have been reported to exist within the action area where the project is located. The list of federally threatened or endangered species was acquired through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Information, Planning, and Consultation system (IPaC). A list of remaining species and site observations are summarized in the following table: Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 Notes / Documentation Critical Habitat No Critical Habitat Present No Effect IPaC Species List Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Species not present, no suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated no potential habitat present Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Species not present, suitable habitat present May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present. Client has agreed to time of year restrictions to avoid tree removal and trimming to minimize impacts. 214 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 Notes / Documentation Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Species not present, suitable habitat present May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present. Client has agreed to time of year restrictions to avoid tree removal and trimming to minimize impacts. Conclusions: Based on the efforts undertaken during our IBA, project specifications and the current data made available, we have concluded that there is no potential for the proposed project to have a significant effect on listed or proposed, threatened and endangered species, their designated critical habitat, or migratory birds. The Indiana Bat and Tricolored Bat have a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect. The Indiana Bat and Tricolored Bat both have a winter habitat of caves and mines, but a summer habitat of forested areas. However, due to the proposed limit of disturbance being approximately 6,966 square feet, it has been determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect these species. The client has also agreed to a time of year restriction that avoids tree removal and trimming during April 1st to November 30th to minimize the potential impacts to the Indiana and Tricolored Bat. It should be noted that this informal biological assessment was conducted in accordance with the Scope of Work and does not constitute a Section 7 Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR Part 402.01). Reggie Torres Natural Resource Specialist 215 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 3 of 12 Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 (804) 693-6694 216 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 - www.trileaf.com October 25, 2024 Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources PO BOX 1104 Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Arcola Towers – Stephens City / Trileaf Project #750196 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655 Frederick County, Stephens City Quadrangle Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.893” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.909” W To Whom It May Concern: Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The antennas will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our investigation includes determining if any of the following special resource areas are located at the site. 1. Is the site located in or on a wilderness area or wildlife preserve? 2. Does the site pose a significant risk to migratory birds? 3. Is the site located in or on a designated critical habitat? 4. Does the site sustain any species of plant or animal life that is designated or proposed as threatened or endangered? As noted in the enclosed Informal Biological Assessment, the species have not been observed and are highly unlikely to exist within the action area. Therefore, based on the documents reviewed, no threatened/endangered species or designated critical habitat will be impacted by the proposed project. Trileaf is requesting concurrence from the VDWR with the finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” to threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, or other special resources. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email r.torres@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Reggie Torres Project Scientist 217 'H S D U W P H Q W R I &R Q V H U Y D W L R Q D Q G 5 H F U H D W L R Q'H S D U W P H Q W R I &R Q V H U Y D W L R Q D Q G 5 H F U H D W L R Q &R Q V H U Y H 3 U R W H F W (Q M R \&R Q V H U Y H 3 U R W H F W (Q M R \ +R P H ª1 D W X U D O +H U L W D J H ª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es Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 - www.trileaf.com October 25, 2024 Virginia Natural Heritage Program 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 804-786-7651 RE: Arcola Towers – Stephens City / Trileaf Project #750196 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655 Frederick County, Stephens City Quadrangle Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.893” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.909” W To Whom It May Concern: Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The antennas will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our investigation includes determining if any of the following special resource areas are located at the site. 1. Is the site located in or on a wilderness area or wildlife preserve? 2. Does the site pose a significant risk to migratory birds? 3. Is the site located in or on a designated critical habitat? 4. Does the site sustain any species of plant or animal life that is designated or proposed as threatened or endangered? As noted in the enclosed Informal Biological Assessment, the species have not been observed and are highly unlikely to exist within the action area. Therefore, based on the documents reviewed, no threatened/endangered species or designated critical habitat will be impacted by the proposed project. Trileaf is requesting concurrence from the VDWR with the finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” to threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, or other special resources. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email r.torres@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Reggie Torres Project Scientist 222 Informal Biological Assessment Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City / Stephens City - Trileaf #750196 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.893” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.909” W Trileaf performed an Informal Biological Assessment for the subject site. The purpose is to document whether the proposed undertaking will affect listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, designated critical habitats, wetlands, and migratory birds. A project description, site photographs, topographical maps, wetland maps, and soil maps are included in this report. Proposed Project Description: The Site is located at 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655, and consists of the proposed construction of a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed structure site is approximately 699.8 feet above mean sea level. Site and Surrounding Habitat: The Site is currently located within forested land. During the area reconnaissance, trees along the access road, and generally throughout the area were identified to be removed. A tree survey was not conducted, however using the provided photographs it is assumed that the stand is a young deciduous stand with an average diameter at breast height (DBH) of 4 inches. The surrounding habitat within a 0.5 mile radius of the proposed site consists predominantly of residential development. To the north is forested land. To the east is forested land, followed residential development. To the south is residential development, followed by Brandylion Drive, followed by residential development, followed by Vincent Drive, followed by more residential development. To the west is forested land, followed by residential development, followed by Lakewood Drive, followed by more residential development. The current habitat is not mapped as critical habitat, nor does it qualify as sufficient habitat for Federal or State listed species. Wetlands: Trileaf has reviewed the topographic map, soil composition, as well as the National Wetlands Inventory Map to determine if the proposed lease area and easements would have an impact on any wetlands or require significant amounts of fill or grading. Trileaf determined that the site is not located in a recognized national wetland area. Trileaf performed a field visit and identified surface water bodies. However, since the water body is located along an existing gravel roadway, the proposed utlity easement should not negatively impact this water body.Using local maps in combination with an area reconnaissance the following water bodies have been identified in the table below: Water Body Type Water Body Name Direction from Structure Distance from Structure 223 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 Freshwater Pond Retention Pond SW 178 feet Riverine Unnamed S 251 feet Riverine Unnamed E 521 feet Freshwater Pond Unnamed NE 1,135 feet Riverine Unnamed N .56 miles Freshwater Pond Lakeside Lake W .9 miles Migratory Birds: The proposed Site and design process for this project could not conform to all the USFWS recommendations to decrease potential effects on migratory birds. Therefore, it has included mitigating factors such as structure placement within minimally sensitive areas, avoiding placement near wetlands and large water bodies, limiting structure height to 152 feet, and eliminating the need for guy wires or FAA obstruction lighting. While the proposed Site is located near the Atlantic flyway, our site investigation has determined that the project area is not located in an NWI mapped wetland, waterway, wildlife refuge, national wilderness area, native grassland or forest area, ridgeline, mountain top, coastline or area commonly known to have high incidences of fog or low clouds, where migratory birds may be found. Based upon the efforts undertaken during this IBA as well as the current data made available, we have concluded that this project will not have a significant effect on migratory birds; however, the presence of migratory birds cannot be ruled out. Soils: According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia the Site is underlain by Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, and Weikert- Berks channery silt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes. Clearbrook soils consist of somewhat poorly drained soils that are formed from residuum formed from acid shale and sandstone and are found in hills. The depth to the most restrictive feature is 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock. The depth to the water table is about 3 to 12 inches. A typical profile of Clearbrook soil consists of a surface layer of channery silt loam extending from 0 to 7 inches, subsurface layers of very channery silt loam extending from 7 to 23 inches, extremely channery silty clay loam extending from 23 to 27 inches, and bedrock extending from 27 to 31 inches. Bowers soils have no frequency of flooding or ponding. Weikert soils consist of well drained soils that are formed from gray and brown acid residuum weathered from shale and siltstone and/or fine grained sandstone and are found in ridges. The depth to the most restrictive feature is 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock. The depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. A typical profile of Weikert soil consists of a surface layer of slightly decomposed plant material extending from 0 to 1 inches, subsurface layers of channery silt loam extending from 1 to 4 inches, very channery silt loam extending from 4 to 10 inches, extremely channery silt loam extending from 10 to 16 inches, and bedrock extending from 16 to 26 inches. Weikert soils have no frequency of flooding or ponding. Berks soils consist of well drained soils that are formed from residuum weathered from shale and siltstone and/or fine grained sandstone and are found in ridges The depth to the most restrictive feature is 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock. The depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. A 224 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 typical profile of Berks soil consists of a surface layer of slightly decomposed plant material extending from 0 to 1 inches, subsurface layers of channery silt loam extending from 1 to 7 inches, very channery silt loam extending from 7 to 14 inches, extremely channery silt loam extending from 14 to 36 inches, and bedrock extending from 36 to 46 inches. Berks soils have no frequency of flooding or ponding. Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, is not considered a hydric soil, and surface water was observed. Weikert- Berks channery silt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, is considered a hydric soil, and surface water was observed. Threatened or Endangered Species: Trileaf has researched the listed or proposed threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat for the project area. This includes any such species that have been reported to exist within the action area where the project is located. The list of federally threatened or endangered species was acquired through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Information, Planning, and Consultation system (IPaC). The state list of threatened or endangered species was acquired from the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and were broken down by county. The lease area is not located within an aquatic environment; therefore any obligate aquatic species should not be directly impacted by this project and are not included in the table below. In addition, due to the manmade disturbances at the Site, no native plant species are present and are therefore not included. A list of remaining species and site observations are summarized in the following table: Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 Notes / Documentation Critical Habitat No Critical Habitat Present No Effect IPaC Species List Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Species not present, no suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated no potential habitat present Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Species not present, suitable habitat present May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present 225 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 Notes / Documentation Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Species not present, suitable habitat present May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Species not present, suitable habitat present May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Hupps Hill Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis) Species not present, no suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated no potential habitat present Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Species not present, suitable habitat present May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) Species not present, suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Peregrine Flacon (Falco peregrinus) Species not present, suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Loggerhead Shrike - Migrant (Lanius ludovicianus migrans) Species not present, suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present 226 Stephens City Trileaf# 750196 Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 Notes / Documentation Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Species not present, suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Appalachian grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus Wyandot) Species not present, suitable habitat present No Effect Habitat assessment indicated potential habitat present Conclusions: Based on the efforts undertaken during our IBA, project specifications and the current data made available, we have concluded that there is no potential for the proposed project to have a significant effect on listed or proposed, threatened and endangered species, their designated critical habitat, or migratory birds. The Indiana Bat, Tricolored Bat, Northern Long-Eared Bat, and Wood Turtle, have a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect. The Indiana Bat, Tricolored Bat, and Northern Long- Eared Bat all have a winter habitat of caves and mines, but a summer habitat of forested areas. However, due to the proposed limit of disturbance being 6,966 square feet, it has been determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect these species. The Wood Turtle habitat includes meandering cobble-bottom streams and their surrounding forests within 1,000 feet of their stream or river. Due to the proposed access and utility easement being approximately 25 feet from a riverine, and the proposed monopole communications tower being located approximately 250 feet from a riverine it has been determined that there is a potential habitat present for the Wood Turtle. However, since there is a preexisting gravel pathway along the proposed access and utility easement a determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the species has been made. It should be noted that this informal biological assessment was conducted in accordance with the Scope of Work and does not constitute a Section 7 Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR Part 402.01). Reggie Torres Natural Resource Specialist 227 Please refer to Appendix B for Site Maps 228 Please refer to Appendix C for Site Photographs 229 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 Phone: (804) 693-6694 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2025-0002734 Project Name: Stephens City Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. $Q\DFWLYLW\ proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 230 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 2 of 12 A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultation- handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what- we-do. The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Project Code in the header of this 231 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 3 of 12 Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 (804) 693-6694 232 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 4 of 12 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2025-0002734 Project Name:Stephens City Project Type:Communication Tower New Construction Project Description:Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@39.1040309,-78.17539498089761,14z Counties:Frederick County, Virginia 233 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 5 of 12 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 234 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 6 of 12 1. 2. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949 Endangered Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 1 2 3 235 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 7 of 12 3. QRGDWDVXUYH\HIIRUWEUHHGLQJVHDVRQSUREDELOLW\RISUHVHQFH 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Sep 1 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. 236 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 8 of 12 Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ 1. 2. 3. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Sep 1 to Aug 31 1 2 3 237 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 9 of 12 NAME BREEDING SEASON Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus practicus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10645 Breeds Apr 10 to Jul 31 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Prairie Warbler Setophaga discolor This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9513 Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398 Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478 Breeds elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431 Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () 238 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 10 of 12 Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ QRGDWDVXUYH\HIIRUWEUHHGLQJVHDVRQSUREDELOLW\RISUHVHQFH Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Black-capped Chickadee BCC - BCR Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf 239 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 11 of 12 Ƒ Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action 240 Project code: 2025-0002734 10/07/2024 19:03:20 UTC 12 of 12 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Trileaf Corporation Name:Reggie Torres Address:9 Cornerstone Square Address Line 2:#314 City:Westford State:MA Zip:01886 Email r.torres@trileaf.com Phone:2108877594 241 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 Phone: (804) 693-6694 In Reply Refer To: Project code: 2025-0002734 Project Name: Stephens City Federal Nexus: yes Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Federal Communications Commission Subject:Federal agency coordination under the Endangered Species Act, Section 7 for 'Stephens City' Dear Reggie Torres: This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on November 04, 2024, for 'Stephens City' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code 2025-0002734 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please carefully review this letter. Your Endangered Species Act (Act) requirements may not be complete. Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC 7KH6HUYLFHGHYHORSHGWKH,3D&V\VWHPDQGDVVRFLDWHGVSHFLHVµGHWHUPLQDWLRQNH\VLQDFFRUGDQFH with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern Long-eared Bat and Tricolored Bat Range-wide Determination Key (DKey), invalidates this letter. Answers to certain questions in the DKey commit the project proponent to implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determination to remain valid. Note that conservation measures for northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat may differ. If both bat species are present in the action area and the key suggests more conservative measures for one of the species for your Project, the Project may need to apply the most conservative measures in order to avoid adverse effects. If unsure which conservation measures should be applied, please contact the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office. Determination for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Tricolored Bat 242 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 2 of 12 Ƒ Ƒ Ƒ Based on your IPaC submission and a standing analysis completed by the Service, you determined the proposed Project will have the following effect determinations: Species Listing Status Determination Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)Proposed Endangered NLAA Federal agencies must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when an action may affect a listed species. Tricolored bat is proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA, but not yet listed. For actions that may affect a proposed species, agencies cannot consult, but they can confer under the authority of section 7(a) (4) of the ESA. Such conferences can follow the procedures for a consultation and be adopted as such if and when the proposed species is listed. Should the tricolored bat be listed, agencies must review projects that are not yet complete, or projects with ongoing effects within the tricolored bat range that previously received a NE or NLAA determination from the key to confirm that the determination is still accurate. Unless the Service advises you within 15 days of the date of this letter that your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that consultation on the Action is complete for northern long-eared bat and/or tricolored bat and no further action is necessary unless either of the following occurs: new information reveals effects of the action that may affect the northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; or, the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat that was not considered when completing the determination key. 15-Day Review Period As indicated above, the Service will notify you within 15 calendar days if we determine that this SURSRVHG$FWLRQGRHVQRWPHHWWKHFULWHULDIRUD²PD\DIIHFWQRWOLNHO\WRDGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW³ 1/$$ GHWHUPLQDWLRQIRUWKHQRUWKHUQORQJHDUHGEDWDQGRUWULFRORUHGEDW,IZHGRQRW notify you within that timeframe, you may proceed with the Action under the terms of the NLAA concurrence provided here. This verification period allows the identified Ecological Services Field Office to apply local knowledge to evaluation of the Action, as we may identify a small subset of actions having impacts that we did not anticipate when developing the key. In such cases, the identified Ecological Services Field Office may request additional information to verify the effects determination reached through the Northern Long-eared Bat and Tricolored Bat DKey. Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area The IPaC-assisted determination key for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat does not apply to the following ESA-protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your Action area: Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered 243 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 3 of 12 Ƒ Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may affect the species and/ or critical habitat listed above. Note that reinitiation of consultation would be necessary if a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action before it is complete. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office and reference Project Code 2025-0002734 associated with this Project. 244 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 4 of 12 Action Description You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action. 1. Name Stephens City 2. Description The following description was provided for the project 'Stephens City': Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@39.1040309,-78.17539498089761,14z 245 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 5 of 12 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. DETERMINATION KEY RESULT %DVHGRQWKHDQVZHUVSURYLGHGWKHSURSRVHG$FWLRQLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDGHWHUPLQDWLRQRI²PD\ DIIHFWEXWQRWOLNHO\WRDGYHUVHO\DIIHFW³IRUDOHDVWRQHVSHFLHVFRYHUHGE\WKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQ key. QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of listed bats or any other listed species? Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering, harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species? No Is the action area wholly within Zone 2 of the year-round active area for northern long- eared bat and/or tricolored bat? Automatically answered No Does the action area intersect Zone 1 of the year-round active area for northern long-eared bat and/or tricolored bat? Automatically answered No Does any component of the action involve leasing, construction or operation of wind turbines? Answer 'yes' if the activities considered are conducted with the intention of gathering survey information to inform the leasing, construction, or operation of wind turbines. Note: For federal actionsDQVZHU´\HVµLIWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRURSHUDWLRQRIZLQGSRZHUIDFLOLWLHVLVHLWKHU  SDUW of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.). No Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency in whole or in part? Yes Is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or authorizing the proposed action, in whole or in part? No 246 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 6 of 12 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Are you an employee of the federal action agency or have you been officially designated in writing by the agency as its designated non-federal representative for the purposes of Endangered Species Act Section 7 informal consultation per 50 CFR § 402.08? Note: This key may be used for federal actions and for non-federal actions to facilitate section 7 consultation and to help determine whether an incidental take permit may be needed, respectively. This question is for information purposes only. No Is the lead federal action agency the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? Is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funding or authorizing the proposed action, in whole or in part? Yes [Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.5 miles of a known bat hibernaculum? Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency. Automatically answered No Does the action area contain any winter roosts or caves (or associated sinkholes, fissures, or other karst features), mines, rocky outcroppings, or tunnels that could provide habitat for hibernating bats? No Will the action cause effects to a bridge? Note: Covered bridges should be considered as bridges in this question. No Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel at any time of year? No Are trees present within 1000 feet of the action area? Note: If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats answer "Yes". If unsure, additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and WULFRORUHGEDWFDQEHIRXQGLQ$SSHQGL[$RIWKH86):6µ5DQJHZLGH,QGLDQD%DWDQG1RUWKHUQORQJHDUHGEDW Survey Guidelines at: https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey- guidelines. Yes 247 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 7 of 12 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Does the action include the intentional exclusion of bats from a building or structure? Note:([FOXVLRQLVFRQGXFWHGWRGHQ\EDWVµHQWU\RUUHHQWU\LQWRDEXLOGLQJ7REHHIIHFWLYHDQGWRDYRLGKDUPLQJ bats, it should be done according to established standards. If your action includes bat exclusion and you are XQVXUHZKHWKHUQRUWKHUQORQJHDUHGEDWVRUWULFRORUHGEDWVDUHSUHVHQWDQVZHU²<HV³$QVZHU²1R³LIWKHUHDUHQR signs of bat use in the building/structure. If unsure, contact your local Ecological Services Field Office to help assess whether northern long-eared bats or tricolored bats may be present. Contact a Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator (NWCO) for help in how to exclude bats from a structure safely without causing harm to the bats (to ILQGD1:&2FHUWLILHGLQEDWVWDQGDUGVVHDUFKWKH,QWHUQHWXVLQJWKHVHDUFKWHUP²1DWLRQDO:LOGOLIH&RQWURO 2SHUDWRUV$VVRFLDWLRQEDWV³ $OVRVHHWKH:KLWH1RVH6\QGURPH5HVSRQVH7HDP VJXLGHIRUEDWFRQWUROLQ structures. No Does the action involve removal, modification, or maintenance of a human-made structure (barn, house, or other building) known or suspected to contain roosting bats? No Will the action cause construction of one or more new roads open to the public? )RUIHGHUDODFWLRQVDQVZHU´\HVµZKHQWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRURSHUDWLRQRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLV either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.). No Will the action include or cause any construction or other activity that is reasonably certain to increase average daily traffic permanently or temporarily on one or more existing roads? Note:)RUIHGHUDODFWLRQVDQVZHU´\HVµZKHQWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRURSHUDWLRQRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLVHLWKHU  SDUWRI the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.). . No Will the action include or cause any construction or other activity that is reasonably certain to increase the number of travel lanes on an existing thoroughfare? )RUIHGHUDODFWLRQVDQVZHU´\HVµZKHQWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRURSHUDWLRQRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLV either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.). No Will the proposed Action involve the creation of a new water-borne contaminant source (e.g., leachate pond, pits containing chemicals that are not NSF/ANSI 60 compliant)? Note: For information regarding NSF/ANSI 60 please visit https://www.nsf.org/knowledge-library/nsf-ansi- standard-60-drinking-water-treatment-chemicals-health-effects No 248 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 8 of 12 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Will the proposed action involve the creation of a new point source discharge from a facility other than a water treatment plant or storm water system? No Will the action include drilling or blasting? No Will the action involve military training (e.g., smoke operations, obscurant operations, exploding munitions, artillery fire, range use, helicopter or fixed wing aircraft use)? No Will the proposed action involve the use of herbicides or other pesticides other than herbicides (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, or rodenticides)? No Will the action include or cause activities that are reasonably certain to cause chronic or intense nighttime noise (above current levels of ambient noise in the area) in suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat during the active season? Chronic noise is noise that is continuous or occurs repeatedly again and again for a long time. Sources of chronic or intense noise that could cause adverse effects to bats may include, but are not limited to: road traffic; trains; aircraft; industrial activities; gas compressor stations; loud music; crowds; oil and gas extraction; construction; and mining. Note: Additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat FDQEHIRXQGLQ$SSHQGL[$RIWKH86):6µ5DQJHZLGH,QGLDQD%DWDQG1RUWKHUQORQJHDUHGEDW6XUYH\ Guidelines at: https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey- guidelines. No Does the action include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, the use of permanent or temporary artificial lighting within 1000 feet of suitable northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat roosting habitat? Note: Additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat FDQEHIRXQGLQ$SSHQGL[$RIWKH86):6µ5DQJHZLGH,QGLDQD%DWDQG1RUWKHUQORQJHDUHGEDW6XUYH\ Guidelines at: https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey- guidelines. No Will the action include tree cutting or other means of knocking down or bringing down trees, tree topping, or tree trimming? Yes Will the proposed action occur exclusively in an already established and currently maintained utility right-of-way? No 249 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 9 of 12 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Does the action include emergency cutting or trimming of hazard trees in order to remove an imminent threat to human safety or property? See hazard tree note at the bottom of the key for text that will be added to response letters Note: A "hazard tree" is a tree that is an immediate threat to lives, public health and safety, or improved property. No Does the project intersect with the 0- 9.9% forest density category? Automatically answered No Does the project intersect with the 10.0- 19.9% forest density category map? Automatically answered No Does the project intersect with the 20.0- 29.9% forest density category map? Automatically answered Yes Does the project intersect with the 30.0- 100% forest density category map? Automatically answered No Will the action cause trees to be cut, knocked down, or otherwise brought down across an area greater than 40 acres in total extent? No :LOOWKHSURSRVHGDFWLRQUHVXOWLQWKHXVHRISUHVFULEHGILUH" Note: If the prescribed fire action includes other activities than application of fire (e.g., tree cutting, fire line preparation) please consider impacts from those activities within the previous representative questions in the key. This set of questions only considers impacts from flame and smoke. No Does the action area intersect the tricolored bat species list area? Automatically answered Yes [Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.25 miles of a culvert that is known to be occupied by northern long-eared or tricolored bats? Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency. Automatically answered No Has a presence/probable absence bat survey targeting the tricolored bat and following the 6HUYLFHµV Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Survey Guidelines been conducted within the project area? No 250 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 10 of 12 38. 39. 40. 41. Is suitable summer habitat for the tricolored bat present within 1000 feet of project activities? (If unsure, answer ""Yes."") Note: If there are trees within the action area that may provide potential roosts for tricolored bats (e.g., clusters of leaves in live and dead deciduous trees, Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides), clusters of dead pine needles of large live pines) answer ""Yes."" For a complete definition of suitable summer habitat for the tricolored bat, please see Appendix A in the Service's Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines. Yes Do any of the trees proposed for cutting or other means of knocking down, bringing down, topping, or trimming provide potential roosts for tricolored bats (e.g., clusters of leaves in live and dead deciduous trees, Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides), clusters of dead pine needles of large live pine trees)? Note: Additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat FDQEHIRXQGLQ$SSHQGL[$RIWKH86):6µ5DQJHZLGH,QGLDQD%DWDQG1RUWKHUQORQJHDUHGEDW6XUYH\ Guidelines at: https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey- guidelines. Yes Will any tree cutting/trimming or other knocking or bringing down of trees be conducted during the Pup Season for tricolored bat? Note: Bat activity periods for your state can be found in Appendix L of the Service's Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines. No Do you have any documents that you want to include with this submission? No 251 Project code: 2025-0002734 11/04/2024 15:53:07 UTC DKey Version Publish Date: 10/29/2024 11 of 12 PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Enter the extent of the action area (in acres) from which trees will be removed - round up to the nearest tenth of an acre. For this question, include the entire area where tree removal will take place, even if some live or dead trees will be left standing. .2 252 Natural Heritage Resources Your Criteria Taxonomic Group: Select All Federal Legal Status: Select All State Legal Status: Select All County: Frederick Search Run: 10/7/2024 15:45:21 PM Result Summary Total Species returned: 8 Total Communities returned: 0 Click scientific names below to go to NatureServe report. Click column headings for an explanation of species and community ranks. Common Name/Natural Community Scientific Name Scientific Name Linked Global Conservation Status Rank State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Statewide Occurrences Virginia Coastal Zone Frederick BIVALVIA (MUSSELS) Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis Lasmigona subviridis G2G3 S2 PT LT 69 N COLEOPTERA (BEETLES) Hupps Hill Cave Beetle Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis G1 S1 SOC LE 2 N GASTROPODA (SNAILS) Appalachian Springsnail Fontigens bottimeri Fontigens bottimeri G2G3 S2S3 SOC LE 8 N REPTILES Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta Glyptemys insculpta G2G3 S2 SOC LT 51 N VASCULAR PLANTS Canby's Mountain- lover Paxistima canbyi Paxistima canbyi G2?S2 SOC LT 35 N Fredericksburg (City) BIVALVIA (MUSSELS) Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata Elliptio lanceolata G2 S2 LT LT 46 Y Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis Lasmigona subviridis G2G3 S2 PT LT 69 Y 1 / 2 253 Common Name/Natural Community Scientific Name Scientific Name Linked Global Conservation Status Rank State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Statewide Occurrences Virginia Coastal Zone COLEOPTERA (BEETLES) American Burying Beetle Nicrophorus americanus Nicrophorus americanus G3 SH LT None 5 Y Note: On-line queries provide basic information from DCR's databases at the time of the request. They are NOT to be substituted for a project review or for on-site surveys required for environmental assessments of specific project areas. For Additional Information on locations of Natural Heritage Resources please submit an information request. To Contribute information on locations of natural heritage resources, please fill out and submit a rare species sighting form. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org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ª6SHFLHV,QIRUPDWLRQª9D):,65HSRUW%29$ *MRHE'SQQSR[IEPXL6IWSYVGI:MVKMRME(ITEVXQIRXSJ;MPHPMJI6IWSYVGIW %RS®GMEP[IFWMXI ,IVI WLS[]SYORS[ 30 9D):,65HSRUW%29$ KWWSVVHUYLFHVGZUYLUJLQLDJRYIZLV"7LWOH 9D):,65HSRUW%29$ ODVW0HQX +RPH6SHFLHV,QIRUPDWLRQ WQ  JHR$UHD &RXQW\ VSS1DPH JHR7«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‹&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI:LOGOLIH5HVRXUFHV ':5_&UHGLWV_'LVFODLPHU_:HE3ROLF\_)UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ )2,$ _9LHZ':5([SHQGLWXUHV_':52UJDQL]DWLRQDO&KDUW_H9$7UDQVSDUHQF\LQ3URFXUHPHQW_$'$&RPSOLDQFH 9LVLWRU  ,I\RXKDYHGLIILFXOW\UHDGLQJRUDFFHVVLQJGRFXPHQWVSOHDVH&RQWDFW8VIRUDVVLVWDQFH 30 9D):,65HSRUW%29$ KWWSVVHUYLFHVGZUYLUJLQLDJRYIZLV"7LWOH 9D):,65HSRUW%29$ ODVW0HQX +RPH6SHFLHV,QIRUPDWLRQ WQ  JHR$UHD &RXQW\ VSS1DPH JHR7«256 Travis A. Voyles Secutary, ofNar,,ro/ and /listorlc Reso mn•., Matthew S. Well s Director Andrew W. Smith Chief Def)tlty Director COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION Regg ie To rres Tri leaf Corporation 8600 La Salle Road . Suite 30 I Towson MD. 2 1286 Re : 750196, Stephens City Cell Tower Dear Ms . Torres : Prank N. Stovall Dt p,1ty Dlreclor fnr Opera/Ion., Darryl Glover Dtp,Jty Dlrtctor f or {)(Im Soft ly. Floodplu/n Mtmagtmtnt and Soll and Wa/tr Coni trvll//on Laura Ellis Dtp,1ty Director f or Admlnl.,lrllllon and FiMnce November 20, 2024 The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (OCR) has searched its Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. According to the information currently in Biotics, natural heritage resources have not been documented withi.n the submitted project boundary including a l 00-foot buffer. The absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage resources . In addition , the project boundary does not intersect any of the predictive models identifying potential habitat for natural heritage resources. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Guidance dated April 2018 , "almost 7 million birds, predominantly night-migrating songbirds, die annually as a result of collisions with lit communication towers in the United States. Given the height, structural engineering needs (i.e ., guy wires), and obstruction li ghting requirements , communication towers may cause direct and indirect bird mortality " (USFWS, 2018). Therefore, to reduce the risk of bird mortality at communication towers , DCR recommends comprehensive voluntary implementation of USFWS guidelines for Communication Tower Design , Siting, Construction, Operation, Maintenance and Decommissioning (h ttps://www .fws.gov/mi grato rybird s/pd f/manage ment/us fw scommtower guidance.pd0. Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the DCR, DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state- listed threatened and endangered plant and insect species . The current activity will not affect any documented state-li sted plants or insects. There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR 's jurisdiction in the project vicinity . New and updated information is continually added to Biotics . Please re-submit a completed order fom1 and project map for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six month s ha s passed before it is utilized . 600 East Mai n Stree t, 241h Floo r I Ri chm ond , Virg ini a 23 2 19 I 804-78 6-6 124 State Parks • Soll am/ Water Con servation • Outdoor Recreation Planning Natural Heritage• Dam Safety am/ Flno1/plal11 Ma11ag eme11t • land Conservation 257 A foe of $90.00 has been assessed for the service of providing this information. Please find attached an invoice for that amount. Please retum one copy of the invoice along with your remittance made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia. OCR Finance , 600 East Main Street, 24 1" Floor, Richmond. VA 23219 . Payment is due within thirty da ys of the invoice date . Please note late payment may result in the suspension of project review service for future projects . TI1e Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) maintains a database of wildlife locations , including threatened and endangered species , trout streams , and anadromous fish waters that may contain information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed http s://se rvice s.dwr .v irgini a.gov/fw is/ or contact Hannah Schul at Hannah.Schul @dwr.virginia.gov. Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 804-625-3979. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely , Nicki Gustafson Natural Heritage Project Review Assistant Literature Cited U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice . 2018. Reco mmended Best Practice s for Communication Tower Design , Siting, Construction , Operation, Maintenance, and Decommissioning. 258 2XWORRN 5H>(;7(51$/@)Z,QIRUPDO%LRORJLFDO$VVHVVPHQW7ULOHDI )URP 5HJJLH7RUUHVUWRUUHV#WULOHDIFRP! 'DWH 0RQ$0 7R 9LUJLQLD)LHOG2IILFH):YLUJLQLDILHOGRIILFH#IZVJRY! DWWDFKPHQW 0% $76WHSKHQV&LW\)HGHUDO,%$SGI ,ĞůůŽ͕ /ŚĂǀĞŵĂĚĞƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƩĂĐŚĞĚ͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJŵŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕ 5HJJLH7RUUHV 3URMHFW6FLHQWLVW &RUQHUVWRQH6TXDUH :HVWIRUG0$ 2IILFH   0RELOH    &ƌŽŵ͗sŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ&ŝĞůĚKĸĐĞ͕&tϱфǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĮĞůĚŽĸĐĞΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϲ͕ϮϬϮϰϯ͗ϰϭWD dŽ͗ZĞŐŐŝĞdŽƌƌĞƐфƌ͘ƚŽƌƌĞƐΛƚƌŝůĞĂĨ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗΀ydZE>΁&ǁ͗/ŶĨŽƌŵĂůŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲdƌŝůĞĂĨηϳϱϬϭϵϲ £ hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶ͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌŽƉĞŶĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞ ƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚŬŶŽǁƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƐĂĨĞ͘ ,ĞůůŽZĞŐŐŝĞ͕ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘ĂŶLJŽƵĂĚĚƚŚĞdKzZƚŽLJŽƵƌĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶƚĂďůĞĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƚŽĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞLJŽƵƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁ͍ ĞƐƚ͕ :ĂĐŬŝĞ 259 &ƌŽŵ͗ZĞŐŐŝĞdŽƌƌĞƐфƌ͘ƚŽƌƌĞƐΛƚƌŝůĞĂĨ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϰ͕ϮϬϮϰϭϬ͗ϱϵD dŽ͗sŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ&ŝĞůĚKĸĐĞ͕&tϱфǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĮĞůĚŽĸĐĞΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗΀ydZE>΁&ǁ͗/ŶĨŽƌŵĂůŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲdƌŝůĞĂĨηϳϱϬϭϵϲ £ ,ŝ:ĂĐŬŝĞ͕ tĞŚĂǀĞĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůĂǀŽŝĚƚƌĞĞƌĞŵŽǀĂůĂŶĚƚƌŝŵŵŝŶŐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞdKzZĨƌŽŵƉƌŝůϭͲ EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭϱĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĂƩĂĐŚĞĚƚŚĞE>ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŬĞLJ͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕ 5HJJLH7RUUHV 3URMHFW6FLHQWLVW &RUQHUVWRQH6TXDUH :HVWIRUG0$ 2IILFH   0RELOH    &ƌŽŵ͗sŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ&ŝĞůĚKĸĐĞ͕&tϱфǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĮĞůĚŽĸĐĞΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϰϵ͗ϭϯD dŽ͗ZĞŐŐŝĞdŽƌƌĞƐфƌ͘ƚŽƌƌĞƐΛƚƌŝůĞĂĨ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗΀ydZE>΁&ǁ͗/ŶĨŽƌŵĂůŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲdƌŝůĞĂĨηϳϱϬϭϵϲ £ hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶ͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌŽƉĞŶĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞ ƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚŬŶŽǁƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƐĂĨĞ͘ ,ĞůůŽZĞŐŐŝĞ͕ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘ĂŶLJŽƵĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞŶĞǁE>ĂŶĚdZĂŶŐĞǁŝĚĞ ĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶ<ĞLJƚŚĂƚŝƐůŝǀĞŝŶ/WĂ͍ ůƐŽ͕ĐĂŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂǀŽŝĚƚƌĞĞƌĞŵŽǀĂůĂŶĚƚƌŝŵŵŝŶŐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞdKzZĨƌŽŵƉƌŝůϭͲEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭϱƚŽ ŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽƚŚĞ/ŶĚŝĂŶĂďĂƚ͍ ĞƐƚ͕ :ĂĐŬŝĞ &ƌŽŵ͗ZĞŐŐŝĞdŽƌƌĞƐфƌ͘ƚŽƌƌĞƐΛƚƌŝůĞĂĨ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϰϯ͗ϱϰWD dŽ͗sŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ&ŝĞůĚKĸĐĞ͕&tϱфǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĮĞůĚŽĸĐĞΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀ydZE>΁&ǁ͗/ŶĨŽƌŵĂůŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲdƌŝůĞĂĨηϳϱϬϭϵϲ £ 260 £ £7KLVHPDLOKDVEHHQUHFHLYHGIURPRXWVLGHRI'2,£8VHFDXWLRQEHIRUHFOLFNLQJRQOLQNV RSHQLQJDWWDFKPHQWVRUUHVSRQGLQJ££ 5HJJLH7RUUHV 3URMHFW6FLHQWLVW &RUQHUVWRQH6TXDUH :HVWIRUG0$ 2IILFH   0RELOH    &ƌŽŵ͗ZĞŐŐŝĞdŽƌƌĞƐ ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϰϯ͗ϱϬWD dŽ͗ǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĮĞůĚŽĸĐĞΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽфǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĮĞůĚŽĸĐĞΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗/ŶĨŽƌŵĂůŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲdƌŝůĞĂĨηϳϱϬϭϵϲ £ dŽtŚŽŵ/ƚDĂLJŽŶĐĞƌŶ͕  WůĞĂƐĞĮŶĚƚŚĞĂƩĂĐŚĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚĞůĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕sǁŝƚŚ Ă͞ŵĂLJĂīĞĐƚ͕ŶŽƚůŝŬĞůLJƚŽĂĚǀĞƌƐĞůLJĂīĞĐƚ͟ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽŶĨĞĚĞƌĂůůLJͲůŝƐƚĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘/ĨǁĞĚŽŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂŶLJ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌŽĸĐĞƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝƚŚŝŶϲϬĚĂLJƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĞŵĂŝů͕ǁĞǁŝůůƉƌŽĐĞĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞŝŶŽƵƌƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ͘  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕ 5HJJLH7RUUHV 3URMHFW6FLHQWLVW &RUQHUVWRQH6TXDUH :HVWIRUG0$ 2IILFH   0RELOH    £ 261 Appendix E Section 106 Review 262 8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 301, Towson, Maryland 21286 - 410.853.7128 - www.trileaf.com October , 2024 Virginia Department of Historic Resources Attn: Mr. Chris Novelli 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 Email: chris.novelli@dhr.virginia.gov RE: Arcola Towers – Stephens City / Trileaf Project #750196 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655 Frederick County, Stephens City Quadrangle (USGS) Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W Dear Mr. Novelli: Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The antenna will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In accordance with the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission, dated September 2004, a cultural resource investigation has been conducted. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on an Indian Religious Site. Summary reports of this investigation, maps, photographs and other information are provided in the attached Form 620.As noted in Attachment 5, there are No Historic Properties in the APE for Direct Effects and No Historic Properties in the APE for Visual Effects. Therefore, it is recommended thatthe proposed undertaking proceed without further archaeological review. We appreciate your cooperation in this regard and anticipate your concurrence with these findings. