Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08 FCC NEPAL """""'RIA TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL. POLICY ACT CHECKLIST SCREENING REPORT Proposed Shenandoah Mobile Company Site TWR046 Redbud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia TRIAD Project No.: 07-07-0683-04 Prepared For: Shenandoah Mobile Company P.O. Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Prepared By: TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 July 14, 2008 ►�� A 'iVl, •, c TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET TRANSMITTAL LETTER TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Special Terms and Conditions.................................................................................................1 1.3 Methodology.............................................................................................................................2 1.4 Limitations and Exceptions......................................................................................................3 1.5 NEPA Checklist........................................................................................................................4 1.6 Unidentifiable Conditions.........................................................................................................5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL SETTING.......................................................6 2.1 Site Location.............................................................................................................................6 2.2 Description of Site and Improvements.....................................................................................6 2.3 Physical Setting........................................................................................................................7 2.3.1 Topographic Map Review.................................................................................................7 3.0 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) CHECKLIST .........................8 3.1 Wilderness Area Records Review............................................................................................8 3.2 Wildlife Preserves Records Review.........................................................................................9 3.3 Threatened or Endangered Species — Critical Habitats Records Review...............................9 3.4 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review................................................................12 3.5 Native American Religious/Archaeological Sites...................................................................18 3.6 Floodplains Records Review..................................................................................................19 3.7 Wetlands and Other Bodies, Change in Surface Features, Deforestation and Water Diversion................................................................................................................................20 3.8 High Intensity White Lights.....................................................................................................22 3.9 Radiofrequency Radiation......................................................................................................23 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................28 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET TRANSMITTAL LETTER TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Special Terms and Conditions.................................................................................................1 1.3 Methodology................................................................................................ ................2 .. ........... 1.4 Limitations and Exceptions......................................................................................................3 1.5 NEPA Checklist........................................................................................................................4 1.6 Unidentifiable Conditions.........................................................................................................5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL SETTING.......................................................6 2.1 Site Location... 6 2.2 Description of Site and Improvements.....................................................................................6 2.3 Physical Setting........................................................................................................................7 2.3.1 Topographic Map Review.................................................................................................7 3.0 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) CHECKLIST .........................8 3.1 Wilderness Area Records Review............................................................................................8 3.2 Wildlife Preserves Records Review .................... 9 3.3 Threatened or Endangered Species — Critical Habitats Records Review...............................9 3.4 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review................................................................12 3.5 Native American Religious/Archaeological Sites...................................................................18 3.6 Floodplains Records Review..................................................................................................19 3.7 Wetlands and Other Bodies, Change in Surface Features, Deforestation and Water Diversion................................................................................................................................20 3.8 High Intensity White Lights.....................................................................................................22 3.9 Radiofrequency Radiation......................................................................................................23 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................28 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Topographic Map Figure 2 Site Diagram Figure 3 FIRM Flood Map Figure 4 USDA Soils Map