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email r.torres@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Reggie Torres Project Scientist 263 FCC Form FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Approved by OMB 3060 – 1039 Notification Date: See instructions for File Number:public burden estimates General Information 1)(Select only one) ( ) NE – New UA – Update of Application WD – Withdrawal of Application 2) If this application is for an Update or Withdrawal, enter the file number of the pending application currently on file.File Number: Applicant Information 3)FCC Registration Number (FRN): 4) Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name:8) Suffix: 9) Title: Contact Information 10) P.O. Box:And /Or 11) Street Address: 12) City:13) State: 14) Zip Code: 15)Telephone Number:16)Fax Number: 17)E-mail Address: Consultant Information 18)FCC Registration Number (FRN): 19) Name: Principal Investigator 20) First Name: 21) MI: 22) Last Name: 23) Suffix: 24) Title: Principal Investigator Contact Information 25) P.O. Box:And /Or 26) Street Address: 27) City:28) State:29) Zip Code: 30)Telephone Number:31)Fax Number: 32)E-mail Address: Arcola Towers 0031974538 Ryan Foltz 116 W Washington Street, Suite #203 Middleburg VA 20117 (443)752-1903 0011724176 Trileaf Corporation ryan@arcolatowers.com Michael Hart Senior Historian 1051 Winderley PI Suite 201 Maitland FL 32751 (407)660-7840 r.torres@trileaf.com 1 of 16 NE 620 FCC Form 620 New Tower (NT ) Submission Packet 0011278730 7AM EST 10/11/2024 May 2014 264 Professional Qualification 33) Does the Principal Investigator satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards? ( ) Yes ( ) No 34)Areas of Professional Qualification: ( ) Archaeologist ( ) Architectural Historian ( ) Historian ( ) Architect ( ) Other (Specify) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Staff 35) Are there other staff involved who meet the Professional Qualification Standards of the Secretary of the Interior? ( ) Yes ( ) No If “YES,” complete the following: X X X X 36) First Name:37) MI: 38) Last Name:39) Suffix: 40) Title: 41) Areas of Professional Qualification: ( ) Archaeologist ( ) Architectural Historian ( ) Historian ( ) Architect ( ) Other (Specify) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 265 Site Information Tower Construction Notification System 1)TCNS Notification Number: Site Information 2)Positive Train Control Filing Subject to Expedited Treatment Under Program Comment: ( ) Yes ( ) No 3)Site Name: 4)Site Address: 5)Detailed Description of Project: 6)City:7)State: 8)Zip Code: 9)County/Borough/Parish: 10)Nearest Crossroads: 11)NAD 83 Latitude (DD-MM-SS.S):( ) N or ( ) S 12)NAD 83 Longitude (DD-MM-SS.S):( ) E or ( ) W Tower Information 13)Tower height above ground level (include top-mounted attachments such as lightning rods): ___________________ ( ) Feet ( ) Meters 14)Tower Type (Select One): ( ) Guyed lattice tower ( ) Self-supporting lattice ( ) Monopole ( ) Other (Describe): Project Status 15)Current Project Status (Select One): ( ) Construction has not yet commenced ( ) Construction has commenced, but is not completed Construction commenced on: _______________ ( ) Construction has been completed Construction commenced on: _______________ Construction completed on: _______________ 286075 Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City VA FREDERICK 22655 39-06-17.9 078-10-25.9 X X 46.3 X 3 of 16 X X FCC Form 620 Lakeside Dr and Lakewood Dr May 2014 Lakeside Dr and Lakewood Dr Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. X 266 Determination of Effect 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( ) No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE) ( ) No Effect on Historic Properties in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on one or more Historic Properties in APE 15)Visual Effects (Select One): ( ) No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE) ( ) No Effect on Historic Properties in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on one or more Historic Properties in APE 4 of 16 X X FCC Form 620 May 2014 267 Tribal/NHO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system:Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 286075 12 X 0 Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians 10/02/2024 X Lawrence Plucinski THPO Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Catawba Indian Nation 10/03/2024 X Dr. Wenonah Haire DMDG THPO and Executive Director 5 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 268 Tribal/NHO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system:Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 286075 12 X 0 Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Chickahominy Indian Tribe 10/02/2024 X Stephen Adkins Chief Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Cultural Heritage Partners 10/02/2024 X Ellen Chapman Program Manager 6 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 269 Tribal/NHO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system:Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 286075 12 X 0 Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Delaware Nation 10/02/2024 X Tiffany Martinez TCNS Coordinator Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 10/03/2024 X Kelly Nelson Cell Tower Coordinator 7 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 270 Tribal/NHO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system:Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 286075 12 X 0 Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Monacan Indian Nation 10/02/2024 X Diane Shields Chief Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Nansemond Indian Tribe 10/02/2024 X Keith Anderson Chief 8 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 271 Tribal/NHO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system:Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 286075 12 X 0 Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Pamunkey Indian Tribe 10/02/2024 X Robert Gray Chief Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Prairie Island Indian Community 10/02/2024 X Noah White IIIC THPO 9 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 272 Tribal/NHO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system:Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________ 286075 12 X 0 Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe 10/02/2024 X W. Frank Adams Chief Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS 3)Tribe/NHO FRN: 4)Tribe/NHO Name: Contact Name 5) First Name:6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Dates & Response 10) Date Contacted ______________11) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Tuscarora Nation 10/02/2024 X Bryan Printup TCNS Rep 10 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 273 Other Tribes/NHOs Contacted Tribe/NHO Information 1)FCC Registration Number (FRN): 2) Name: Contact Name 3) First Name:4) MI: 5) Last Name:6) Suffix: 7) Title: Contact Information 8) P.O. Box:And /Or 9) Street Address: 10) City:11) State:12) Zip Code: 13)Telephone Number:14)Fax Number: 15)E-mail Address: 16) Preferred means of communication: ( ) E-mail ( ) Letter ( ) Both Dates & Response 17) Date Contacted _______________18) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other 11 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 274 Historic Properties Properties Identified 1) Have any historic properties been identified within the APEs for direct and visual effect? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2)Has the identification process located archaeological materials that would be directly affected, or sites that are of cultural or religious significance to Tribes/NHOs? ( ) Yes ( ) No 3) Are there more than 10 historic properties within the APEs for direct and visual effect? If “Yes”, you are required to attach a Cultural Resources Report in lieu of adding the Historic Property below. ( ) Yes ( ) No Historic Property 4)Property Name: 5) SHPO Site Number: Property Address 6) Street Address: 7) City:8) State:9) Zip Code: 10) County/Borough/Parish: Status & Eligibility 11) Is this property listed on the National Register? Source: _______________________________________________________________________________________ ( ) Yes ( ) No 12) Is this property eligible for listing on the National Register? Source: _______________________________________________________________________________________ ( ) Yes ( ) No 13) Is this property a National Historic Landmark? ( ) Yes ( ) No 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE 15)Visual Effects (Select One): ( ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE X X X 12 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 275 Local Government Involvement Local Government Agency 1)FCC Registration Number (FRN): 2) Name: Contact Name 3) First Name: 4) MI: 5) Last Name: 6) Suffix: 7) Title: Contact Information 8) P.O. Box:And /Or 9) Street Address: 10) City:11) State:12) Zip Code: 13)Telephone Number:14)Fax Number: 15)E-mail Address: 16) Preferred means of communication: ( ) E-mail ( ) Letter ( ) Both Dates & Response 17) Date Contacted _______________18) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Additional Information 19) Information on local government’s role or interest (optional): Frederick County Historical Resources Advisory Board Kayla Peloquin 107 N. Kent St Winchester VA 22601 (540)665-5651 noname@noname.com 10/08/2024 X X 13 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 276 Other Consulting Parties Other Consulting Parties Contacted 1) Has any other agency been contacted and invited to become a consulting party? ( ) Yes ( ) No Consulting Party 2)FCC Registration Number (FRN): 3) Name: Contact Name 4) First Name:5) MI: 6) Last Name:7) Suffix: 8) Title: Contact Information 9) P.O. Box:And /Or 10) Street Address: 11) City: 12) State:13) Zip Code: 14)Telephone Number:15)Fax Number: 16)E-mail Address: 17) Preferred means of communication: ( ) E-mail ( ) Letter ( ) Both Dates & Response 18) Date Contacted _______________19) Date Replied _______________ ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other Additional Information 20) Information on other consulting parties’ role or interest (optional): X Newtown History Center To Whom It May Concern 143 Stephens City VA 22655 (540)869-1700 info@newtownhistorycenter.org X 10/04/2024 X 14 of 16 FCC Form 620 May 2014 277 Designation of SHPO/THPO 1) Designate the Lead State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) based on the location of the tower. SHPO/THPO Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2) You may also designate up to three additional SHPOs/THPOs if the APEs include multiple states. If the APEs include other countries, enter the name of the National Historic Preservation Agency and any state and provincial Historic Preservation Agency. SHPO/THPO Name: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHPO/THPO Name: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHPO/THPO Name: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Certification I certify that all representations on this FCC Form 620 Submission Packet and the accompanying attachments are true, correct, and complete. Party Authorized to Sign First Name: MI: Last Name: Suffix: Signature: Date: _______________ FAILURE TO SIGN THIS APPLICATION MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION AND FORFEITURE OF ANY FEES PAID. WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM OR ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 312(a)(1)), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 503). 15 of 16 FCC Form 620 Virginia Department of Historic Resources Regina Torres 10/10/2024Regina Torres May 2014 278 Attachments : Type Description Date Entered Other Cover Letter 10/10/2024 Resumes/Vitae Resumes 10/10/2024 Photographs Photos 10/10/2024 Map Documents Site Map 10/10/2024 Map Documents Site Information 10/10/2024 Area of Potential Effects APE 10/10/2024 Tribal/NHO Involvement Tribal 10/10/2024 Historic Properties for Direct Effects Direct APE 10/10/2024 Historic Properties for Visual Effects Visual APE 10/10/2024 Local Government Involvement Local Government 10/10/2024 Public Involvement Other Parties 10/10/2024 State-Specific Forms SHPO Specific 10/10/2024 FCC Form 620 May 2014 16 of 16 279 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 1. Consultant Information Provide a current copy of the resume or curriculum vitae for the Principal Investigator and any researcher or other person who contributed to, reviewed, or provided significant input into the research, analysis, writing or conclusions presented in this filing. A current copy of the resume for the Principal Investigator and any researcher or other person who contributed to, reviewed, or provided significant input into the research, analysis, writing, or conclusions presented in this filing. 280 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 281 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 282 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 283 REGGIE TORRES PROJECT SCIENTIST Education Earth and Environmental Sciences, B. A. Boston University / Boston, MA Areas of Expertise Ms. Reggie Torres has experience performing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for wireless telecommunications projects. Additionally Ms. Torres has experience performing site inspections and conducting due diligence pursuant to EPA All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) for commercial real estate and lending projects. Environmental service expertise includes: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Historical City Directories Indoor Air Quality Assessments Information Section 7 Consultation Asbestos Inspections National Wetland Inventory Maps Flood Insurance Rate Maps Critical Habitat Maps Environmental Evaluation Summaries Archaeological and Architectural Impacts Soil Characterization Field Reconnaissance Section 106 Compliance NEPA Environmental Assessments Migratory Bird Evaluations Form 620/621 Submittals Historical Topographic Maps and Aerial Imagery Mold and Lead-Based Paint Surveys Soil and Groundwater Management Plans Local Government Consultation Native American Consultation Land Use History Preliminary Risk Assessments Professional Resume 284 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 2. Site Information – Photographs You are required to provide photographs and maps as part of this filing. Additional site information can be provided in an optional attachment. Photograph Requirements: Except in cases where no Historic Properties were identified within the Areas of Potential Effects, submit photographs as described below. Photographs should be in color, marked so as to identify the project, keyed to the relevant map or text, and dated; the focal length of the lens and the height of the camera should be noted. The source of any photograph included but not taken by the Applicant or its consultant (including copies of historic images) should be identified on the photograph. a.Photographs taken from the site should show views from the proposed location in all directions. The direction (e.g., north, south, etc.) should be indicated on each photograph, and, as a group, the photographs should present a complete (360 degree) view of the area around the proposed site. Please reference the following directional photographs of the project area, which were taken by Ariel Kegel on October 3, 2024, unless otherwise noted. b.Photographs of all listed in and eligible properties within the Areas of Potential Effects. N/A c.If any listed or eligible properties are visible from the proposed site, photographs looking at the site from each historic property. The approximate distance in feet (meters) between the site and the historic property should be included. If any listed or eligible properties are within the APE, photos looking at each historic property should be included. N/A Aerial photographs of the site were obtained via Esri and Google Earth, imagery is dated to 2018 and 2017. 285 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 286 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 287 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 288 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 289 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 290 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 291 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 292 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 293 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 294 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 295 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 296 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 297 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 298 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 299 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 300 Site Location & Surrounding Properties Site Location Aerial Photographs (2017) Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Easement 301 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 3. Site Information – Map Requirements Include one or more 7.5-minute quad USGS topographical maps that: a.Identify the Areas of Potential Effects for both Direct and Visual Effects. If a map is copied from the original, include a key with the name of quad and date. b.Show the location of the proposed site and any access roads or other easements including excavations. c.Show the locations of each property listed. d.Include keys for any symbols, colors, or other identifiers. e.Submit color maps whenever possible. The following maps have been attached to this report: 7.5-min Topographic Quad Map with Project Location Aerial Imagery with Project Location and APE Modern Soil Map with Project Location Map of Archaeological Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location Map of Architectural Resources within the APE-VE Historical Map of Project Location, ca. 1894 Historical Map of Project Location, ca. 1938 Map of Shovel Test Pit Locations and Project Boundary 302 Stephens City Quadrangle, Virginia (2022) Contour Interval = 10 Feet Scale 1 Inch = ~2,400 Feet Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.893” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.909” W à North Site Vicinity Map Arcola Towers – Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Site Location 303 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 304 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 305 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 306 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 307 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 308 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 309 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 310 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 311 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 4. Site Information – Additional Site Information Describe any additional structures, access roads, utility lines, fences, easements, or other construction planned for the site. The proposed project is for a monopole communications tower site in Stephens City, Frederick County, VA. Stephens City (39° 6’ 17.89” N, 78° 10’ 25.91” W), is within an existing graveled right-of-way, fenced field associated with adjacent retention ponds, and a small wooded area. With this project, Arcola Towers proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50- foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound in an overall 14.25 acre lease area. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot-wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently a mixture of forested land, manicured lawn associated with adjacent retention ponds, and an existing gravel access road. Total acreage of the project area will be approximately 0.95 acres (0.39 Hectare). The construction drawings provided by Arcola Towers are included in this attachment. 312 Please refer to Appendix A for Site Plans 313 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 5. Area of Potential Effects You are required to provide two attachments regarding the Determination of Effect: Areas of Potential Effect and Mitigation of Effect (if applicable). Areas of Potential Effect Guidelines: a.Describe the APE for direct effects and explain how this APE was determined. Under the NPA for FCC Projects, the Direct APE (APE-DE) “is defined as the area of potential ground disturbance and any property, or any portion thereof that will be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking” (FCC 2004). On November 24, 2008, the FCC further clarified that the APE-DE is limited to the tower or non-tower structure on which the collocation will be mounted as well as the lease area including the access route and utility corridor. The APE-DE for this project consists of the footprint of the proposed 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound within a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet, the variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot-wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. b.Describe the APE for visual effects and explain how this APE was determined. Per the NPA, the Visual APE (APE-VE) is the “geographic area in which the project has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the setting, including the landscape, where the setting is a character-defining feature of a historic property that makes it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)” (FCC 2004). The presumed APE-VE for construction of new facilities is the area from where the tower will be visible: a. Within a ½ mile from the tower site if the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in height; b. Within ¾ of a mile from the tower site if the proposed tower is more than 200 but no more than 400 feet in overall height; or c. Within 1½ miles from the tower site if the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in overall height. Taking into consideration the maximum height of the proposed undertaking (152’), the scale of the installation, and nearby historic properties, Trileaf determined that the APE for visual effects, according to the above definition, would encompass a ½-mile from the subject property. 314 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 5. Continued Mitigation of Effect Guidelines: In the case of where an Adverse Visual Effect or Adverse Direct Effect has been determined you must provide the following: a.Copies of any correspondence and summaries of any oral communication with the SHPO/THPO and any consulting parties. N/A b.Describe any alternatives that have been considered that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. Explain the Applicant’s conclusion regarding the feasibility of each alternative. N/A For each property identified as a Historic Property in the online e-106 form: a.Indicate whether the Applicant believes the proposed undertaking would have a) no effect; b) no adverse effect; or, c) an adverse effect. Explain how each such assessment was made. Provide supporting documentation where necessary. Trileaf archaeologist, Ariel Kegel, performed this survey in response to the planned use of the above-described parcel and the potential impacts that such use might present to any archaeological and architectural cultural resources within the project area. A review of the VCRIS database shows one (1) previous archaeological surveys and no previously recorded sites in the project APE-DE. The records search was expanded to a 1-mile search radius, within which there have been five (5) previous archaeological surveys and 37 previously recorded archaeological sites. Additionally, a review of the VCRIS Map and NRHP databases was performed prior to fieldwork by Michael Hart, Senior Historian/Assistant Project Manager. There are no NRHP-listed or -eligible historic resources within the Direct APE or the ½-mile APE for Visual Effects for this project. The National Park Service Historic Trails Interactive GIS map was also reviewed. A National Historic Trail is recognized by the National Park Service as carrying the same significance as being listed in the NRHP and is therefore considered a Historic Property. No known portion of a National Historic Trail intersects with the project or is located within a ½-mile of the project location. 315 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 5. Continued Based on the findings of this survey, it is recommended that there will be No Historic Properties within either the Direct or Visual APE. It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area. Please refer to the attached Cultural Resources Survey Report for additional information. 316 Stephens City Trileaf Project #750196 Client #Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Prepared For: Arcola Towers 112 W Washington St #210 Middleburg, VA 20117 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY 317 PREPARED AND WRITTEN BY: Trileaf Corporation 8600 Lasalle Rd Suite 301 Towson, MD 21286 Ariel Kegel, RA Field Archaeologist 717-725-7290 a.kegel@trileaf.com Michael Hart, M.S. Assistant Project Manager/ Senior Historian/ Architectural Historian Kaitlen Hitt Project Scientist II Trileaf Project # 750196 Lead Agency Federal Communications Commission (FCC) October 2024 Cultural Resources Survey of the Stephens City Telecommunication Project, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA Trileaf Project #750196 318 i ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In October 2024, Trileaf Corporation (Trileaf) performed a cultural resource inventory survey for a proposed self-support tower located in Stephens City, Frederick County. The proposed project is located within a wooded area, existing right-of-way, and maintained grassy field associated with adjacent retention ponds. Arcola Towers proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound in an overall 14.25 acre lease area. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot-wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently a mixture of forested land, a manicured lawn associated with adjacent retention ponds, and an existing gravel access road. Total acreage of the new construction area is approximately 0.95 acres (0.39 Hectare). Ariel Kegel, Field Archaeologist for Trileaf, performed this survey in response to the planned use of the above-described parcel and the potential impacts that such use might present to archaeological and above ground cultural resources. The Phase I cultural resource survey was designed to discover all precontact and historical period cultural resources that might be present within the project area. The field survey of the project area, which included a pedestrian survey, shovel testing, and visual inspection, yielded no evidence for the presence of archaeological or above ground historic properties within the Direct APE for the current project. Additionally, no NRHP-listed or eligible properties were identified within the proposed project’s Direct or Visual APE (0.5-mile radius). Based on these findings, Trileaf recommends No Historic Properties in both the APE-DE and the APE-VE. It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area. . 319 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................... iii SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Area of Potential Effects (APE) .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Plans and Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Elevations ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Cultural Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 7 SECTION 3.0 – RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Background Research ................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Site Probability ............................................................................................................................................ 18 SECTION 4.0 – FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................ 18 4.1 Archaeology.................................................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Above Ground Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 21 SECTION 5.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 21 5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 21 5.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................................ 22 APPENDIX A: PROJECT LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................. 25 APPENDIX B: RESUMES ....................................................................................................................................... 41 320 iii FIGURES Figure 1: General Location of Proposed Cell Tower Installation (USGS 2022) ........................................................... 3 Figure 2: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Location and Installation (Arcola Towers 2024)............................. 4 Figure 3: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Location and Installation (Arcola Towers 2024)............................. 4 Figure 4: Location of Proposed Cell Tower Location on Modern Soil Map (NRCS 2024) .......................................... 6 Figure 5: Project Location ca.1894 (USGS 1894) ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Project Location ca. 1938 (USGS 1938) ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Archaeological Sites and Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location .................................................... 16 Figure 8: Architectural Resources within the ½-mile APE-VE ................................................................................... 17 Figure 9: Shovel Test Pit Location and Project Boundary Map (ESRI 2018) ............................................................. 20 TABLES Table 1: Archaeological Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location ..................................................................... 14 Table 2: Archaeological Sites within 1-mile of the Project Location .......................................................................... 15 Table 3: Shovel Test Pit Descriptions.......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 4: Description of Subject Property .................................................................................................................... 21 321 1 SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION The FCC requires licensees and their representatives to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Federal Communications Commission 1996). The NHPA (54 U.S.C. § 300308) defines a historic property as any “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource.” Applicants are required to assess and report all potential effects to Historic Properties as part of the Section 106 process prior to construction. Trileaf Field Archaeologist, Ariel Kegel, performed the present cultural resources survey to identify and evaluate the potential impacts that the above-described Project might present to Historic Properties within both the Direct and Visual Areas of Potential Effects. As such, the present survey was designed to discover all NRHP-eligible or listed archaeological and above ground cultural resources present within the Project area. Archival research prior to field investigations was conducted by Field Archaeologist at Trileaf, Ariel Kegel (B.A. Anthropology with Archaeology Concentration, Millersville University) and Assistant Project Manager/ Senior Historian/ Architectural Historian at Trileaf, Michael Hart (B.A. History/Anthropology and M.S. Social Science Education, Florida State University). Mr. Hart is a Secretary of the Interior (SOI) qualified Architectural Historian and Historian. Fieldwork, photography, and final report production were completed by Ariel Kegel. Maps and graphics were produced by Trileaf Field Archaeologist, Kaitlen Hitt (B.S. Anthropology Kennesaw State University). This project was conducted under the direction and supervision of Trileaf Cultural Resources Project Manager, Jacob Waters, M.A. All work on the current project was completed between September 11 and October 9, 2024. 1.1 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) Under the NPA for FCC Projects, the Direct APE (APE-DE) “is defined as the area of potential ground disturbance and any property, or any portion thereof that will be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking” (FCC 2004). On November 24, 2008, the FCC further clarified that the APE-DE is limited to the tower or non-tower structure on which the collocation will be mounted as well as the lease area including the access route and utility corridor. The APE-DE for this project consists of the proposed 50-foot by 50- foot fenced tower compound within an overall 6,966-square-foot area of vegetation clearing, and a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot-wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. Per the NPA, the Visual APE (APE-VE) is the “geographic area in which the project has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the setting, including the landscape, where the setting is a character-defining feature of a historic property that makes it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)” (FCC 2004). The presumed APE-VE for construction of new facilities is the area from where the tower will be visible: a. Within a ½ mile from the tower location if the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in height; b. Within ¾ of a mile from the tower location if the proposed tower is more than 200 but no more than 400 feet in overall height; or c. Within 1½ miles from the tower location if the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in overall height. Taking into consideration the maximum height of the proposed undertaking (152’) and the scale of the installation, Trileaf determined that the current project’s APE for visual effects will encompass a ½-mile radius from the subject property (Figure 1). 322 2 1.2 PROJECT PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Please reference Figures 2 and 3 to review the construction drawing provided by Arcola Towers. Also, please reference Appendix A to review photographs of the project area, which were taken by Ariel Kegel on October 3, 2024, unless otherwise noted. 323 3 Figure 1: General Location of Proposed Cell Tower Installation (USGS 2022) 324 4 Figure 2: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Location and Installation (Arcola Towers 2024) Figure 3: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Location and Installation (Arcola Towers 2024) 325 5 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT SETTING 2.1 SOILS According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Frederick County, VA the northern half of the proposed area to be cleared and a portion of the proposed easement is underlain by Clearbrook channery silt loam, with 2 to 7 percent slopes (9B). Clearbrook series soils form from residuum from acid gray shale and sandstone and occur on uplands, along stream heads and in depressions. These somewhat poorly drained soils generally exhibit an Ap horizon of channery silt loam from 0 to 7 inches, followed by a Bt horizon of very channery silty clay loam from 7 to 14 inches, followed by a Btg horizon of very channery silty clay loam from 14 to 23 inches, followed by a Cg horizon of extremely channery silty clay loam from 23 to 27 inches, followed by a R horizon of soft shale bedrock from 27 inches, subsurface. The southeast portion of the fenced tower compound the proposed easement are underlain by Weikert- Berks channery silt loams with 15 5o 25 percent slopes (41D). Weikert soils are well-drained and generally consist of an Ap horizon of channery silt loam from 0 to 7 inches, followed by a Bw horizon of very channery silt loam from 7 to 14 inches, followed by a C horizon of extremely channery silt loam from 14 to 18 inches, followed by a R horizon of fractured acid shale and siltstone bedrock at 18 inches, subsurface. These soils occur on convex dissected uplands formed in weathered residuum from interbedded gray and brown acid shale, siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone. Berks series soils are well-drained and generally consist of an Ap horizon of channery loam from 0 to 10 inches, followed by a Bw1 horizon of very channery loam from 10 to 17 inches, followed by a Bw2 horizon of very channery silt loam from 17 to 21 inches, followed by a CB horizon of extremely channery loam from 21 to 26 inches, followed by a C horizon of extremely channery loam from 26 to 33 inches, followed by a R horizon of fractured shale bedrock from 33 inches, subsurface. Berks soils occur on dissected uplands and form from residuum weather from shale interbedded with fine grained sandstone and siltstone (Figure 4; NRCS 2024). 326 6 Figure 4: Location of Proposed Cell Tower Location on Modern Soil Map (NRCS 2024) 327 7 2.2 ELEVATIONS Elevations range between 650-730 feet (198.1-222.5 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) in the surrounding area, with the project area elevation at approximately 700 feet (213.4 meters) AMSL. The project is located in the Opequon Creek watershed which drains into the Potomac/Shenandoah River watershed and the nearest water source is the Sulphur Spring Run. 2.3 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project is located within the Northern Appalachian Ridge and Valleys portion of the Northern Atlantic Slope Diversified Farming Region. This is a folded and faulted area of parallel ridges and valleys that are carved out of anticlines, synclines, and thrust blocks. Parallel sandstone and shale ridges are separated by narrow to moderately broad limestone and shale valleys. The ridges are strongly sloping to extremely steep and have narrow, rolling crests, and the valleys are mainly level to strongly sloping. This area is underlain by Paleozoic sediments ranging in age from Cambrian to Pennsylvanian. The ridge crests are made up primarily of resistant sandstones and conglomerate bedrock. The valleys are underlain by less resistant shales and limestone. The average annual precipitation in most of this area is 31 to 45 inches (785 to 1,145 millimeters). The maximum precipitation occurs from late winter through early summer, and the minimum occurs in fall. The average annual temperature is 44 to 57 degrees F (7 to 14 degrees C). The freeze-free period averages 18- days and ranges from 140 to 220 days. This area supports hardwoods. White oak, red oak, black oak, hickories, and associated upland hardwoods are the major species. Some of the major wildlife species in this area are white-tailed deer, wild turkey, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, ruffed grouse, and woodchucks. Smallmouth bass, rock bass, sunfish, catfish, and suckers are in the larger warm-water streams. Suitable cold-waters streams area stocked with trout. Native brook trout inhabit many of the smaller streams. Most of this area is in farms, and the cropland in the area is used for a wide variety of crops, mainly corn, small grains, and forage for dairy and beef cattle. Other important crops are potatoes, soybeans, apples [peaches, and some tobacco and vegetables. Combined with areas of grasslands and field crops, this setting provides a wide range of resources for animal and human exploitation, including food (e.g., nuts, berries, fruit, and roots), shelter, and fuel (USDA, NRCS 2022). 2.4 CULTURAL SETTING The Paleoindian Period characterizes the accepted beginning of human habitation in the Mid-Atlantic Region. While a ca. 11,000 B.C. date represents a general beginning of the period, excavations at the Cactus Hill site in Sussex County suggest that Native Americans may have been in the region as early as 15,000 to 16,000 years ago and used a non-fluted blade technology (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Archeological investigations of Paleoindian sites in the Mid-Atlantic Region, such as the Shawnee- Minisink Site along the Delaware River (McNett 1985) and the Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974), have offered new evidence toward our understanding of Paleoindian subsistence, technology, and settlement. Traditional theories suggest that Paleoindians used a specialized collector strategy by hunting late Pleistocene megafauna, such as mastodon and elk, based on the finds of large fluted stone points at megafaunal kill sites (Willey 1966). Evidence from archeological excavations of Mid- Atlantic Region Paleoindian sites, however, indicates aboriginal diets may have included game like deer, hare, turkey and fish, and plant foods such as wild grape, black walnut and blackberry (Dent 1985, 1995; Ebright 1992; Gardner 1980:19-20; McNett 1985). Paleoindian tool kits reflected hunting activities as the major focus of the diet, including diagnostic Clovis, Mid-Paleo, and Dalton point styles, but this may be a function of poor preservation. Other lithic tools include scrapers, burins, gravers, utilized flakes, knives, and hammerstones (Gardner 1980; Custer 1984; Funk 1972). 328 8 The dependency on area game and plant sources for sustenance likely required Paleoindian peoples to migrate with the changing seasons, as well as with the depletion of area resources. Archeological evidence suggests Paleoindian sites can be divided into several types based on artifact assemblage and stone tool/debitage distribution. “Base camps” are identified by the artifact variety of the site assemblage, the indication of discrete activity areas based on the distribution of stone tools and debitage, and the presence of pits and post molds (Gardner 1974, 1977, 1979). An example of a base camp is the Thunderbird site (44WR11) in Warren County, Virginia. Smaller, specialized sites, such as quarries and reduction sites, were utilized for brief periods by smaller groups than those at base camps (Dent 1995). The Higgins Site Paleoindian occupation represents a small, short-term campsite occupied by a highly mobile small band (Ebright 1992). The Archaic Period (8000 B.C. – 1200 B.C.) begins at the beginning of the modern Holocene era of warming temperatures, retreating glaciers, and extinction of megafauna. The Early Archaic (8000 B.C. – 6500 B.C.) people continued the traditions of those from the Paleoindian Period. Settlements expanded into more diverse environments, utilizing a wide variety of shellfish, fish, smaller game, and plant food resources such as nuts, berries, and roots (Dent 1995). The environmental conditions were more seasonable and the habitat changed from open conifer parkland setting to an oak-hickory forest habitat. Sea level rise associated with the retreat of the ice sheets inundated the ancestral Susquehanna River valley and it is tributaries, forming the Chesapeake Bay. Marsh and inland swamps increased within the Piedmont region, fostering an increase of fish and game dependent on these wet settings. Early Archaic people shifted from the use of high-quality lithic materials to locally available materials such as quartz, quartzite, and rhyolite. The appearance of the Corner-Notched Tradition (7500 – 6800 B.C.) and the Bifurcate Tradition (6800 – 6000 B.C.) represent tool style changes characteristic of the Early Archaic Period. The introduction of the atlatl occurred at this time as well (Coe et al. 1986). Toolkits of the Early Archaic included ground stone tools and chipped-stone axes in addition to what would have been found in Paleoindian toolkits (Geier 1990:70; Dent 1995:170; Gardner 1989). During the Middle Archaic Period (6500 B.C. – 3000 B.C.) environmental fluctuations diminished, with the climate warming to an average temperature near that of the present day. An increase in precipitation also occurred during this period. In response to the stable, favorable environmental factors and diversification of the resource base, the aboriginal population expanded over a larger geographic area. Increased growth of the oak-hickory forest provided Middle Archaic people with a wider range of nutritious and storable food resources in the form of mast products (i.e. acorns, nuts) and an increase in game animals, such as turkey. Kavanagh (1982), in a study of the Monocacy Valley in western Maryland, noted an increase in Middle Archaic sites away from the river and along tributaries, suggesting the use of a broader resource base in the environment. Populations became more sedentary with the stability and availability of various resources, fostering a sense of territoriality based on the given resources located in a physiographic province or drainage basin (Custer 1986). Upland settings and interior wetland areas were utilized more often by these larger sedentary population groups. Fusion-fission settlement patterns developed with the Middle Archaic people along major floodplains (Gardner 1987; Dent 1995:177). Small groups would meet on a large floodplain and create a base camp when certain resources were available during various periods of the year, such as migrations of fish or birds. When the food resources became scarce, the base camp would disperse back into smaller groups and move to the upland settings to utilize the resources in this environmental area. While Middle Archaic tool kits continued to resemble those of previous periods, stemmed points are introduced and several types of ground-stone tools were added for processing an expanded resource base. A variety of grinding tools found on Middle Archaic sites, such as mortars and pestles, indicate the increased reliance on plants in the diet. The Higgins Site produced fragments of mortars and pestles in its Middle Archaic component (Ebright 1992). Netsinkers and atlatl weights suggested increased collection of both fish and game. Atlatl weights have been found along the Nottaway River in Virginia (Egloff and MacAvoy 1990). Drills and other wood-working tools, such as adzes and celts, were also found in a Middle Archaic tool kit (Dent 1995: 176). Diagnostic tool forms include LeCroy, Kanawha, Stanly, Morrow 329 9 Mountain, Guilford, Halifax, and other bifurcate/notched-base, contracting-stem, and side notched point types. The Late/Terminal Archaic Period (3000 B.C. – 1200 B.C.) is marked by a greater emphasis on local resource exploitation along the major river and estuarine systems. Warm and dry conditions favored the development of open grasslands and oak-hickory forests. A rise in sea levels established more permanent waterways in the region. Late Archaic people continued fusion-fission patterns and traditions of those from Middle Archaic people with an increase of a sedentary lifestyle. Settlement patterns tended to focus more along interior drainages of first order streams, with larger social groupings and increased sedentary lifestyles (Mouer 1991; Steponaitis 1980; Kavanagh 1982). Early agricultural cultivation of sunflower, sumpweed, and goosefoot likely arose during this period to provide a steady food supply for the growing population (Yarnell 1976:268). Evidence of territory development occurred within the region during the Late Archaic Period through the development of stylistic and territorial zones of diagnostic lithic artifacts. Diagnostic artifacts found in the Late Archaic period include Broadspear variants, such as Savannah River and the Holmes projectile points, Notched Broadspear, Perkiomen, Dry Brook, and Dry Brook Orient projectile points. The appearance of Savannah River Broadspear is attributed to aboriginals migrating from the Carolinas in the early portion of the Late Archaic (Gardner 1987). Gardner suggests that the Holmes projectile point was a later version of the Savannah River and Susquehanna Broadspear, which have been located at sites with inhabitants from the northern regions. Susquehanna projectile points, usually manufactured from rhyolite, have been restricted to the Shenandoah Valley and above the fall line of the Potomac River, whereas quartz or quartzite Savannah River and Holmes types have generally been found in the southern portion of the Potomac River and through the Piedmont regions. Large flat bottom steatite (soapstone) vessels (i.e. bowls) with carved lug-handles are one of the most noted types of artifacts to be introduced to the Chesapeake Bay assemblage during the Late Archaic Period (Dent 1995). Steatite was found in the western regions past the Fall Line of the Potomac River and in the Piedmont areas. The use of the heavy steatite bowls appears to indicate a more sedentary pattern of existence (Tuck 1978:38). These vessels allowed for carrying of liquids and cooking, either over a fire or by stone boiling. During the Woodland Period (1200 B.C. – A.D. 1600), the Early Woodland Period (1200 B.C. – 500 B.C.) represents an increased sedentary lifestyle for aboriginal peoples, with larger, long-term habitation sites and short-term outlying resource extraction sites (Mouer 1991). Climate evolved into a more stable, moister condition, which allowed for more stable living conditions. Domesticated cultigens, such as corn, beans, and squash, were gradually incorporated into the daily diet. Wild grasses, such as amaranth, and wild plants like polygonum, mustard, and grape, provided additional sources of sustenance (McLearen 1991). These types of wild plants were collected from storage pit features in nine oval pit houses identified at the 522 Bridge Site in Front Royal, Virginia (McLearen 1991). A rapid rise in ceramic technology flourished during the Early Woodland Period. The earliest ceramics, attributed to the Marcey Creek series, were tempered with crushed steatite and formed in a similar fashion as steatite bowls of the previous period (Mouer 1991). Other types of experimental ceramics, including Selden Island, Croaker Landing, and Waterlily wares, are possibly distinctive forms for the Chesapeake Bay area (Custer 1989; Egloff 2014). Accokeek wares, featuring sand and quartz temper and coil construction, eventually replaced Marcey Creek ceramics (Wright 1973). Early Woodland Period ceramics tempered with steatite were limited to raw resource locations found in areas around the Fall Line and Piedmont. However, the use of sand and quartz temper opened up manufacturing of ceramic technology to other locations where steatite was absent, allowing Early Woodland people further mobility and uses of ceramics. The flaked-tool industry reflects Late Archaic technology with small bifaces, drills, scrapers, and utilized flakes. Antler and bone tools have been recovered as well (Dent 1995). Point types associated with Early Woodland ceramics include Savannah River points, Dry Brook, Orient Fishtail, and Calvert points. 330 10 The Middle Woodland Period (500 B.C. – A.D. 1000) was witness to an elaboration of mortuary practices, including burial mounds and elaborate, exotic ceremonial grave goods related to the Adena culture (Griffin 1967). These grave practices and goods not only indicate a shift from a band level of social organization to complex rank societies, but also extensive trade associations beyond the immediate interior of Virginia. Pottery production expanded from the coast and styles continued to shift. Popes Creek, a thick-walled, sand- tempered, net-impressed ware found predominately in the Coastal Plain areas, and Mockley, a shell- tempered, cord- and net-impressed ware, are two dominant styles (Custer 1989; Dent 1995; Wright 1973). Calvert and Rossville projectile points have been found in association with Popes Creek ceramics, and Selby Bay–Fox Creek points are associated with Mockley ceramics (Dent 1995:236-237). Spear points began to be replaced by bow and arrow technology by the Middle Woodland period, as evidenced by Yadkin points. Tools were manufactured with quartz or local materials. Settlement patterns for the Late Woodland Period (1000 A.D. – 1600 A.D.) are reflected in permanent villages with a subsistence base focused on grown domesticated foods, namely maize (corn), beans, and squash. Maize horticulture occurred around 1000 A.D. Floodplain locations are favored for village sites, likely based on the availability of fertile bottomland soils for agricultural practices and the ease of clearing the land in these areas. Stockade fortifications have been found at some Late Woodland Period village sites, possibly indicating defensive measures used to protect from attacking parties (Griffin 1967). In Virginia, evidence of stockade settlements began around 1200 A.D. with many dating after 1400 A.D. (Means 2023). Smaller base camps and procurement sites tend to serve as specialized function sites with periods of multiple re-use. A dramatic increase in the small village sites with multiple storage pits during the Late Woodland Period suggests that these populations were sedentary and continually growing in size. The sedentary lifestyle and food surpluses were attributed to the creation of complex sociopolitical structures within ranked societies. Recognized territories developed among the complex societies, limiting movement into another tribe’s area (Dent 1995). Trade networks developed among the various societies, with neutral trade zones established between territories. Ceramic diversity continued with a variety of motifs likely associated with the borrowing of designs from other societies through established trade networks. Crushed stone (quartz, limestone), sand, and crushed shellfish tempered wares developed during the Late Woodland Period. Fabric and simple stamped paddle markings found in Townsend, Roanoke, and Albermarle Wares replaced earlier cord and net impressed surface treatments. The diversity of Late Woodland ceramic decoration and motifs likely reflect the need to define ethnic boundaries and possibly smaller kin sets. Common projectile points found in the Late Woodland Period include Jacks Reef, Levanna triangular, and Madison. SECTION 3.0 – RESEARCH 3.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Field investigations were preceded by a period of archival research to determine what, if anything, could be predicted concerning precontact, contact, or post contact archaeological and/or architectural sensitivities prior to the onset of fieldwork. To assess these potentials, the Virgina Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS), site files and holdings were reviewed on September 12, 2024. Trileaf reviewed numerous cartographic and ethnohistoric databases, including the NRHP and the USGS Earth Explorer data portal. Maps specifically referenced in our research included the USGS 1894 Winchester Quadrangle, WV, 1938 Winchester Quadrangle, VA, 1966, 1978 and 2022 Stephens City, VA USGS topographic quadrangles and aerial images captured in 1958, 1963, 1971, 1983, 1997, 2007, and 2021. The topographic map of the area from 1894 (Figure 5) shows the project location in an undeveloped area with no structures present on the subject property. The largest nearby towns are Stephens City to the southwest and Winchester to the north, both along the Valley Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The 331 11 Shenandoah Valley Railroad is also present to the East of the project area. Valley Pike (modern-day US 11) is also illustrated to the west of the project area in the 1894 topographic map. Between 1894 and 1938, the project area appears to remain undeveloped (Figure 6). Overall, the project area has undergone minimal changes since the 1970’s, although residential development has expanded steadily in the surrounding area. Aerial photography from 1958 shows the project location and the surrounding area comprised mainly of forested land. Between 1958 and 1963, the project area appears to have been cleared of vegetation. Between 1963 and 1971, the subject property underwent several changes in relation to the development of two retention ponds on the subject property. By 1971, the two retention ponds are visible within the fenced compound to the southwest of the tower location. Additionally, the access road (Lakeview Drive) and the shed to the southwest of the retention ponds are visible in aerial photography from 1971. The surrounding woodlands appear to be regrowing. Additionally, residential developments to the southwest of the project area have visibly expanded. After 1982, a structure to the north of the access road and retention ponds is visible. This structure is no longer extant and was demolished at some point between 1997 and 2002. 