Figure 5 NWI Wetlands Map APPENDICES Appendix 1 Regulatory Sources Appendix 2 NEPA Checklist Appendix 3 Site Photographs Appendix 4 Conceptual Antenna Drawings Appendix 5 Correspondence Appendix 6 DHR Database Review Appendix 7 Phase I Archaeological Survey Appendix 8 Antenna Specifications and RF Site Approval Form PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Screening performed by TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. (TRIAD) at the proposed Shenandoah Mobile Company (SMC) site designated as TWR046 Redbud located at 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia (the Site). According to tax documentation, the Site is identified as Frederick County Tax Map No. 55 -A -129A and being a portion of a 33 - acre property owned by David and Katherine Gregg. TRIAD conducted this NEPA review, in accordance with the NEPA Land Use Screening Checklist and in accordance with our agreement dated December 19, 2007. Regulatory sources used in completing this NEPA review are included in Appendix 1. The proposed SMC Site No. TWR046 is located on a rawland portion of the Site that is currently occupied by middle -age woodlands located on a moderately sloping portion of the parent parcel (N Latitude — 390 12' 4.5" W Longitude -78° 06' 10"). The site is located approximately 300 feet north of a residential dwelling (constructed circa 1996) and 150 feet north of a small farmstead consisting of a small barn and sheds. The Site is bordered to the north by a down slope wooded area and swales associated with the parent parcel. Additional wooded properties and Lick Run are located beyond the parent parcel, with a residential dwelling under construction adjoining the northeastern corner of the parent parcel. The Site is bordered to the east and west by additional woodlands associated with the parent parcel. A wooded down gradient drainage swale is located farther to the west of the Site. The Site is bordered to the south by pasture land and the residential dwelling and barn associated with the parent parcel. Redbud Road is located farther to the south of the Site. SMC prnF---- construct _nnctra 195 foot tall monCpo!e antenna tC`�'�r v✓ithin G quare shaped 70 foot by 70 foot (4,900 square feet) equipment compound. The tower will contain a mounted three sector antenna at proposed radio frequency of 1850 to 1990 Mega Hertz. Based on the proposed design the antenna will not contain any high intensity white lights. However, based on a conditional use permit comment issued by the Winchester Regional Airport Authority, the airport is requesting that lighting be installed and maintained on the tower in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-a K Change 2. The vicinity of the Site can generally be described as rural and agricultural. There are no known threatened natural resources on the subject Site or in the immediate site vicinity of this proposed location; however, according to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Opequon Creek located approximately 7,964 feet east of the proposed project site has been designated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) as a Threatened and Endangered Species Water. The species associated with this threatened and endangered water is the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta). NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) CHECKLIST FINDINGS TRIAD conducted a NEPA review, according to the NEPA Land Use Screening Checklist for the proposed telecommunications tower Site. The NEPA Checklist evaluation has revealed that the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications tower at the subject Site would have "No Adverse Effect" on historic properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, on any endangered species, habitats, Indian religious sites, or on the quality of the human environment. The NEPA Land Use Checklist is included as Appendix 2. This summary does not contain all the information that is found in the full report that follows. The report should be read in its entirety to obtain a more complete understanding of the information provided and to aid in any decisions made or actions taken based on this information. SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies of the Federal government to evaluate the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment. As a Federal licensing agency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fulfills its responsibilities under NEPA by requiring licensees' review their proposed actions for environmental consequences. The FCC has adopted criteria for evaluating the environmental impact of proposed telecommunication projects pursuant to the requirements of NEPA. FCC rules implementing NEPA, including a list of wireless service facility activities that may have a "significant" effect on the environment, are found in 47 CFR § 1.1301, et.seq. The FCC requires additional environmental processing or the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed wireless telecommunications service facilities that may have a "significant" impact on the human environment. This assessment was conducted pursuant to the authorized scope of services for the completion of the FCC/NEPA Checklist Screening Report. The protocol utilized for completion of the FCC/NEPA Checklist was in general accordance with the requirements of the FCC Rules on Environmental Impact (47 CFR § 1.1307). This report includes documentation to support the analysis, opinions and conclusions as presented. 