332 12 Figure 5: Project Location ca.1894 (USGS 1894) 333 13 Figure 6: Project Location ca. 1938 (USGS 1938) 334 14 There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the direct APE, although the project’s APE-DE is within the boundary of one (1) previously recorded archaeological survey. Additionally, five (5) archaeological surveys and 37 archaeological sites have been previously recorded within 1-mile of the project area (Figure 7). Summaries of these archaeological surveys and sites follows. Survey Number Year Title Author FK-019 1991 An Archaeological Survey of and Management Plan for Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of the Upper Opequon Creek Clarence R. Geier, Warren R. Hofstra, et al FK-031 1994 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Areas to be Impacted by the Proposed New Alignment of Route 642 in Frederick County, Virginia Christopher Egghart, Luke Boyd FK-035 1990 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Widening and Realignment of a 7.03 Mile Section of Route 522 in Frederick and Clarke Counties, Virginia Ted T. Cromwell. Heather Mackey, David L. Miller, James Cromwell FK-052 1999 The Carriesbrook Redoubt (44FK66) Threatened Sites Project Michael J. Klein et al FK-055 1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations, Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia Brad Botwick, Ashley M. Neville, et al Table 1: Archaeological Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location Site Number Year Resource Type Cultural Affiliation NRHP Eligibility Distance from Project (km) 44FK0027 2022 Domestic Camp Early Archaic Period (8500 - 6501 B.C.E), Middle Archaic Period (6500 - 3001 B.C.E), Late Archaic Period (3000 - 1201 B.C.E) Not Evaluated 1.3 44FK0062 2013 Domestic Dwelling, single 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 1.32 44FK0063 2013 Military/ Defense; Earthworks 1850-1874, Civil War (1861 - 1865) Not Evaluated 1.48 44FK0064 2013 Domestic Dwelling, single, Other Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 1.37 44FK0065 2013 Dwelling, single, Outbuilding 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated 1.44 44FK0068 2013 DSS Legacy; Other 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated 1.51 44FK0069 2013 Trash scatter 20th Century: 2nd half (1950 - 1999) Not Evaluated 1.69 44FK0070 2013 Not Evaluated Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated 1.1 44FK0071 2013 Not Evaluated Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 1.23 44FK0072 2013 Military base/facility Not Evaluated Not Evaluated 1.54 44FK0078 2013 Dam 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 1.05 44FK0079 2013 Not Evaluated Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated 0.97 44FK0080 2013 Dam 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 0.78 44FK0083 2013 Other Not Evaluated Not Evaluated 0.84 44FK0085 2013 Other 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated 1.13 44FK0109 2013 Dwelling, single, Mill 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 1.46 335 15 44FK0110 2013 Other Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 1.04 44FK0111 2013 Fort 1850-1874 Not Evaluated 1.08 44FK0112 2013 Dwelling, single 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 0.42 44FK0113 2013 Other 1975 - 1999 Not Evaluated 1.05 44FK0114 2013 Bridge 1900 - 1949 Not Evaluated 1.27 44FK0115 2013 Trash scatter 1900 - 1949 Not Evaluated 0.82 44FK0116 2013 Outbuilding 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated 0.5 44FK0117 2013 Dam 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated 0.52 44FK0118 2013 Cemetery 19th Century: 1st quarter (1800 - 1825), 19th Century: 2nd quarter (1825 - 1849) Not Evaluated 0.49 44FK0539 2013 Military camp 1825 - 1874 Not Eligible 0.87 44FK0647 2015 Earthworks Civil War (1861 - 1865) Not Evaluated 0.82 44FK0657 2013 Military camp 1850-1874 Not Evaluated 1.15 44FK0658 2013 Military camp 1850-1874 Not Evaluated 1.26 44FK0659 2013 Military camp 1850-1874 Not Evaluated 1.08 44FK0662 2013 Military camp 1850-1874 Not Evaluated 1.11 Table 2: Archaeological Sites within 1-mile of the Project Location Additionally, based on a review of the Virginia Department of Natural Resources SHPO databases, and through the National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) conducted on September 18, 2024, by Michael Hart, Senior Historian/ Assistant Project Manager/ Architectural Historian at Trileaf there are no NRHP-eligible or -listed resources identified within the APE for Direct or Visual effects (Figure 8). The National Park Service Historic Trails Interactive GIS map was also reviewed. The Trail of Tears is recognized by the National Park Service as a National Historic Trail, which carries the same significance as being listed in the NRHP and is therefore considered a Historic Property. No known portion of the Trail of Tears intersects with the project or is located within a ½-mile of the project location. 336 16 Figure 7: Archaeological Sites and Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location (Map Generated by VCRIS 2024) 337 17 Figure 8: Architectural Resources within the ½-mile APE-VE (Map Generated by VCRIS 2024) 338 18 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN Trileaf designed the Phase I archaeological survey to locate and identify all archaeological and above ground cultural resources within the direct APE, defined as the 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound within a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet, the variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole, and to evaluate the potential significance of any newly identified archaeological sites. A cultural resource is gauged to be significant if it meets at least one of four criteria for eligibility for listing in the NRHP: A.Associated with significant events in the broad patterns of national history, B.Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, C.Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master, D.Capable of yielding important information about the past. Criterion D typically applies to archaeological sites. In order to be capable of yielding important information about the past, generally a site must possess artifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or other cultural features that make it possible to test historical hypotheses, corroborate and amplify currently available information, or reconstruct the sequence of the local archaeological record. To be considered significant, archaeological sites must demonstrate sufficient integrity to answer important research questions. These questions are developed in association with temporally, regionally, and thematically defined historic contexts or study units (U.S. Department of the Interior 1997). 3.3 SITE PROBABILITY In general, most predictive site location models include distance to a permanent water source as a major factor in determining the existence and probable density of archaeological sites. There is a higher probability of encountering precontact archaeological sites closer to a source of fresh water, although distance will vary from location to location depending on an area’s topography and accessibility. There is a greater likelihood of encountering precontact sites on and around landforms located near rivers, streams, and natural freshwater lakes. In contrast, historic period sites, can be found more equally distributed across the uplands and valleys due to the ability to access water by excavating wells. Based on the topography of the project area, historic aerial photographs, distance to a permanent water source, and taking into consideration current land use, historic and recent commercial and residential development in the region, we believe there is a low probability for encountering undisturbed archaeological artifacts or features within the proposed project’s APE for direct effects. SECTION 4.0 – FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS 4.1 ARCHAEOLOGY The field investigation at this location was conducted by Ariel Kegel on October 3, 2024. Standard archaeological field equipment included shovels, trowels, and a quarter-inch wire mesh sifting screen. Based on the Virginia Guidelines for Conducting Archaeological Survey in Virigina, the field survey techniques utilized were a combination visual survey at 5-meter intervals and shovel-testing at 15-meter intervals, with a standard shovel test unit consisting of a hand-excavated hole, approximately 30 cm in diameter and deep enough to reach culturally sterile subsoils. Each shovel test was excavated in no greater than 10- centimeter (4- inches) levels to ensure any artifacts were plotted by depth. All shovel test fill was screened through a ¼-inch wire mesh screen. As surface visibility in some areas of the project was obscured or overgrown, these areas of the project were surveyed using a shovel testing strategy. A portion of the 339 19 proposed access and utility easement was located within an existing graveled and graded right-of-way. This area was not able to be shovel tested. Shovel testing first focused on the proposed 50 x 50-foot (15.24 x 15.24 meter) fenced tower compound area and the surrounding area of proposed tree-clearing, which was tested in a 2 x 2 grid. Shovel tests were also placed at a 15-meter interval within the proposed utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole from the existing access road. One (1) shovel test, STP 8, was placed judgmentally in a small portion of the proposed utility easement outside of the existing access road. Much of the access easement was not shovel tested as it was graveled. Survey in this portion of the project area was limited to visual inspection. Soil profiles throughout most of the project area were consistent, revealing a layer of brown (10YR4/3) silty loam over a layer of pale brown (10YR6/3) channery silty clay loam over a layer of strong brown (7.5YR5/6) very channery silty clay loam with iron accumulations. No cultural material was discovered as a result of this archaeological survey. Total archaeological field time: 1 person, 2.5 hours. STP No. STP Location Depth (cm below surface) Soil Description Artifacts Recovered Latitude/ Longitude 1 Northwest Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-15 10YR 4/3 SiLo; roots throughout None 39° 6'18.22"N/ 78°10'26.14"W BA: 15-22 10YR6/3 Channery SiClLo B: 22-26 7.5YR5/6 Very Channery SiClLo; Fe inclusions None 2 Northeast Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-10 10YR4/3 SiLo None 39° 6'18.09"N/ 78°10'25.53"W BA: 10-20 10YR6/3 SiClLo None B: 20-36 7.5YR5/6 m/w 5YR4/6 Channery SiClLo None 3 Southwest Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-12 10YR5/3 Channery SiLo None 39° 6'17.76"N/ 78°10'26.23"W B: 12-15 7.5YR6/3 m/w 5YR 5/8 and 7.5YR 5/6 Very Channery SiClLo; Rock Impasse None 4 Southeast Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-9 10YR5/3 Channery SiLo None 39° 6'17.63"N/ 78°10'25.63"W B: 9-21 10YR6/3 m/w 5YR5/8 Very Channery SiClLo None 5 Utility Easement Ap: 0-11 10YR4/3 SiLo None 39° 6'12.77"N/ 78°10'30.83"W B: 11-25 10YR5/4 Very Channery SiLo; Fe nodules None 6 Utility Easement Ap: 0-11 10YR 4/2 SiLo None 39° 6'12.95"N/ 78°10'31.42"W B: 11-26 10YR6/3 SiClLo; Hydric None 7 Utility Easement Ap: 0-12 10YR4/3 SiLo None 39° 6'13.10"N/ 78°10'32.01"W B: 12-20 10YR5/4 Very Channery SiLo None 8 Access and Utility Easement Ap: 0-8 10YR 3/3 SiLo; gravelly, roots throughout None 39° 6'17.50"N/ 78°10'28.47"W B: 8-14 10YR5/4 Channery SiLo; Rock Impasse None Table 3: Shovel Test Pit Descriptions 340 20 Figure 9: Shovel Test Pit Location and Project Boundary Map (ESRI 2018) 341 21 4.2 ABOVE GROUND CULTURAL RESOURCES As noted above, a review of the VA SHPO database of National Register Sites and Districts, Certified Local Districts and Architectural Surveys and the National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) was conducted on September 18, 2024, by Michael Hart, Senior Historian/Architectural Historian/Assistant Project Manager at Trileaf. Based upon this review, there are no NRHP-eligible or listed resources located within the APE for Direct or Visual effects. Additionally, no above ground cultural resources were identified during the current survey. Project # and Status Property Name and Address Subject Property Photograph Summary of Criteria and/or Description Summary of Effects 750196 Not Contributing Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 The Subject Property structure is not an individually historic structure, neither is it a designated National Historic Landmark, nor a property listed in, or eligible for listing in the NRHP. No Effect The proposed design is minor and necessary for the community. This will have no effect on the Subject Property. Table 4: Description of Subject Property SECTION 5.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS The field survey of the project area, which included a pedestrian survey, shovel testing, and visual inspection, yielded no evidence for the presence of archaeological properties within the current project area or 25-foot (8.3 meter) boundary of the APE-DE. Although there has been one (1) previously recorded archaeological survey within the project’s APE-DE, no previously recorded archaeological sites within the project’s APE-DE. There have been five (5) previous archaeological surveys conducted within a mile of the current project area, and 37 previously recorded archaeological sites. Additionally, no NRHP-listed or eligible properties have been previously recorded within the project area’s APE-DE or APE-VE. Additionally, the National Park Service National Historic Trails Interactive GIS map was also reviewed. The Trail of Tears is recognized by the National Park Service as a National Historic Trail, which carries the same significance as being listed in the NRHP and is therefore considered a Historic Property. No known portion of the Trail of Tears intersects with the project or is located within a ½-mile radius of the project location. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on these findings, Trileaf recommends No Historic Properties in both the APE-DE and the APE-VE. It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered through the course of construction, work is to immediately cease, and proper area authorities notified. 342 22 REFERENCES CITED Coe, M., E. Benson, and D. Snow (eds.) 1986 Atlas of Ancient America. New York, NY: Facts on File. Custer, Jay F. 1984 Delaware Prehistory Archeology: An Ecological Approach. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. 1986 Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. 1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. Dent, Richard J. 1985 Amerind Society and the Environment: Evidence from the Upper Delaware valley. In Shawnee Minisink, Charles McNett, editor. Academic Press, New York, New York. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archeology series. Plenum Press, New York, New York. Ebright, Carol A. 1992 Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archeological Investigations at the Higgins Site. Maryland State Highway Administration, Project Planning Division, Archeological Report Number 1. Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland. Egloff, K. and J.M. MacAvoy 1990 Chronology of Virginia’s Early and Middle Archaic Periods. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhart and M.E. Hodges, pp. 61-80. Council of Virginia Archeologists, Richmond, Virginia. Federal Communications Commission 2004 Appendix B – Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission. Funk, Robert G. 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast 4:7 39. Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1. Archeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex and its Implications for Eastern North American Prehistory. In Amerindians and Their Paleoenvironments in North America. W.S. Newman and B. Salwen, eds., pp. 257-263. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 288. 1979 PaleoIndian Settlement Patterns and Site Distributions in the Middle Atlantic (preliminary version). Paper presented at the January meeting of the Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C. 343 23 1980 Settlement-Subsistence Strategies in the Middle and South Atlantic Portions of the Eastern United States during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, D.C. 1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology 3:49-80. 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, editors, pp. 5-51. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 19. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Geier, Clarence R. 1990 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods: Material Culture and Technology. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors, pp. 81-98. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 22. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Archeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191. Kavanagh, Maureen 1982 Archeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and Carroll Counties, Maryland. Submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust, Frederick County Planning Commission, and Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission. McAvoy, J.M., and L.D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8. Richmond, Virginia. McLearen, Douglas 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors, pp. 89-138. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 23. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. McNett, Charles W., ed. 1985 Shawnee-Minisink. Academic Press, New York, New York. Means, Bernard K. 2023 Late Woodland Period (AD 900-1650). In Encyclopedia Virginia. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Late_Woodland_Period_AD_900-1650, accessed March 5, 2023. Mouer, Daniel 1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. In PaleoIndian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhardt and M.E. Hodges, pp. 1-88. Council of Virginia Archeologists, Richmond, Virginia. National Park Service (NPS) 2024 National Register of Historic Places Google Earth Library. http://www.gelib.com/historic-places- inventory.htm accessed September 13, 2023. 344 24 Steponaitis, Laurie C. 1980 A Survey of Artifact Collections from the Patuxent River Drainage, Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Monograph Series Number 1. Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. Tuck, James A. 1978 Regional Cultural Developments. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 15. B. Trigger ed., pp. 28-43. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) 2022 Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. 2024 United States Department of Agriculture Website. www.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed September 2024. U.S. Department of the Interior 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf, accessed February 2023. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1894 Winchester Quadrangle, WV 30-minute quadrangle map. Washington, D.C. 1938 Winchester Quadrangle, VA 15-minute quadrangle map. Washington, D.C. 2022 Stephens City Quadrangle, VA 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Washington, D.C. Willey, Gordon R. 1966 An Introduction to American Archeology Vol. I: North and Middle America. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Wright, Henry T. 1973 An Archeological Sequence in the Middle Chesapeake Region, Maryland. Archeological Studies No. 1. Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland. Virginia Cultural Resource Information System 2024 V-CRIS Map Viewer. https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/VCRIS/Mapviewer/. Accessed September 18, 2024 Yarnell, R.A. 1976 Early plant husbandry in Eastern North America. In Cleland, Charles, ed. Cultural Change and Continuity. Academic Press: Orlando, FL. 345 25 APPENDIX A: PROJECT LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS 346 26 347 27 348 28 349 29 350 30 351 31 352 32 353 33 354 34 355 35 356 36 357 37 358 38 359 39 360 40 361 41 APPENDIX B: RESUMES 362 42 363 43 364 44 365 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 6. Tribal and NHO Involvement At an early stage in the planning process, the Nationwide Agreement requires the Applicant to gather information from appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (“NHOs”) to assist in the identification of Historic Properties of religious and cultural significance to them. Describe measures taken to identify Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to Historic Properties that may be affected by the construction within the Areas of Potential Effects (“APE”) for direct and visual effects. If such Indian tribes or NHOs were identified, list them and provide a summary of contacts by either the FCC, the Applicant, or the Applicant’s representative. Provide copies of relevant documents, including correspondence. If no such Indian tribes or NHOs were identified, please explain. Trileaf Corporation completed the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) on September 30, 2024, and received the notification of interested tribes on October 4, 2024. The attached FCC Notification email lists the Tribes identified through the TCNS process. A second notice will be sent to all interested tribes/organizations, after a period of 30 days and the consultation process will continue per the FCC’s guidelines. Any relevant comments from Tribes received by Trileaf will be forwarded to your office. 366 1 Lee Castile From:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent:Friday, October 4, 2024 2:02 AM To:Tribal Cc:tcnsweekly@fcc.gov Subject:NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #8996504 Categories:Lee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Applicant: Thank you for using the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission's (FCC) Tower ConstrucƟon NoƟficaƟon System (TCNS). The purpose of this electronic mail message is to inform you that the following authorized persons were sent the noƟficaƟon that you provided through TCNS, which relates to your proposed antenna structure. The informaƟon was forwarded by the FCC to authorized TCNS users by electronic mail and/or regular mail (leƩer). We note that the review period for all parƟes begins upon receipt of the Submission Packet pursuant to SecƟon VII.A of the NPA and noƟficaƟons that do not provide this serve as informaƟon only. Persons who have received the noƟficaƟon that you provided include leaders or their designees of federally- recognized American Indian Tribes, including Alaska NaƟve Villages (collecƟvely "Tribal NaƟons"), NaƟve Hawaiian OrganizaƟons (NHOs), and State Historic PreservaƟon Oĸcers (SHPOs). For your convenience in idenƟfying the referenced Tribal NaƟons and NHOs and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribal NaƟon and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the lisƟng below. We note that Tribal NaƟons may have SecƟon 106 cultural interests in ancestral homelands or other locaƟons that are far removed from their current Seat of Government. Pursuant to the Commission's rules as set forth in the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement for Review of Eīects on Historic ProperƟes for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission (NPA), all Tribal NaƟons and NHOs listed below must be aīorded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this noƟficaƟon, consistent with the procedures set forth below, unless the proposed construcƟon falls within an exclusion designated by the Tribal NaƟon or NHO. (NPA, SecƟon IV.F.4). The noƟficaƟon that you provided was forwarded to the following Tribal NaƟons and NHOs. A Tribal NaƟon or NHO may not respond unƟl a full Submission Packet is provided. If, upon receipt, the Tribal NaƟon or NHO does not respond within a reasonable Ɵme, you should make a reasonable eīort at follow-up contact, unless the Tribal NaƟon or NHO has agreed to diīerent procedures (NPA, SecƟon IV.F.5). In the event a Tribal NaƟon or NHO does not respond to a follow-up inquiry, or if a substanƟve or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribal NaƟon or NHO, you must seek guidance from the Commission (NPA, SecƟon IV.G). These procedures are further set forth in the FCC's Second Report and Order released on March 30, 2018 (FCC 18-30). 1.TCNS Coordinator Tiīany MarƟnez - Delaware NaƟon - 31064 State Highway 281 (PO Box: 825) Anadarko, OK - tmarƟnez@delawarenaƟon-nsn.gov - 405-247-2448 (ext: 1403) - electronic mail 367 2 Exclusions: The Delaware NaƟon of Oklahoma Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce has developed the following consultaƟon procedures for all TCNS projects idenƟfied as undertakings by the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission. In the email subject line, please specify whetherthe project is for a tower, small cell, or collocaƟon. Our response can be given faster with this informaƟon. 2. TCNS Rep Bryan Printup - Tuscarora NaƟon - 5226 Walmore Rd Via: Lewiston, NY - bprintup@heƞ.org - 716-264- 6011 (ext: 103) - electronic mail If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Tuscarora NaƟon within 30 days aŌer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Tuscarora NaƟon has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Tuscarora NaƟon in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 3. THPO Noah C White III - Prairie Island Indian Community - 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN - celltower@piic.org - 651-385-4175 - electronic mail If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Prairie Island Indian Community within 30 days a Ōer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Prairie Island Indian Community has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Prairie Island Indian Community in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 4. THPO Lawrence Plucinski - Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians - (PO Box: 39) Odanah, WI - thpo@badriver-nsn.gov; deputyTHPO@badriver-nsn.gov - 715-682-7123 - electronic mail If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians within 30 days aŌer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 5. Cell Tower Coordinator Kelly Nelson - Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma - 70500 East 128 Road Wyando Ʃe, OK - celltower@estoo.net - 918-238-5151 (ext: 1861) - regular mail Exclusions: DO NOT EMAIL DOCUMENTATION; it will be deleted without being opened. 