1.2 Special Terms and Conditions Authorization to perform this assessment was given on December 19, 2007 by receipt of a purchase order from SMC to TRIAD. This assessment was performed in accordance with the scope and terms of the contract between SMC and TRIAD. SMC provided instructions as to the location of the Site, access, and an explanation of the property and facilities to be assessed. This report was prepared pursuant to the proposal TRIAD prepared for SMC. That contractual relationship included an SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 2 exchange of information about the property that was unique and between TRIAD and its client and serves as the basis upon which this report was prepared. Because of the importance of the communication between TRIAD and its client, reliance or any use of this report by anyone other than SMC, for whom it was prepared, is prohibited. TRIAD performed these work tasks in accordance with the SMC proposal, unless otherwise noted in this report. As such, the user may rely upon the findings and recommendations, if any, of this report, subject to the scope of services, significant assumptions, limitations and exceptions, and special terms and conditions as described in the report. All third parties relying on TRIAD's reports, by such reliance, agree to be bound by the proposal and TRIAD's General Conditions. No reliance by any party is permitted without such agreement, regardless of the content of the reliance letter itself. Reliance or use by any such third party without explicit authorization in the report does not make said third party a third party beneficiary to TRIAD's contract with SMC. Any such unauthorized reliance on or use of this report, including any of its information or conclusions, will be at the third party's risk. For the same reasons, no warranties or representations, expressed or implied in this report, are made to any such third party. 1.3 Methodology The objective of our evaluation was to assess the proposed wireless telecommunications tower location to ascertain whether constructing and operating the proposed structure would have a potentially "significant" affect, (in accordance with FCC rules), on the human environment. FCC Form 601 (Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization) contains questions which call for the licensee or tower building to indicate whether the proposed action will have a "significant" environmental effect. Under Section SMC Site No. TWR046— Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 3 1.1307(d), the FCC requires that the licensee maintain all pertinent documentation supporting a determination that additional environmental processing and/or an Environmental Assessment (EA) was not necessary for a wireless service facility The evaluation performed by TRIAD personnel was intended to provide SMC with documentation and an explanation of the potential `significance,' or lack thereof, associated with the constructing or modifying a wireless telecommunications service facility on the subject Site. Our checklist approach was carried out in order to assess whether the proposed construction/modification would have a "significant" effect on the quality of the human environment, pursuant to rules promulgated by the FCC, and would therefore require additional environmental processing or the preparation of an EA. The checklist used in our field investigation is appended to this report as Appendix 2. Mr. William Mikalik, CPG of TRIAD conducted the site reconnaissance on January 4, 2008. The site reconnaissance consisted of observing the interior and periphery of the Site. Photographs were taken to document the features observed during the reconnaissance and environmental conditions of concern, where possible. A photographic log and copies of the photographs are included in Appendix 3 1.4 Limitations and Exceptions This report was prepared with the limitations set forth in the FCC Rules on Environmental Impact (47 CFR 1.1307) protocol, the accuracy and completeness of this report is necessarily limited by the following: Outstanding Regulatory Information Requests: There are no outstanding regulatory requests for this property. However, the Frederick County Historical Society was contacted at the request of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). An adequate response has not yet been received from this organization. SMC Site No. TW R046 - Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 4 1.5 NEPA Checklist TRIAD warrants that the findings and conclusions contained herein were accomplished in accordance with the methodologies set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations 47 CFR 1.1307 through 1.1319 protocols and the Section 106 review process. These methodologies are described by the standard as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an Environmental Compliance Checklist of a parcel of property. However, these findings and conclusions contain all of the limitations inherent in these methodologies which are referred to in the protocol and some of which are more specifically set forth below. Potentially "significant' effects identified in the FCC rules include: • 1.1307 (a)(1) Facilities that -are to be located in an officially designated wilderness area, • 1.1307 (a)(2) Facilities that are to be located in an officially designated wildlife preserve, • 1.1307 (a)(3) Facilities that may impact listed threatened or endangered species of designated critical habitats; and Facilities that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed threatened and endangered species or likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, • 1.1307 (a)(4) Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, • 1.1307 (a)(5) Facilities that may affect Native American religious sites, • 1.1307 (a)(6) Facilities to be located within a floodplain, 1. 1307 t-a)� 7) Facilities whose construction will involve significant change in surface features (e.g., wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion), 0 1.1307 (a)(8) Antenna towers and/or supporting structures that are to be SMC Site No. TWR046— Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 5 equipped with high intensity white lights which are to be located in residential neighborhoods, as defined by the applicable zoning laws, • 1.1307 (b) Facility operation or signal transmission would cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation in excess of threshold limits. 