368 3 Submit one printed color copy by US postal mail or other parcel carrier of all documentaƟon to: Eastern Shawnee Tribe AƩn: CellTower Program 70500 E. 128 Rd. WyandoƩe, OK 74370 Provide a 1-page cover leƩer with the following informaƟon: a. TCNS Number b. Company Name c. Project Name, City, County, State d. Project type e. Project coordinates f. Contact informa Ɵon The Eastern Shawnee Procedures document is available and highly recommended for guidance; send an email to celltower@estoo.net requesƟng our most current copy. 6. THPO and ExecuƟve Director Dr. Wenonah G Haire DMD - Catawba Indian NaƟon - 1536 Tom Steven Road Catawba Cultural Center Rock Hill, SC - Wenonah.Haire@catawba.com; Caitlin.Rogers@catawba.com - 803-417-9057 - regular mail Exclusions: Please do not email documentaƟon; it will be deleted without being opened. Mail one printed color copy of all documentaƟon to address: Dr. Wenonah G. Haire Tribal Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, SC 29730 Please submit by US Postal mail or other parcel carrier complete informaƟon for all telecommunicaƟon projects: 1. Please provide 1 page cover leƩer with following informaƟon a. TCNS Number b. Company Name c. Project Name, City, County, State d. Project Type e. Project coordinates f. Contact informaƟon 2. We also request photographs of project area, previous land use history and copy of SHPO LeƩer. If you have any quesƟons about our process or Ɵmeline of project noƟficaƟons you can email Caitlin Rogers at Caitlinh@ccppcraŌs.com 7. Chief Robert Gray - Pamunkey Indian Tribe - 1054 Pocahontas Trail King William, VA - robert.gray@pamunkey.org; pamunkeytribe@pamunkey.org - 804-843-2452 - electronic mail 369 4 If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Pamunkey Indian Tribe within 30 days aŌer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Pamunkey Indian Tribe has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Pamunkey Indian Tribe in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 8. Program Manager Ellen Chapman - Cultural Heritage Partners - 1811 East Grace St Suite A Richmond, VA - ellen@culturalheritagepartners.com; rapn8n@gmail.com - 434-327-6663 - electronic mail 9. Chief Diane Shields - Monacan Indian NaƟon - 111 Highview Dr Madison Heights, VA - ConsultaƟon@MonacanNaƟon.com - 434-363-4864 - electronic mail 10. Chief Stephen Adkins - Chickahominy Indian Tribe - 7240 Adkins Road Charles City, VA - stephen.adkins@chickahominytribe.org - 804-829-5548 - electronic mail 11. Chief W. Frank Adams - The Upper MaƩaponi Indian Tribe - (PO Box: 184) King William, VA - wfrankadams@verizon.net - 804-690-1694 - electronic mail 12. Chief Keith Anderson - Nansemond Indian Tribe - 1001 Pembroke Lane Suīolk, VA - chief@nansemond.org; marion@culturalheritagepartners.com - 757-619-0670 - electronic mail The noƟficaƟon that you provided was also forwarded to the following SHPOs in the State in which you propose to construct and neighboring States. The informaƟon was provided to these SHPOs as a courtesy for their informaƟon and planning. You need make no eīort at this Ɵme to follow up with any SHPO that does not respond to this noƟficaƟon. Prior to construcƟon, you must provide the SHPO of the State in which you propose to construct (or the Tribal Historic Preserva Ɵon Oĸcer, if the project will be located on certain Tribal lands), with a Submission Packet pursuant to SecƟon VII.A of the NPA unless the project is excluded from SHPO review under SecƟon III D or E of the NPA. 13. Environmental Review Coordinator Renee GledhillEarley - NC State Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC - renee.gledhill-earley@ncmail.net - 919-733-4763 - electronic mail 370 5 14. Deputy SHPO David Brook - Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 4610 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC - david.brook@ncmail.net - 919-807-7283 - electronic mail 15. Manager - Oĸce of Review & Compliance Ethel R Eaton PhD - Department of Historic Resources - 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA - ethel.eaton@dhr.virginia.gov - 804-367-2323 - electronic mail 16. Deputy SHPO Susan M Pierce - West Virginia Division of Culture & History, Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV - susan.pierce@wvculture.org - 304-558-0240 - electronic mail 17. Deputy SHPO Susan Pierce - West Virginia Division of Culture & History, Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 1901 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV - susan.pierce@wvculture.org - -- - electronic mail 18. Director Julie Langan - Virginia Department of Historic Resources - 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA - VASHPO_FCC@dhr.virginia.gov - 804-367-2323 - electronic mail TCNS automaƟcally forwards all noƟficaƟons to all Tribal NaƟons and SHPOs that have an expressed interest in the geographic area of a proposal. However, if a proposal for PTC wayside poles falls within a designated exclusion, you need not expect any response and need not pursue any addiƟonal process with that Tribal NaƟon or SHPO. In addiƟon, a parƟcular Tribal NaƟon or SHPO may also set forth policies or procedures within its details box that exclude from review certain faciliƟes (for example, a statement that it does not review collocaƟons with no ground disturbance; or that indicates that no response within 30 days indicates no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review). Please be advised that the FCC cannot guarantee that the contact(s) listed above have opened and reviewed an electronic or regular mail noƟficaƟon. If you learn that any of the above contact informaƟon is no longer valid, please contact the FCC by emailing tcnshelp@fcc.gov. The following informaƟon relaƟng to the proposed tower was forwarded to the person(s) listed above: NoƟficaƟon Received: 09/30/2024 NoƟficaƟon ID: 286075 Excluded from SHPO Review: No Tower Owner Individual or EnƟty Name: Arcola Towers Consultant Name: Michael Romanoski Street Address: 1515 Des Peres Rd. Ste 200 Suite 200 371 6 City: St. Louis State: MISSOURI Zip Code: 63131 Phone: 314-997-6111 Email: tribal@trileaf.com Structure Type: MTOWER - Monopole LaƟtude: 39 deg 6 min 17.9 sec N Longitude: 78 deg 10 min 25.9 sec W LocaƟon DescripƟon: 330 Lakeside Drive City: Stephens City State: VIRGINIA County: FREDERICK Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communicaƟons tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including aƩachments. Ground ElevaƟon: 213.3 meters Support Structure: 45.7 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 46.3 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 259.6 meters above mean sea level If you have any quesƟons or comments regarding this noƟce, please contact the FCC using the electronic Help Request form located on the FCC's website at: hƩps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=hƩps-3A__www.fcc.gov_wireless_available-2Dsupport- 2Dservices&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf- v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=tVy9dfE6fJUkHc15_Itk39MNoGtgWe1vmeedh3_FbFk&m=NOO8hG2lTYviCGEQEmvcUPHRbSiMlxB S3NT1gHQicQjTpAZe0b8OHgBB3WLaPhyz&s=RedzyRlYVuYGqOxm3Jp9SHie7PDqpw82186CtRSFgUM&e= You may also call the FCC Support Center at (877) 480-3201 (TTY 717-338-2824). Hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). To provide quality service and ensure security, all telephone calls are recorded. Thank you, Federal CommunicaƟons Commission ---------- This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint EssenƟals. = Visit the following link to report this email as spam: hƩps://us1.proofpointessenƟals.com/app/report_spam.php?mod_id=3D11&mod_op= Ɵon=3Dlogitem&report=3D1&type=3Deasyspam&k=3Dk1&payload=3D53616c7465645f5f= 1a124863e13f5bfe9cc056fdb66588eīīa529ab1952871bbaadba02eec8361b5cbd19b357= 8b7ea9c8e6756b693ef88e73bc1ce413e3456fc3ab91ĩd8cf5688914ce2492c0df7c191712= 2a1bbac6601e9f05568c4c3d80caa05cbaf1a10be78e9e8544f2acf50cd7c712620da45f8d5= 3e82624831b35953f6f625c68b3b23eĩee4ccaf742f651a29d42161a836663d525b1d91277= ae96 =0D 372 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 7. Historic Properties Direct Effects a. List all properties within the APE for direct effects. Project # and Status Property Name and Address Subject Property Photograph Summary of Criteria and/or Description Summary of Effects 750196 Not Contributing Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 The Subject Property structure is not an individually historic structure, neither is it a designated National Historic Landmark, nor a property listed in, or eligible for listing in the NRHP. No Effect The proposed design is minor and necessary for the community. This will have no effect on the Subject Property. b. Provide the name and address (including U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code) of each property in the APE for direct effects, not listed in part “a” (above), that the Applicant considers to be eligible for listing in the National Register as a result of the Applicant’s research. For each such property, describe how it satisfies the criteria of eligibility (36 C.F.R. Part 63). For each property that was specifically considered and determined not to be eligible, describe why it does not satisfy the criteria of eligibility. There are no additional properties in the APE for direct effects not listed in part “a.” c. Describe the techniques and the methodology, including any field survey, used to identify Historic Properties within the APE for direct effects.1 If no archeological field survey was performed, provide a report substantiating that: i) the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth (excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms) by at least 2 feet; or, ii) geomorphological evidence indicates that cultural resource-bearing soils do not occur within the project area or may occur but at depths that exceed 2 feet below the proposed construction depth.2 1 Pursuant to Section VI.D.2.a. of the Nationwide Agreement, Applicants shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify above ground and archeological Historic Properties, including buildings, structures, and historic districts, that lie within the APE for direct effects. Such reasonable and good faith efforts may include a field survey where appropriate. 2 Under Section VI.D.2.d. of the Nationwide Agreement, an archeological field survey is required even if none of these conditions applies, if an Indian tribe or NHO provides evidence that supports a high probability of the presence of intact archeological Historic Properties within the APE for direct effects. 373 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 7. Continue The field investigation at this location was conducted by Ariel Kegel on October 3, 2024. Standard archaeological field equipment included shovels, trowels, and a quarter-inch wire mesh sifting screen. Based on the Virginia Guidelines for Conducting Archaeological Survey in Viriginia, the field survey techniques utilized were a combination visual survey at 5-meter intervals and shovel-testing at 15-meter intervals, with a standard shovel test unit consisting of a hand-excavated hole, approximately 30 cm in diameter and deep enough to reach culturally sterile subsoils. Each shovel test was excavated in no greater than 10- centimeter (4- inches) levels to ensure any artifacts were plotted by depth. All shovel test fill was screened through a ¼-inch wire mesh screen. As surface visibility in some areas of the project was obscured or overgrown, these areas of the project were surveyed using a shovel testing strategy. A portion of the proposed access and utility easement was located within an existing graveled and graded right-of-way. This area was not able to be shovel tested. Shovel testing first focused on the proposed 50 x 50-foot (15.24 x 15.24 meter) tower compound area and the surrounding area of proposed tree-clearing, which was tested in a 2 x 2 grid. Shovel tests were also placed at a 15-meter interval within the proposed utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole from the existing access road. One (1) shovel test, STP 8, was placed judgmentally in a small portion of the proposed utility easement outside of the existing access road. Much of the proposed access and utility easement was not shovel tested as it was graveled. Survey in this portion of the project area was limited to visual inspection. Soil profiles throughout most of the project area were consistent, revealing a layer of brown (10YR4/3) silty loam over a layer of pale brown (10YR6/3) channery silty clay loam over a layer of strong brown (7.5YR5/6) very channery silty clay loam with iron accumulations. No cultural material was discovered as a result of this archaeological survey. Total archaeological field time: 1 person, 2.5 hours. 374 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 7. Continued STP No. STP Location Depth (cm below surface) Soil Description Artifacts Recovered Latitude/ Longitude 1 Northwest Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-15 10YR 4/3 SiLo; roots throughout None 39° 6'18.22"N/ 78°10'26.14"W BA: 15-22 10YR6/3 Channery SiClLo None B: 22-26 7.5YR5/6 Very Channery SiClLo; Fe inclusions None 2 Northeast Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-10 10YR4/3 SiLo None 39° 6'18.09"N/ 78°10'25.53"W BA: 10-20 10YR6/3 SiClLo None B: 20-36 7.5YR5/6 m/w 5YR4/6 Channery SiClLo None 3 Southwest Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-12 10YR5/3 Channery SiLo None 39° 6'17.76"N/ 78°10'26.23"W B: 12-15 7.5YR6/3 m/w 5YR 5/8 and 7.5YR 5/6 Very Channery SiClLo; Rock Impasse None 4 Southeast Corner of Lease Area Ap: 0-9 10YR5/3 Channery SiLo None 39° 6'17.63"N/ 78°10'25.63"W B: 9-21 10YR6/3 m/w 5YR5/8 Very Channery SiClLo None 5 Utility Easement Ap: 0-11 10YR4/3 SiLo None 39° 6'12.77"N/ 78°10'30.83"W B: 11-25 10YR5/4 Very Channery SiLo; Fe nodules None 6 Utility Easement Ap: 0-11 10YR 4/2 SiLo None 39° 6'12.95"N/ 78°10'31.42"W B: 11-26 10YR6/3 SiClLo; Hydric None 7 Utility Easement Ap: 0-12 10YR4/3 SiLo None 39° 6'13.10"N/ 78°10'32.01"W B: 12-20 10YR5/4 Very Channery SiLo None 8 Access and Utility Easement Ap: 0-8 10YR 3/3 SiLo; gravelly, roots throughout None 39° 6'17.50"N/ 78°10'28.47"W B: 8-14 10YR5/4 Channery SiLo; Rock Impasse None Table 1: Shovel Test Pit Descriptions 375 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Figure 1: Map of Shovel Test Pit Location (ESRI 2018) 376 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 7. Continued Based on the findings of this survey, Trileaf recommends that there are No Historic Properties in the Direct APE. It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area relative to those resources. Please refer to the attached Cultural Resources Survey Report for additional information. 377 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 8. Historic Properties Visual Effects Historic Properties Identified for Visual Effects Guidelines a. Provide the name and address (including U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code) of each property in the APE for visual effects that is listed in the National Register, has been formally determined eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register, or is identified as considered eligible for listing in the records of the SHPO/THPO, pursuant to Section VI.D.I.a. of the Nationwide Agreement. A review of the VA SHPO database of National Register Sites and Districts, Certified Local Districts and Architectural Surveys and the National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) was conducted on September 18, 2024, by Michael Hart, Senior Historian/Architectural Historian/Assistant Project Manager at Trileaf. Based upon this review, Trileaf recommends that there are No Historic Properties in the APE-VE. b. Provide the name and address (including U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code) of each Historic Property in the APE for visual effects, not listed in part “a”, identified through the comments of Indian Tribes, NHOs, local governments, or members of the public. Identify each individual or group whose comments led to the inclusion of a Historic Property in this attachment. For each such property, describe how it satisfies the criteria of eligibility (36 C.F.R. Part 63). As of the date of this report, Trileaf Corporation has not received comments from Indian Tribes, NHOs, local governments, or members of the public that identify Historic Properties in the APE for visual effects. c. For any properties listed in the above Historic Properties list, that the Applicant considers no longer eligible for inclusion in the National Register, explain the basis for this recommendation. N/A 378 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 9. Local Government a. If any local government has been contacted and invited to become a consulting party pursuant to Section V.A. of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, list the local government agencies contacted. Provide a summary of contacts and copies of any relevant documents (e.g., correspondence or notices). On October 8, 2024, the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board was notified of the proposed project. They have been invited to comment on the proposed project’s potential effect on Historic Properties and to indicate whether they are interested in consulting further on the proposed project. A copy of Trileaf Corporation’s correspondence with Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board is attached. As of this date, no response has been received from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Should a response be received, a copy will be forwarded to all consulting parties as an addendum to this packet. b. If a local government agency will be contacted but has not been to date, explain why and when such contact will take place. N/A 379 8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 301, Towson, Maryland 21286 - 410.853.7128 - www.trileaf.com October , 2024 Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board Attn: Kayla Peloquin 107 N. Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)665-5651 RE: Arcola Towers – Stephens City / Project# Stephens City – Trileaf Project #750196 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655 Frederick County, Stephens City Quadrangle (USGS) Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W Dear Ms. Peloquin: Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The antennaV will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf is requesting information regarding this tower’s potential effect on Historic Properties. All information received will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of the Section 106 review process. Additionally, this invitation to comment is separate from any local planning/zoning process that may apply to this project. If you wish to comment or be considered a consulting party, please respond within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If a response is not received within thirty (30) days, it will be assumed that you have no objections to this undertaking. A site topography map and aerial photograph are enclosed for your reference. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email r.torres@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Reggie Torres Project Scientist 380 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 10. Other Consulting Parties and Public Notice List additional consulting parties that were invited to participate by the Applicant, or independently requested to participate. Provide any relevant correspondence or other documents. On October 4, 2024, the Newtown History Center was notified of the proposed project. They were invited to comment on the proposed project’s potential effect on Newton History Center and to indicate whether they are interested in consulting further on the proposed project. A copy of Trileaf’s correspondence with the Newtown History Center is attached. As of this date, no response has been received from the Newtown History Center. Should a response be received, a copy will be forwarded to all consulting parties as an addendum to this packet. You are required to provide a Public Notice Attachment. Attached, please find a copy of a legal notice regarding the proposed telecommunications tower construction that was posted in the Winchester Star on October 10, 2024. As of the date of this submission packet, no comments regarding this notice have been received by Trileaf Corporation. Should a response be received, copies will be forwarded to all consulting parties as an addendum to this submission packet. 381 8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 301, Towson, Maryland 21286 - 410.853.7128 - www.trileaf.com October , 2024 Newtown History Center PO Box 143 Stephens City, VA 22655 Phone: (540)869-1700 Email: info@newtownhistorycenter.org RE: Arcola Towers – Stephens City / Project# Stephens City – Trileaf Project #750196 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655 Frederick County, Stephens City Quadrangle (USGS) Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W To Whom It May Concern: Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5-foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The antennaV will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf is requesting information regarding this tower’s potential effect on Historic Properties. All information received will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of the Section 106 review process. Additionally, this invitation to comment is separate from any local planning/zoning process that may apply to this project. If you wish to comment or be considered a consulting party, please respond within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If a response is not received within thirty (30) days, it will be assumed that you have no objections to this undertaking. A site topography map and aerial photograph are enclosed for your reference. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email r.torres@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Reggie Torres Project Scientist 382 383 NT SUBMISSION PACKET – FCC FORM 620 Approved by OMB 3060-1039 See instructions for Public burden estimates Applicant’s Name: Arcola Towers Project Name: Stephens City Project Number: 750196 FCC Form 620 Attachment 11. SHPO Specific Forms N/A 384 385 386 Appendix F Native American Correspondence 387 DateRequested InformationDate Sent Date CommentsBad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians30 days no interest Notify of inadvertent discovery10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/10/2024 Cleared per NOOCatawba Indian Nation 10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/20/2024The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase of this project. Requests inadvertent discovery notification.11/21/2024Chickahominy Indian Tribe10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/29/2024 Cleared by Referral 11/14/2024Cultural Heritage Partners10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/29/2024 Cleared by Referral 11/14/2024Delaware Nation 10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/29/2024 Cleared by Referral 11/14/2024Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62110/31/2024This project will have No Adverse Effect on properties of sacred and/or cultural significance to the Tribe. The project site is within the known regional area of the Shawnee prehistorically and historically, be aware of inadvertent discoveries. However, ESTO has no objection to the project proceeding as described. Requests scope change and inadvertent discovery notification.Monacan Indian Nation 10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62110/28/2024The project’s impacts are anticipated to be minimal.Nansemond Indian Tribe 10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/29/2024 Cleared by Referral 11/14/2024Pamunkey Indian Tribe30 days no interest Notify of inadvertent discovery10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/10/2024 Cleared per NOOPrairie Island Indian Community30 days no interest Notify of inadvertent discovery10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/10/2024 Cleared per NOOThe Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/29/2024 Cleared by Referral 11/14/2024Tuscarora Nation30 days no interest Notify of inadvertent discovery10/11/2024Sent Letter & Form 620/62111/10/2024 Cleared per NOO October 4, 2024FCC Start:FCC ReferralStanding Agreements & CommentsTribal Summary TableTribe TCNS auto-replyFollow Up Request from TribeFollow Up(s) to Tribe Final ReplySite: Stephens CityTCNS Number: 286075Site ID: Stephens CityPage1of1388 1 From:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent:Friday, October 4, 2024 2:02 AM To:Tribal Cc:tcnsweekly@fcc.gov Subject:NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #8996504 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Applicant: Thank you for using the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission's (FCC) Tower ConstrucƟon NoƟficaƟon System (TCNS). The purpose of this electronic mail message is to inform you that the following authorized persons were sent the noƟficaƟon that you provided through TCNS, which relates to your proposed antenna structure. The informaƟon was forwarded by the FCC to authorized TCNS users by electronic mail and/or regular mail (leƩer). We note that the review period for all parƟes begins upon receipt of the Submission Packet pursuant to SecƟon VII.A of the NPA and noƟficaƟons that do not provide this serve as informaƟon only. Persons who have received the noƟficaƟon that you provided include leaders or their designees of federally- recognized American Indian Tribes, including Alaska NaƟve Villages (collecƟvely "Tribal NaƟons"), NaƟve Hawaiian OrganizaƟons (NHOs), and State Historic PreservaƟon Oĸcers (SHPOs). For your convenience in idenƟfying the referenced Tribal NaƟons and NHOs and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribal NaƟon and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the lisƟng below. We note that Tribal NaƟons may have SecƟon 106 cultural interests in ancestral homelands or other locaƟons that are far removed from their current Seat of Government. Pursuant to the Commission's rules as set forth in the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement for Review of Eīects on Historic ProperƟes for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission (NPA), all Tribal NaƟons and NHOs listed below must be aīorded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this noƟficaƟon, consistent with the procedures set forth below, unless the proposed construcƟon falls within an exclusion designated by the Tribal NaƟon or NHO. (NPA, SecƟon IV.F.4). The noƟficaƟon that you provided was forwarded to the following Tribal NaƟons and NHOs. A Tribal NaƟon or NHO may not respond unƟl a full Submission Packet is provided. If, upon receipt, the Tribal NaƟon or NHO does not respond within a reasonable Ɵme, you should make a reasonable eīort at follow-up contact, unless the Tribal NaƟon or NHO has agreed to diīerent procedures (NPA, SecƟon IV.F.5). In the event a Tribal NaƟon or NHO does not respond to a follow-up inquiry, or if a substanƟve or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribal NaƟon or NHO, you must seek guidance from the Commission (NPA, SecƟon IV.G). These procedures are further set forth in the FCC's Second Report and Order released on March 30, 2018 (FCC 18-30). 