1.6 Unidentifiable Conditions There is a possibility that even with proper application of these methodologies, conditions may exist on the Site that could not be identified within the scope of the assessment or that were not reasonably identifiable from the available information. TRIAD believes that the information obtained from the record review and the interviews concerning the property is reliable. However, TRIAD cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the information provided by these other sources is accurate or complete. The methodologies of this assessment are not intended to produce all inclusive or comprehensive results, but rather to provide the client with information regarding apparent suspicions of existing and potential environmental conditions relating to the subject Site. No other warranties are implied or expressed. SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 6 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL SETTING 2.1 Site Location The proposed SMC Site No. TWR046 is located on a rawland portion of the Site at 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. The Site is currently occupied by middle -age woodlands located on a moderately sloping portion of the parent parcel (N Latitude — 39° 12' 4.5" W Longitude -780 06' 10"). The site is located approximately 300 feet north of a residential dwelling (constructed circa 1996) and 150 feet north of a small farmstead consisting of a small barn and sheds. A map identifying the location of the Site is presented as Figure 1, and a site diagram is presented as Figure 2. 2.2 Description of Site and Improvements The proposed subject Site location is currently rawland. The proposed site location is currently covered in woodlands. Approximately 85% (1,930 ft) of the proposed access road utilizes an existing graded and graveled driveway. The remaining approximate 375 feet to the proposed tower site will be through a farm trail and woodlands. There is no direct affect anticipated to this property other than the improvement of the proposed access road. There were no historical structures identified on the parent parcel. The proposed Site will consist of a lease 100 foot by 100 foot area, with a proposed 70 foot by 70 foot square shaped compound (4,900 square feet in size), will be constructed on a poured 160 square foot concrete slab, and will be protected by an eight foot high chain-link fence enclosure that will contain the 195 foot tall monopole antenna tower. The direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) will be confined to the 58,000 square foot project area that includes the 100 ft x 100 ft lease area and the 2,300 feet ingress/egress easement. The proposed tower will contain three sector antenna arrays that will be mounted on the top of the 195 foot tower and will have a proposed radio frequency of 1850 to 1990 Mega Hertz. The facility will be unmanned; therefore, handicap access is not a requirement. Utilities will be brought to the lease area along the proposed access SMC Site No. TW R046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 7 road. Photographs of the Site are presented in Appendix 3. Concept drawings of the proposed compound and tower are attached as Appendix 4, 2.3 Physical Setting 2.3.1 Topographic Map Review According to a review of the 1987 Stephenson, VA United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle map indicated that the Site is located at an approximate elevation of 644 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Based on the topographic contour lines of the subject Site, the area immediately surrounding the proposed Site slopes moderately to north. Areas immediately to the east and west are roughly at equal elevation with the project Site. Areas to the south are topographically up gradient and are at higher elevations at approximately 655 feet AMSL. Areas to the north are topographically down gradient at lower elevations at approximately 610 feet AMSL. The proposed Site location is shown on the topographic map to be shaded in green, indicating dense vegetation such as woodlands. The Site is currently covered in predominately oak and other species of trees. There are no depicted surface streams on the Site. The closest water body to the site is Lick Run located approximately 239 feet northeast of the proposed Site. An excerpt of the topographic map for the project Site is attached as Figure 1. SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 8 3.0 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) CHECKLIST TRIAD conducted a NEPA review in accordance with the NEPA Land Use Screening Checklist for the monopole tower site located at 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia. This NEPA screening report has been performed in accordance with our agreement dated December 19, 2007. Information sources used in completing the NEPA review are shown in Appendix 1. A copy of the completed NEPA checklist is included as Appendix 2. 3.1 Wilderness Area Records Review There are more than 600 officially designated wilderness areas within the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Wilderness areas are generally larger than 5,000 acres and have retained an original, primeval character. Four Federal agencies manage designated wilderness areas within the United States. TRIAD reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangle maps and NWPS database to assess if the proposed SMC Site was located in an officially designated wilderness area. According to these sources, no designated wilderness areas, national conservation areas, or national parks/monuments are known to exist within the site vicinity. According to information reviewed from the National Wilderness Preservation System on-line maps, the project Site and adjacent lands are not a designated State or Federal wilderness land. The nearest officially designated wilderness area to the project Site is identified as: • Shenandoah National Park is located approximately 21 miles to the south- southwest of the project Site and is composed of approximately 195,000 acres that stretches for 80 miles along the Blue Ridge Mountains south of Front Royal, Virginia. The Shenandoah Wilderness Area comprises 79,579 acres of Shenandoah National Park and is a Federally designated wilderness area. According to information reviewed from the United States Department of the interior the project Site and adjacent lands are not a designated State or Federal national park, State park, or natural area. During TRIAD'S site reconnaissance, wilderness SMC Site No. TW R046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 9 areas were not identified on the subject Site. Therefore, the proposed project will have "No Affect" on Wilderness Areas. 