1. TCNS Coordinator Tiīany MarƟnez - Delaware NaƟon - 31064 State Highway 281 (PO Box: 825) Anadarko, OK - tmarƟnez@delawarenaƟon-nsn.gov - 405-247-2448 (ext: 1403) - electronic mail 389 2 Exclusions: The Delaware NaƟon of Oklahoma Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce has developed the following consultaƟon procedures for all TCNS projects idenƟfied as undertakings by the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission. In the email subject line, please specify whetherthe project is for a tower, small cell, or collocaƟon. Our response can be given faster with this informaƟon. 2. TCNS Rep Bryan Printup - Tuscarora NaƟon - 5226 Walmore Rd Via: Lewiston, NY - bprintup@heƞ.org - 716-264- 6011 (ext: 103) - electronic mail If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Tuscarora NaƟon within 30 days aŌer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Tuscarora NaƟon has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Tuscarora NaƟon in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 3. THPO Noah C White III - Prairie Island Indian Community - 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN - celltower@piic.org - 651-385-4175 - electronic mail If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Prairie Island Indian Community within 30 days a Ōer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Prairie Island Indian Community has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Prairie Island Indian Community in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 4. THPO Lawrence Plucinski - Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians - (PO Box: 39) Odanah, WI - thpo@badriver-nsn.gov; deputyTHPO@badriver-nsn.gov - 715-682-7123 - electronic mail If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians within 30 days aŌer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 5. Cell Tower Coordinator Kelly Nelson - Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma - 70500 East 128 Road Wyando Ʃe, OK - celltower@estoo.net - 918-238-5151 (ext: 1861) - regular mail Exclusions: DO NOT EMAIL DOCUMENTATION; it will be deleted without being opened. 390 3 Submit one printed color copy by US postal mail or other parcel carrier of all documentaƟon to: Eastern Shawnee Tribe AƩn: CellTower Program 70500 E. 128 Rd. WyandoƩe, OK 74370 Provide a 1-page cover leƩer with the following informaƟon: a. TCNS Number b. Company Name c. Project Name, City, County, State d. Project type e. Project coordinates f. Contact informa Ɵon The Eastern Shawnee Procedures document is available and highly recommended for guidance; send an email to celltower@estoo.net requesƟng our most current copy. 6. THPO and ExecuƟve Director Dr. Wenonah G Haire DMD - Catawba Indian NaƟon - 1536 Tom Steven Road Catawba Cultural Center Rock Hill, SC - Wenonah.Haire@catawba.com; Caitlin.Rogers@catawba.com - 803-417-9057 - regular mail Exclusions: Please do not email documentaƟon; it will be deleted without being opened. Mail one printed color copy of all documentaƟon to address: Dr. Wenonah G. Haire Tribal Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, SC 29730 Please submit by US Postal mail or other parcel carrier complete informaƟon for all telecommunicaƟon projects: 1. Please provide 1 page cover leƩer with following informaƟon a. TCNS Number b. Company Name c. Project Name, City, County, State d. Project Type e. Project coordinates f. Contact informaƟon 2. We also request photographs of project area, previous land use history and copy of SHPO LeƩer. If you have any quesƟons about our process or Ɵmeline of project noƟficaƟons you can email Caitlin Rogers at Caitlinh@ccppcraŌs.com 7. Chief Robert Gray - Pamunkey Indian Tribe - 1054 Pocahontas Trail King William, VA - robert.gray@pamunkey.org; pamunkeytribe@pamunkey.org - 804-843-2452 - electronic mail 391 4 If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Pamunkey Indian Tribe within 30 days aŌer noƟficaƟon through TCNS, the Pamunkey Indian Tribe has no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately noƟfy the Pamunkey Indian Tribe in the event archaeological properƟes or human remains are discovered during construcƟon, consistent with SecƟon IX of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement and applicable law. 8. Program Manager Ellen Chapman - Cultural Heritage Partners - 1811 East Grace St Suite A Richmond, VA - ellen@culturalheritagepartners.com; rapn8n@gmail.com - 434-327-6663 - electronic mail 9. Chief Diane Shields - Monacan Indian NaƟon - 111 Highview Dr Madison Heights, VA - ConsultaƟon@MonacanNaƟon.com - 434-363-4864 - electronic mail 10. Chief Stephen Adkins - Chickahominy Indian Tribe - 7240 Adkins Road Charles City, VA - stephen.adkins@chickahominytribe.org - 804-829-5548 - electronic mail 11. Chief W. Frank Adams - The Upper MaƩaponi Indian Tribe - (PO Box: 184) King William, VA - wfrankadams@verizon.net - 804-690-1694 - electronic mail 12. Chief Keith Anderson - Nansemond Indian Tribe - 1001 Pembroke Lane Suīolk, VA - chief@nansemond.org; marion@culturalheritagepartners.com - 757-619-0670 - electronic mail The noƟficaƟon that you provided was also forwarded to the following SHPOs in the State in which you propose to construct and neighboring States. The informaƟon was provided to these SHPOs as a courtesy for their informaƟon and planning. You need make no eīort at this Ɵme to follow up with any SHPO that does not respond to this noƟficaƟon. Prior to construcƟon, you must provide the SHPO of the State in which you propose to construct (or the Tribal Historic Preserva Ɵon Oĸcer, if the project will be located on certain Tribal lands), with a Submission Packet pursuant to SecƟon VII.A of the NPA unless the project is excluded from SHPO review under SecƟon III D or E of the NPA. 13. Environmental Review Coordinator Renee GledhillEarley - NC State Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC - renee.gledhill-earley@ncmail.net - 919-733-4763 - electronic mail 392 5 14. Deputy SHPO David Brook - Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 4610 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC - david.brook@ncmail.net - 919-807-7283 - electronic mail 15. Manager - Oĸce of Review & Compliance Ethel R Eaton PhD - Department of Historic Resources - 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA - ethel.eaton@dhr.virginia.gov - 804-367-2323 - electronic mail 16. Deputy SHPO Susan M Pierce - West Virginia Division of Culture & History, Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV - susan.pierce@wvculture.org - 304-558-0240 - electronic mail 17. Deputy SHPO Susan Pierce - West Virginia Division of Culture & History, Historic PreservaƟon Oĸce - 1901 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV - susan.pierce@wvculture.org - -- - electronic mail 18. Director Julie Langan - Virginia Department of Historic Resources - 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA - VASHPO_FCC@dhr.virginia.gov - 804-367-2323 - electronic mail TCNS automaƟcally forwards all noƟficaƟons to all Tribal NaƟons and SHPOs that have an expressed interest in the geographic area of a proposal. However, if a proposal for PTC wayside poles falls within a designated exclusion, you need not expect any response and need not pursue any addiƟonal process with that Tribal NaƟon or SHPO. In addiƟon, a parƟcular Tribal NaƟon or SHPO may also set forth policies or procedures within its details box that exclude from review certain faciliƟes (for example, a statement that it does not review collocaƟons with no ground disturbance; or that indicates that no response within 30 days indicates no interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review). Please be advised that the FCC cannot guarantee that the contact(s) listed above have opened and reviewed an electronic or regular mail noƟficaƟon. If you learn that any of the above contact informaƟon is no longer valid, please contact the FCC by emailing tcnshelp@fcc.gov. The following informaƟon relaƟng to the proposed tower was forwarded to the person(s) listed above: NoƟficaƟon Received: 09/30/2024 NoƟficaƟon ID: 286075 Excluded from SHPO Review: No Tower Owner Individual or EnƟty Name: Arcola Towers Consultant Name: Michael Romanoski Street Address: 1515 Des Peres Rd. Ste 200 Suite 200 393 6 City: St. Louis State: MISSOURI Zip Code: 63131 Phone: 314-997-6111 Email: tribal@trileaf.com Structure Type: MTOWER - Monopole LaƟtude: 39 deg 6 min 17.9 sec N Longitude: 78 deg 10 min 25.9 sec W LocaƟon DescripƟon: 330 Lakeside Drive City: Stephens City State: VIRGINIA County: FREDERICK Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communicaƟons tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including aƩachments. Ground ElevaƟon: 213.3 meters Support Structure: 45.7 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 46.3 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 259.6 meters above mean sea level If you have any quesƟons or comments regarding this noƟce, please contact the FCC using the electronic Help Request form located on the FCC's website at: hƩps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=hƩps-3A__www.fcc.gov_wireless_available-2Dsupport- 2Dservices&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf- v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=tVy9dfE6fJUkHc15_Itk39MNoGtgWe1vmeedh3_FbFk&m=NOO8hG2lTYviCGEQEmvcUPHRbSiMlxB S3NT1gHQicQjTpAZe0b8OHgBB3WLaPhyz&s=RedzyRlYVuYGqOxm3Jp9SHie7PDqpw82186CtRSFgUM&e= You may also call the FCC Support Center at (877) 480-3201 (TTY 717-338-2824). Hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). To provide quality service and ensure security, all telephone calls are recorded. Thank you, Federal CommunicaƟons Commission ---------- This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint EssenƟals. = Visit the following link to report this email as spam: hƩps://us1.proofpointessenƟals.com/app/report_spam.php?mod_id=3D11&mod_op= Ɵon=3Dlogitem&report=3D1&type=3Deasyspam&k=3Dk1&payload=3D53616c7465645f5f= 1a124863e13f5bfe9cc056fdb66588eīīa529ab1952871bbaadba02eec8361b5cbd19b357= 8b7ea9c8e6756b693ef88e73bc1ce413e3456fc3ab91ĩd8cf5688914ce2492c0df7c191712= 2a1bbac6601e9f05568c4c3d80caa05cbaf1a10be78e9e8544f2acf50cd7c712620da45f8d5= 3e82624831b35953f6f625c68b3b23eĩee4ccaf742f651a29d42161a836663d525b1d91277= ae96 =0D 394 October 11, 2024 Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians Mr. Lawrence Plucinski P.O. Box 39 Odanah, WI 54861 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Mr. Plucinski: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 395 October 11, 2024 Catawba Indian Nation Dr. Wenonah G. Haire 1536 Tom Steven Road Tribal Historic Preservation Office Rock Hill, SC 29730 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Dr. Haire: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 396 owa November 20, 2024 Attention: Michael Romanoski Trileaf 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200 Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description 2025-160-7 286075 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick Co., VA Dear Mr. Romanoski, The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase of this project. If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail Caitlin.Rogers@catawba.com. Sincerely, Wenonah G. Haire Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730 Office 803-328-2427 Fax 803-328-5791 397 1 From:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 8:01 AM To:Tribal Cc:tcnsweekly@fcc.gov Subject:Proposed Construction of Communications Facilities Notification of Final Contacts - Email ID #37040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Verizon Wireless Michael Romanoski 1515 Des Peres Rd. Ste 200 Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 Dear Applicant: This leƩer addresses the proposed communicaƟons faciliƟes listed below that you have referred to the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission (Commission) for purposes of contacƟng federally recognized Indian Tribes, including Alaska NaƟve Villages (collecƟvely Indian Tribes), and NaƟve Hawaiian OrganizaƟons (NHOs), as specified by SecƟon IV.G of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement (NPA). Consistent with the procedures outlined in the Commission's Wireless Infrastructure Second Report and Order (1), we have contacted the Indian Tribes or NHOs idenƟfied in the aƩached Table for the projects listed in the aƩached Table. You referred these projects to us between 11/14/2024 and 11/21/2024. Our contact with these Tribal NaƟons or NHOs was sent on 11/21/2024. Thus, as described in the Wireless Infrastructure Second Report and Order (2), if you or Commission sta ī do not receive a statement of interest regarding a parƟcular project from any Tribe or NHO within 15 calendar days of 11/21/2024, your obligaƟons under SecƟon IV of the NPA with respect to these Tribal NaƟons or NHOs are complete. If a Tribal NaƟon or NHO responds that it has concerns about a historic property of tradiƟonal religious and cultural significance that may be aīected by the proposed construcƟon within the 15 calendar day period, the Applicant must involve it in the review as set forth in the NPA, and may not begin construcƟon unƟl the process set forth in the NPA is completed. You are reminded that SecƟon IX of the NPA imposes independent obligaƟons on an Applicant when a previously unidenƟfied site that may be a historic property, including an archeological property, is discovered during construcƟon or aŌer the compleƟon of review. In such instances, the Applicant must cease construcƟon and promptly noƟfy, among others, any potenƟally aīected Tribal NaƟon or NHO. A Tribal NaƟon's or NHO's failure to express interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review of an undertaking does not necessarily mean it is not interested in archeological properƟes or human remains that may inadvertently be discovered during construcƟon. Hence, an Applicant is sƟll required to noƟfy any potenƟally aīected Tribal NaƟon or NHO of any such finds pursuant to SecƟon IX or other applicable law. Sincerely, Ellen Saint Onge Federal PreservaƟon Oĸcer Federal CommunicaƟons Commission 398 9 Tribe Name: Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Red Cliī Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Tribe Name: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tribe Name: Santee Sioux NaƟon of Nebraska Tribe Name: Shawnee Tribe Tribe Name: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Tribe Name: WyandoƩe NaƟon TCNS# 285901 Referred Date: 11/20/2024 LocaƟon: Pike Johnson Road, Garfield, GA Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 305-foot self-support communicaƟons tower with an overall height of 315 feet. Tribe Name: CoushaƩa Indian Tribe Tribe Name: Kialegee Tribal Town Tribe Name: Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribe Name: Thlopthlocco Tribal Town TCNS# 285481 Referred Date: 11/20/2024 LocaƟon: 1 Deborah Drive, Spartanburg, SC Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Verizon Wireless proposes to replace an exis Ɵng 25-foot public lighƟng structure and the installaƟon of a 34-foot public lighƟng structure with antennas and associated equipment mounted at a top height of 37 feet. Tribe Name: Kialegee Tribal Town Tribe Name: Shawnee Tribe Tribe Name: Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Tribe Name: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma TCNS# 286075 Referred Date: 11/20/2024 LocaƟon: 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communicaƟons tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including aƩachments. Tribe Name: Catawba Indian NaƟon TCNS# 284687 Referred Date: 11/20/2024 LocaƟon: 202 Central Ave, Dayton, OH Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposed to collocate antennas on top of an exisƟng 40-foot pole with an overall height of 42.5-feet, with a centerlines of 17-feet and 41.5-feet. All associated equipment will be on or in the vicinity of the pole. Tribe Name: Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's ReservaƟon Tribe Name: Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Kaw NaƟon Tribe Name: Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Tribe Name: Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Tribe Name: OƩawa Tribe of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Red Cliī Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Tribe Name: WyandoƩe NaƟon TCNS# 284404 Referred Date: 11/20/2024 LocaƟon: 301 South McLane Road, Payson, AZ Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Client to remove a 52Ō.2in. light pole & install an 80Ō. light pole. A 4Ō.-wide esmt to go approx 81 Ō. N from tower to 20Ō.x20Ō. lease area (LA). From LA, a 12Ō.-wide esmt to go approx 338 Ō. NNE. From this esmt, a 4Ō.-wide esmt runs 35Ō. W. Tribe Name: Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Eastern Shoshone Tribe Tribe Name: Mescalero Apache Tribe Tribe Name: Pueblo of Zuni Tribe Name: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 399 October 11, 2024 Chickahominy Indian Tribe Chief Stephen Adkins 7240 Adkins Road Charles City, VA 23030 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Chief Adkins: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 400 1 From:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2024 8:01 AM To:Tribal Cc:tcnsweekly@fcc.gov Subject:Proposed Construction of Communications Facilities Notification of Final Contacts - Email ID #37001 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Crown Castle Michael Romanoski 1515 Des Peres Rd. Ste 200 Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 Dear Applicant: This leƩer addresses the proposed communicaƟons faciliƟes listed below that you have referred to the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission (Commission) for purposes of contacƟng federally recognized Indian Tribes, including Alaska NaƟve Villages (collecƟvely Indian Tribes), and NaƟve Hawaiian OrganizaƟons (NHOs), as specified by SecƟon IV.G of the NaƟonwide ProgrammaƟc Agreement (NPA). Consistent with the procedures outlined in the Commission's Wireless Infrastructure Second Report and Order (1), we have contacted the Indian Tribes or NHOs idenƟfied in the aƩached Table for the projects listed in the aƩached Table. You referred these projects to us between 11/07/2024 and 11/14/2024. Our contact with these Tribal NaƟons or NHOs was sent on 11/14/2024. Thus, as described in the Wireless Infrastructure Second Report and Order (2), if you or Commission sta ī do not receive a statement of interest regarding a parƟcular project from any Tribe or NHO within 15 calendar days of 11/14/2024, your obligaƟons under SecƟon IV of the NPA with respect to these Tribal NaƟons or NHOs are complete. If a Tribal NaƟon or NHO responds that it has concerns about a historic property of tradiƟonal religious and cultural significance that may be aīected by the proposed construcƟon within the 15 calendar day period, the Applicant must involve it in the review as set forth in the NPA, and may not begin construcƟon unƟl the process set forth in the NPA is completed. You are reminded that SecƟon IX of the NPA imposes independent obligaƟons on an Applicant when a previously unidenƟfied site that may be a historic property, including an archeological property, is discovered during construcƟon or aŌer the compleƟon of review. In such instances, the Applicant must cease construcƟon and promptly noƟfy, among others, any potenƟally aīected Tribal NaƟon or NHO. A Tribal NaƟon's or NHO's failure to express interest in parƟcipaƟng in pre-construcƟon review of an undertaking does not necessarily mean it is not interested in archeological properƟes or human remains that may inadvertently be discovered during construcƟon. Hence, an Applicant is sƟll required to noƟfy any potenƟally aīected Tribal NaƟon or NHO of any such finds pursuant to SecƟon IX or other applicable law. Sincerely, Ellen Saint Onge Federal PreservaƟon Oĸcer Federal CommunicaƟons Commission 401 7 Tribe Name: Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Kaw NaƟon Tribe Name: Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of PoƩawatomi Indians of Michigan Tribe Name: Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Tribe Name: Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Tribe Name: OƩawa Tribe of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tribe Name: Red Cliī Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Tribe Name: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tribe Name: Santee Sioux NaƟon of Nebraska Tribe Name: WyandoƩe NaƟon TCNS# 286075 Referred Date: 11/13/2024 LocaƟon: 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, VA Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communicaƟons tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including aƩachments. Tribe Name: Chickahominy Indian Tribe Tribe Name: Cultural Heritage Partners Tribe Name: Delaware NaƟon Tribe Name: Nansemond Indian Tribe Tribe Name: The Upper MaƩaponi Indian Tribe TCNS# 285964 Referred Date: 11/13/2024 LocaƟon: 116 E Kearsley St, Flint, MI Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to replace an exisƟng pole w/ a new 40Ō light pole communicaƟons tower, w/ an overall hght of 45Ō, & assoc. equipment at the above property. The project will uƟlize an exisƟng grassy/concrete ROW for access. Tribe Name: Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's ReservaƟon Tribe Name: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribe Name: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tribe Name: Sac and Fox NaƟon TCNS# 285172 Referred Date: 11/13/2024 LocaƟon: 7075 Pyramid Lakes Highway, Sparks, NV Detailed DescripƟon of Project: New 58-foot stealth windmill monopole. Prop hybrid conduit to run approx 120Ō. S from tower to a vault E of exisƟng approx 500 sqŌ. compound and will run an addiƟonal approx 10Ō. to a vault in the compound. Equipment to be replaced in shelter. Tribe Name: Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe TCNS# 286018 Referred Date: 11/13/2024 LocaƟon: 1871 South Helena Street, Aurora, CO Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to run new fiber, electric cables, & associated uƟliƟes to the site & install antennas, one (1) new equipment compound with three (3) cabinets, one (1) future cabinet locaƟon, & associated equipment at exisƟng 99.3-foot tower. Tribe Name: Comanche NaƟon TCNS# 285520 Referred Date: 11/13/2024 LocaƟon: 320 West Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, CA Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 30.5Ō public lighƟng comm. structure with an overall height of 36.3Ō and install associated equipment within the vicinity of the pole base. A conduit route will extend S from the pole base to a new hand hole. Tribe Name: Eastern Shoshone Tribe Tribe Name: Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Tribe Name: Twenty Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians 402 October 11, 2024 Cultural Heritage Partners Ms. Ellen Chapman 1811 East Grace St Suite A Richmond, VA 23223 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Ms. Chapman: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 403 October 11, 2024 Delaware Nation Ms. Tiffany Martinez P.O. Box 825 Anadarko, OK 73005 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Ms. Martinez: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 404 October 11, 2024 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Ms. Kelly Nelson Attn: CellTower Program 70500 East 128 Road Wyandotte, OK 74370 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Ms. Nelson: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 405 1 From:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2024 1:25 PM To:Tribal Cc:tcns.fccarchive@fcc.gov Subject:Reply to Proposed Tower Structure (Notification ID: 286075) - Email ID #9028410 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Michael Romanoski, Thank you for using the Federal CommunicaƟons Commission's (FCC) Tower ConstrucƟon NoƟficaƟon System (TCNS). The purpose of this email is to inform you that an authorized user of the TCNS has replied to a proposed tower construcƟon noƟficaƟon that you had submiƩed through the TCNS. The following message has been sent to you from Cell Tower Coordinator Kelly Nelson of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in reference to NoƟficaƟon ID #286075: The Cultural PreservaƟon Department of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma (ESTO) has received the documentaƟon for the referenced TCNS project. ESTO has reviewed the project in accordance with SecƟon 106 of the NaƟonal Historic PreservaƟon Act (NHPA). Based on the informaƟon provided and a review of our records, we find that this project will have No Adverse Eīect on properƟes of sacred and/or cultural significance to the Tribe. The project site is within the known regional area of the Shawnee prehistorically and historically, be aware of inadvertent discoveries. However, ESTO has no objecƟon to the project proceeding as described. Please note that any future changes to this project will require addiƟonal consultaƟon. In accordance with the NHPA of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470-470w-6), federally funded, licensed, or permiƩed undertakings that are subject to the SecƟon 106 review process must determine eīects to significant historic properƟes. As clarified in SecƟon 101(d)(6)(A-B), historic properƟes may have religious and/or cultural significance to Indian Tribes. SecƟon 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the eīects of their acƟons on all significant historic properƟes (36 CFR Part 800) as does the NaƟonal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 U.S.C. § 4321-4347 and 40 CFR § 1501.7(a). However, if during construcƟon cultural objects or human remains are inadvertently discovered, please stop work immediately and contact the Cultural PreservaƟon Department of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. (918)238- 5151 x1861 Niyaawe, Kelly Nelson Cell Tower Coordinator Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 406 2 For your convenience, the informaƟon you submiƩed for this noƟficaƟon is detailed below. NoƟficaƟon Received: 09/30/2024 NoƟficaƟon ID: 286075 Tower Owner Individual or EnƟty Name: Arcola Towers Consultant Name: Michael Romanoski Street Address: 1515 Des Peres Rd. Ste 200 Suite 200 City: St. Louis State: MISSOURI Zip Code: 63131 Phone: 314-997-6111 Email: tribal@trileaf.com Structure Type: MTOWER - Monopole LaƟtude: 39 deg 6 min 17.9 sec N Longitude: 78 deg 10 min 25.9 sec W LocaƟon DescripƟon: 330 Lakeside Drive City: Stephens City State: VIRGINIA County: FREDERICK Detailed DescripƟon of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communicaƟons tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including aƩachments. Ground ElevaƟon: 213.3 meters Support Structure: 45.7 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 46.3 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 259.6 meters above mean sea level ---------- This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint EssenƟals. Visit the following link to report this email as spam: hƩps://us1.proofpointessenƟals.com/app/report_spam.php?mod_id=11&mod_opƟon=logitem&report=1&type=easysp am&k=k1&payload=53616c7465645f5fcc4f72503328eef5cabfe6bab366f9a607c078cebf82fd2a34d6ee659d84f15ceb1ab c0c66ecc900086ab5b067b125042dbde9fc7f8419c07acce2998cbc9314f45c3438465f0378827d030d0524de6b93e9a582f e75657f0f2c9311ī8ce8c6a3ī994204437537453adc6c143545dd129a31f31f7d63a359cd1956cfeef54403cfa9cf46e19111 94dd297afc8a5ce31b6036a807c0611a 407 October 11, 2024 Monacan Indian Nation Chief Kenneth Branham 111 Highview Dr Madison Heights, VA 24572 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Chief Branham: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 408 1 From:Kaleigh Pollak <kaleigh.monacan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 28, 2024 7:10 AM To:Tribal Cc:Chief Diane Shields Subject:Re: FW: TCNS # 286075 - Monacan Indian Nation - For Review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning, Thank you for contacting us about the proposed project. The Monacan Indian Nation is a federally recognized sovereign tribe, headquartered on Bear Mountain in Amherst County. Citizens of the Nation are descended from Virginia and North Carolina Eastern Siouan cultural and linguistic groups, and our ancestral territory includes Virginia west of the fall line of the rivers, sections of southeastern West Virginia, and portions of northern North Carolina. At this time, the active Monacan consultation areas include: Virginia: Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Appomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Buchanan, Buckingham, Campbell, Carroll, Charlotte, Clarke, Craig, Culpepper, Cumberland, Dickenson, Floyd, Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Giles, Goochland, Grayson, Greene, Halifax, Henry, Highland, Lee, Loudoun, Louisa, Madison, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Nelson, Orange, Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Counties, and all contiguous cities. West Virginia: Greenbrier, Mercer, Monroe, Pendleton, Pocahontas, and Summers Counties. North Carolina: Alamance, Caswell, Granville, Orange, Person, Rockingham, Vance, and Warren Counties. At this time, the Nation does not wish to actively participate in this consultation project, because: This project is outside our ancestral territory X The project’s impacts are anticipated to be minimal The project is more closely related to _____, which should be contacted to participate in consultation The tribal office does not currently have the capacity to participate in this project Other: However, the Nation requests to be contacted if: •Sites associated with native history may be impacted by this project; •Adverse effects associated with this project are identified; •Human remains are encountered during this project; •Unanticipated native cultural remains are encountered during this project; •Other tribes consulting on this project cease consultation; or •The project size or scope becomes larger or more potentially destructive than currently described. 409 2 Please do not make any assumptions about future consultation interests based on this decision, as priorities and information may change. We request that you send any future consultation communications in electronic form to Consultation@MonacanNation.gov. We appreciate your outreach to the Monacan Indian Nation and look forward to working with you in the future. Kaleigh Pollak On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:13ௗPM Chief Diane Shields <Chief@monacannation.gov> wrote: Diane Shields We will be known Forever by the Tracks we leave (Dakota) From: Tribal Office <TribalOffice@monacannation.gov> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 2:04 PM To: Chief Diane Shields <Chief@monacannation.gov> Subject: Fw: TCNS # 286075 - Monacan Indian Nation - For Review Thank you, Amie Parra Administrative Assistant 410 3 Monacan Indian Nation O: (434) 363-4864 D: (434) 300-5054 111 Highview Drive Madison Heights, VA 24572 https://www.monacannation.gov/ NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail message and its attachments (if any) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. In addition, this message and the attachments (if any) may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete this message from your system. Thank you. From: Tribal <tribal@trileaf.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 1:37 PM To: Tribal Office <TribalOffice@monacannation.gov> 411 October 11, 2024 Nansemond Indian Tribe Mr. Keith Anderson 1001 Pembroke Lane Suffolk, VA 23432 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Mr. Anderson: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 412 October 11, 2024 Pamunkey Indian Tribe Mr. Robert Gray 1054 Pocahontas Trail King William, VA 23086 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Mr. Gray: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 413 October 11, 2024 Prairie Island Indian Community Mr. Noah White III 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Mr. White III: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 414 October 11, 2024 The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe Mr. W. Frank Adams P.O. Box 184 King William, VA 23086 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Mr. Adams: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 415 October 11, 2024 Tuscarora Nation Mr. Bryan Printup 5226 Walmore Rd Lewiston, NY 14092 RE: Arcola Towers Trileaf Project # 750196 / Stephens City / Stephens City 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655 Latitude: 39° 6’ 17.89” N, Longitude: 78° 10’ 25.91” W TCNS # 286075 Dear Mr. Printup: This project was originally submitted in TCNS on 10/4/2024. Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the above referenced property. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on, or within the viewshed of an Indian Religious Site. Trileaf has learned your tribe has an interest in property located within this County. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound with a proposed limit of disturbance area totaling 6,966 square-feet. The project includes a variable width access and utility easement extending approximately 2,000 feet west with a 5- foot wide utility easement extending southeast towards an existing utility pole. The proposed location is currently forested land. The form 620/621 submission packet is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any objections or comments on this project as soon as possible. Contact me at (314) 997-6111 or email tribal@trileaf.com if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Michael Romanoski Tribal Consultation Manager 1515 Des Peres Road, Suite 200, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 - 314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com 416 Appendix G Resumes 417 REGGIE TORRES PROJECT SCIENTIST Education Earth and Environmental Sciences, B. A. Boston University / Boston, MA Areas of Expertise Ms. Reggie Torres has experience performing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for wireless telecommunications projects. Additionally Ms. Torres has experience performing site inspections and conducting due diligence pursuant to EPA All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) for commercial real estate and lending projects. Environmental service expertise includes: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Historical City Directories Indoor Air Quality Assessments Information Section 7 Consultation Asbestos Inspections National Wetland Inventory Maps Flood Insurance Rate Maps Critical Habitat Maps Environmental Evaluation Summaries Archaeological and Architectural Impacts Soil Characterization Field Reconnaissance Section 106 Compliance NEPA Environmental Assessments Migratory Bird Evaluations Form 620/621 Submittals Historical Topographic Maps and Aerial Imagery Mold and Lead-Based Paint Surveys Soil and Groundwater Management Plans Local Government Consultation Native American Consultation Preliminary Risk Assessments Professional Resume 418 BROOKS THACKER GROUP MANAGER Education B.S. in Chemistry Villanova University / Villanova, PA MSc in Environmental and Petroleum Geochemistry Newcastle University / Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom Areas of Expertise Mr. Thacker has experience with the investigation and management of environmental due diligence pursuant to EPA All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), as well as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental permitting projects. Mr. Thacker operates as the primary point-of-contact for clients over a large geography, specializing within the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regions of the United States. Environmental service expertise includes: Environmental Site Assessments Soil and Groundwater Management Plans Environmental Evaluation Summaries Indoor Air Quality Assessments Asbestos Inspections DAS In-Building Limited Site Inspections Mold and Lead-Based Paint Surveys Vendor Management Small Cell Solutions NEPA Environmental Assessments Critical Habitat and Species Review Migratory Bird Evaluations Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Review Soil Characterization FCC Regulatory Compliance Certifications/Affiliations OSHA 40-Hour HAZWOPER ANSI/FCC RF Radiation Safety Competent Person Environmental Professional (EP) as defined by ASTM Standard E1527-21 (AAI) Professional Resume 419 Exhibit “9” 420 421 422 Exhibit “10” 423 424 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #05-25 Arcola Towers (Frederick Water) Commercial Telecommunications Facility Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 29, 2025 Staff Contact: Kayla Peloquin, Planner II Executive Summary: Meeting Schedule Planning Commission: August 6, 2025 Action: Pending Board of Supervisors: September 10, 2025 Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99 Address 330 Lakeside Drive, Stephens City Magisterial District Shawnee Acreage +/- 14.25 acres Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Frederick Water Property/Pump House Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Land Use: Vacant South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Single family detached East: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: HOA property West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: HOA property Proposed Use The applicant proposes a 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications tower. 425 Page 2 of 4 Review Agency Comments: Review Agency Comment Date Comment Summary Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) January 27, 2025 Entrance is acceptable for the proposed use. Approved as presented. Frederick-Winchester Health Department December 16, 2024 No encroachment on a septic system or well is expected. Frederick County (FC) Inspections December 18, 2024 Permit required for construction of monopole, electric service, and all structural concrete pads. FC Fire Marshal December 27, 2024 Project shall comply with applicable sections of Frederick County Fire Prevention Code including Fire Apparatus Access Roads. FC Public Works January 7, 2025 No comments at this time. A comprehensive review will be done at the time of site plan review. Frederick Water January 10, 2025 Authorizes and supports telecommunication tower. Disclosure: Frederick Water is the property owner. City of Winchester April 14, 2025 No comments. Winchester Regional Airport April 28, 2025 Airport does not object to the CUP. Site plan subject to Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA). Planning & Zoning: Application Proposal: The application proposes a 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility by Arcola Towers for T-Mobile and a minimum of three (3) additional broadband carriers. The tower would be located within a 50’ x 50’ fenced area (2,500 square feet) consisting of 8’ tall chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire on top. Existing mature landscaping will be utilized for screening. The applicant has provided a letter certifying the fall radius of 150’ at ground level from a certified Professional Engineer. The proposed setbacks are greater than 150’ in all directions. Staff Analysis: §165-103.02 of the Zoning Ordinance on standards for Conditional Use Permits states that the Planning Commission and Board shall consider the following standards when considering Conditional Use Permits: 426 Page 3 of 4 A. The conditional use shall not tend to change the character and established pattern of development of the area of the proposed use. • The property for the proposed tower is located in a predominately residential area consisting of predominately single-family detached residences and the Wakeland Manor HOA property. B. The conditional use shall be in harmony with and shall not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. • The proposed CUP will be visible from surrounding properties and may alter the visual landscape. C. The conditional use shall be in accord with the policies expressed in the Comprehensive Plan of the County and with the intent of this chapter. • The Public Facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes a broadband and telecommunications section with a goal to “promote the development of a high-quality wireless telecommunications network throughout the County to serve its residents, while protecting the County’s visual landscape, historic resources, and natural resources.” D. The conditional use shall not adversely affect the natural character and environment of the County. • The facility will be constructed with grey galvanized steel in conformance with §165- 204.19(C)(3)(e) to mitigate visual impacts. • Trileaf Corporation prepared a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Report in conformance with FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulations and determined that “preparation and filing of an Environmental Assessment will not be required and no further NEPA-related action is required for the proposed undertaking” (NEPA Report, pg. 5). Therefore, no potential environmental impacts from the proposed project were identified that warranted further study. E. The conditional use permit shall be approved only if adequate facilities, roads, safe access and drainage are provided. • Review agencies have not indicated any concerns with adequate facilities to serve the proposed use. The Public Works/Building Inspections Departments will require various plans and permits prior to construction to address land disturbance and drainage. F. The conditional use shall conform with all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. • The Zoning Ordinance includes additional regulations for commercial telecommunications facilities in §165-204.19. • §165-204.19(C)(2)(b)[1] and §165-204.19(C)(2)(b)[2] state that a map depicting the search area used in siting the proposed facility or structure must be included in the CUP application along with identification of all service providers and commercial 427 Page 4 of 4 telecommunications facility within the search area per Code of Virginia §15.2-2316.4:2(D). The Code of Virginia does not include a specific search radius; it only references the “availability of existing wireless support structures within a reasonable distance that could be used for co-location at reasonable terms and conditions without imposing technical limitations.” A search radius of 1 mile was utilized, and no facilities were found within the 1-mile radius. The closest tower is 1.89 miles away and does not cover the intended area. Recommendation: Should the Planning Commission find the use to be appropriate, staff would suggest the following conditions for the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall not exceed 150’ in height. 3. The tower shall be available for co-locating personal wireless service providers. 4. A minor site plan meeting all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including additional regulations for commercial telecommunications facilities (§165-204.19) shall be approved prior to establishment of the use. 5. In the event the telecommunications tower is not constructed within twelve (12) months of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on this CUP application. 428 221BRANDYLION DR 222BRANDYLION DR 224BRANDYLION DR 325CHELTENHAM DR 327CHELTENHAM DR 326CHELTENHAM DR 109VINCENT DR 113VINCENT DR115VINCENT DR 117VINCENT DR 121VINCENT DR 125VINCENT DR 126VINCENT DR 128VINCENT DR 223BRANDYLION DR 226BRANDYLION DR 329CHELTENHAM DR 107VINCENT DR 111CHELTENHAM DR 127VINCENT DR 130VINCENT DR 99BRANDYLIONCT 104VINCENT DR 105VINCENT DR 102TATTERSALL CT 104TATTERSALL CT 129VINCENT DR 132VINCENT DR 103BRANDYLION CT 228BRANDYLION DR 106TATTERSALL CT 131VINCENT DR 134VINCENT DR 104BRANDYLION CT 100VINCENT DR 101TATTERSALL CT 108TATTERSALL CT 102BRANDYLION CT 100BRANDYLION CT 103TATTERSALL CT 105TATTERSALL CT 101ALDIEBURN CT 100ALDIEBURN CT 234BRANDYLION DR 236BRANDYLION DR 107TATTERSALL CT 109TATTERSALL CT 103ALDIEBURN CT 137VINCENT DR 139VINCENT DR 141VINCENT DR 1285MACEDONIACH RD 1285MACEDONIACH RD 231BRANDYLION DR 233BRANDYLION DR 238BRANDYLION DR 105ALDIEBURN CT 106ALDIEBURN CT 235BRANDYLION DR 240BRANDYLION DR 107ALDIEBURN CT 110ALDIEBURN CT 114ALDIEBURN CT 116ALDIEBURN CT 237BRANDYLION DR 242BRANDYLION DR 109ALDIEBURN CT 111ALDIEBURN CT 239BRANDYLION DR 244BRANDYLION DR 113ALDIEBURN CT 118ALDIEBURN CT 241BRANDYLION DR 243BRANDYLION DR 245BRANDYLION DR 117FAIRLAWN CT 115FAIRLAWN CT 100CANAAN CT 102CANAAN CT 104CANAAN CT 103CANAAN CT 101CANAAN CT 106CANAAN CT 109FAIRLAWN CT 105CANAAN CT TA TTERSA LL C TV IN C E N T D RBRANDYLION DRWARRIOR DRALDIE BURN CTLAKESIDE DRApplication Sewer and Water Service A rea Parcels µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 20, 2025 PRESTWICKLN FALABELLADRHACKBE RRYDRBELL HAVENCIR PENDERBROOK CTCRAIG DR GULLANE CT V IN C E N T D RROSEDALE DRTALAMORE DRWARRIOR DRWAKELAND DRBRABANT DRCAMARUGE CTLIPIZZANER CTLAKEWOODDRLANE STBRANDYLION DRAUBURNHILL CTQUINTO NOAKSCIRLAKESIDE D R 0 320 640160 Feet 75 A 99 CUP # 05 - 25: Arcola Towers (Frederick Water)PIN: 75 - A - 99150' Monopole Wireless Telecommunications FacilityLocation Map CUP #05-25 429 221BRANDYLION DR 222BRANDYLION DR 224BRANDYLION DR 325CHELTENHAM DR 327CHELTENHAM DR 326CHELTENHAM DR 109VINCENT DR 113VINCENT DR115VINCENT DR 117VINCENT DR 121VINCENT DR 125VINCENT DR 126VINCENT DR 128VINCENT DR 223BRANDYLION DR 226BRANDYLION DR 329CHELTENHAM DR 107VINCENT DR 111CHELTENHAM DR 127VINCENT DR 130VINCENT DR 99BRANDYLIONCT 104VINCENT DR 105VINCENT DR 102TATTERSALL CT 104TATTERSALL CT 129VINCENT DR 132VINCENT DR 103BRANDYLION CT 228BRANDYLION DR 106TATTERSALL CT 131VINCENT DR 134VINCENT DR 104BRANDYLION CT 100VINCENT DR 101TATTERSALL CT 108TATTERSALL CT 102BRANDYLION CT 100BRANDYLION CT 103TATTERSALL CT 105TATTERSALL CT 101ALDIEBURN CT 100ALDIEBURN CT 234BRANDYLION DR 236BRANDYLION DR 107TATTERSALL CT 109TATTERSALL CT 103ALDIEBURN CT 137VINCENT DR 139VINCENT DR 141VINCENT DR 1285MACEDONIACH RD 1285MACEDONIACH RD 231BRANDYLION DR 233BRANDYLION DR 238BRANDYLION DR 105ALDIEBURN CT 106ALDIEBURN CT 235BRANDYLION DR 240BRANDYLION DR 107ALDIEBURN CT 110ALDIEBURN CT 114ALDIEBURN CT 116ALDIEBURN CT 237BRANDYLION DR 242BRANDYLION DR 109ALDIEBURN CT 111ALDIEBURN CT 239BRANDYLION DR 244BRANDYLION DR 113ALDIEBURN CT 118ALDIEBURN CT 241BRANDYLION DR 243BRANDYLION DR 245BRANDYLION DR 117FAIRLAWN CT 115FAIRLAWN CT 100CANAAN CT 102CANAAN CT 104CANAAN CT 103CANAAN CT 101CANAAN CT 106CANAAN CT 109FAIRLAWN CT 105CANAAN CT TA TTERSA LL C TV IN C E N T D RBRANDYLION DRWARRIOR DRALDIE BURN CTLAKESIDE DRApplication Sewer and Water Service A rea Parcels R4 (Residential Planned Com munity Distr ict) RP (Residential Per form ance District)µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 20, 2025 PRESTWICKLN FALABELLADRHACKBE RRYDRBELL HAVENCIR PENDERBROOK CTCRAIG DR GULLANE CT V IN C E N T D RROSEDALE DRTALAMORE DRWARRIOR DRWAKELAND DRBRABANT DRCAMARUGE CTLIPIZZANER CTLAKEWOODDRLANE STBRANDYLION DRAUBURNHILL CTQUINTO NOAKSCIRLAKESIDE D R 0 320 640160 Feet 75 A 99 CUP # 05 - 25: Arcola Towers (Frederick Water)PIN: 75 - A - 99150' Monopole Wireless Telecommunications FacilityZoning Map CUP #05-25 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Public Hearings Title: 2025-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - (Mr. Bishop) Attachments: PC08-06-25_2025-2030_CapitalImprPlan_MinorUpdate.pdf 448 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: John Bishop, AICP, Assistant Planning Director DATE: July 22, 2025 RE: 2025-2030 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) minor update Request Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding a minor update to the CIP in support of several funding requests that are currently on file with VDOT. While these projects are already conceptually included in the Comprehensive Plan, specific inclusion into the CIP will assist the applications in being more competitive. The update is as follows: 1. Route 50 at Back Mountain Road R-Cut Intersection - Revenue Sharing Program 2. Tasker Road Multiuse Path from Warrior to Cross Keys Circle-Transportation Alternatives 3. Westminster Canterbury Drive at Route 522 Crossing Installation-Transportation Alternatives Background The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is a document that consists of a schedule of major capital expenditures for the County for the ensuing five-year period, as well as a category for long term projects (6 + years out). The CIP intends to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the County budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the County must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of projects on the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be undertaking these projects. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities and cost estimates may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that projects may not be funded during the year indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain further out the project date is identified. The CIP is also updated annually, and projects are removed from the plans as they are completed or as priorities change. 449 2025-2030 CIP –Minor Update July 22, 2025 Page 2 Conclusion The Transportation Committee is reviewing this item at their meeting on July 28, 2025, and staff will update the Commission on what they recommend to the Board of Supervisors. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding this minor update to the 2025-2030 CIP. It is also the role of the Planning Commission to affirm that the 2025-2030 CIP is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. 450 Contribution Per Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (FY 26) 2026-2027 (FY 27) 2027-2028 (FY 28) 2028-2029 (FY 29) 2029-2030 (FY 30) Total Cost 5 Year Plan Beyond FY30 Expenses Funded & Proposed Priorities Ensuing Fiscal Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Exit 313 Bridge Replacement and Capacity Improvements $1,520,000 $0 $4,538,000 $57,295,000 $0 $63,353,000 $0 Route 277 Right Turn Lane Extension at Warrior Drive $570,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $570,000 $0 Route 7 STARS Study Improvements $1,238,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,238,000 $0 Exit 317 Interchange Ramp Realignment $722,000 $1,104,000 $0 $5,117,000 $0 $6,943,000 $0 Route 11 at Old Charlestown Road Roundabout $6,357,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,357,000 $0 Redbud Road Realignment $5,988,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,988,000 $0 Gainesboro Road at Route 522 Intersection Upgrade $7,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,100,000 $0 Exit 317 Interchange Upgrade $4,278,000 $2,828,000 $0 $30,484,000 $0 $37,590,000 $0 Route 522 and Costello Drive Intersection Upgrade $1,863,000 $0 $4,810,000 $0 $0 $6,673,000 $0 Warrior Drive Pedestrian Upgrades $214,000 $213,000 $1,371,000 $0 $0 $1,798,000 $0 Valley Mill Road Pedestrian Upgrades $74,000 $228,000 $438,000 $0 $0 $740,000 $0 Inverlee Way Pedestrian Upgrades $62,000 $143,000 $367,000 $0 $0 $572,000 $0 Route 11 S Widening and Shawnee Intersection Improvements from Winchester City Limits to Opequon Church Lane $0 $445,000 $0 $980,000 $3,294,000 $4,719,000 $0 Warrior Drive Extension (South) including Brandy Lane Upgrade $0 $611,000 $0 $957,000 $4,947,000 $6,515,000 $0 Hopewell and Brucetown Realignment $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 $0 Route 50 at Back Mountain Road R-Cut Intersection $0 $0 $2,937,103 $0 $0 $5,874,205 $0 Tasker Road Multiuse Path (Warrior to Cross Keys)$0 $212,509 $0 $0 $0 $1,062,544 $0 Route 522 Pedestrian Crossing (Westminster/Rivendell Ct)$0 $318,412 $0 $0 $0 $1,590,710 $0 Total $29,986,000 $5,572,000 $11,524,000 $104,833,000 $8,241,000 $160,156,000 $0 Note: All transportation projects will be funded by a combination of federal, state, and local funds as well as developer contributions. Inclusion of transportation projects in the CIP is not an indication that Frederick County will be solely funding these projects. Table 2 - Transportation Projects - CIP Requests Projects highlighed in this color have already been approved and funded. 451 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 6, 2025 Agenda Section: Other Title: Current Planning Applications Attachments: 452