3.2 Wildlife Preserves Records Review Designated wildlife preserves and refuges are typically areas of public lands set aside for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants. Over 500 refuges, 26,000 waterfowl protection areas, and 50 coordination areas as well as a wide variety of "special management areas" such as research natural areas, wetlands of international importance, and wild and scenic rivers comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). TRIAD reviewed USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle maps, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on-line database, the Nature Conservancy of Virginia on-line maps, and the NWRS database for information pertaining to potential wildlife preserves in the site vicinity. Based on TRIAD's review, the project Site was not located within a wildlife refuge or ecological preserve. There are no officially designated wildlife refuges or preserves within a 50 -mile radius of the Site. Therefore, the proposed project will have "No Affect" on Wildlife Preserves. 3.3 Threatened or Endangered Species — Critical Habitats Records Review Critical habitat is a term used in the Endangered Species Act that refers to geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and which may require special management consideration. Areas designated as critical habitat possess the physical and biological characteristics needed by threatened and endangered species to live and reproduce successfully. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires agencies of the Federal government to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the appropriate State agencies to assure that special status species and their critical habitat would not likely be jeopardized by proposed actions authorized by Federal agencies. SMC Site No. TWR046- Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 10 TRIAD consulted with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) for determination that threatened or endangered species did not exist on the subject Site. According to the Virginia DCR response, they have conducted a searched of their Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map for this project. According to the DCR's database search, the following natural heritage resources are associated with the conservation site: • Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) — The wood turtle has been documented downstream in the Opequon Creek. The wood turtle inhabits forested floodplains and nearby fields, wet meadows, and farmlands. As the species overwinters on the bottoms of creeks and streams, a primary habitat requirement is the presence of water. Please note that the wood turtle is classified as threatened by the Virginia VDGIF. The Site is located on the USGS Stephenson, 7.5 -minute quadrangle, within Frederick County, Virginia. TRIAD obtained a list of current and historical rare, threatened, and endangered species of Frederick County, Virginia, published by the Virginia DCR. TRIAD reviewed this list to assess if any of the listed species may occur near or potentially be affected by the proposed SMC Site project. Species identified to occur within the county are listed as follows: Frederick County Endangered or Threatened Species List Scientific Name Common Name _7Yes Observed On -Site or No Bivalvia Mussels Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater No Crustacea (Amphipods, Isopods, & Decapods) Stygobromus biggersi Bigger's Cave Isopod No Stygobromus gracilipes Shenandoah Cave Amphipod No Lepidoptera Butterflies & Moths Euchloe Olympia Olympia Marble No Euphyes bimacula Two -spotted Skipper No Phyciodes batesii batesii Tawny Crescent No SMC Site No. TWR046 - Redbud FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report July 14, 2008 TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 Page 11 Frederick County Endangered or Threatened Species List Scientific Name Common Name Observed On -Site Yes or No Polites mystic Long Dash No Pyrgus wyandot Appalachian Grizzled Skipper No Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary No Odonata (Dragonflies & Damselflies Aeshna constricts Lance -tipped Darner No Reptiles Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle No Plants Aralia hispida Bristly Sparsaparilla No Astragalus distortus var. distortus Bent Milkvetch No Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower No Carex interior Inland Sedge No Carex lasiocarpa var, americana Slender Sedge No Carex utriculata Beaked Sedge No Cirsium altissimum Tall Thistle No Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail No Eupatorium maculatum var. maculatum Spotted Joe-pye Weed No Geum laciniatum var. trichocarpum Rough Avens No Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic Rush No Juncus nodosus Knotted Rush No Juncus torreyi Torrey's Rush No Lemna trisulca Star Duckweed No Paxistima canbyi Canby's Mountain -lover No Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak No Sagittaria rigida Sessile -fruited Arrowhead No Scieria verticillata Whorled Nutrush No Scutellaria galericulata Hooded Skullcap No Sparganium chlorocarpum Narrow -leaf Burreed No Spianthes lucida Shining Ladies' -tresses No Stachys pilosa var. arenicola Marsh Hedgenettle No Symphyotrichum praealtum var. angustior Willow Aster No SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 12 During the assessment, none of the above -listed endangered species were observed on the subject Site. TRIAD did not observe any rare, threatened, or endangered animal species or animal species habitats during the site visit. The Virginia DCR requested that because the project Site is located in the same drainage basin as the wood turtle habitat (Opequon Creek), that to minimize any adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities, the project Site should implement a strict adherence to erosion and sediment control measures during all land disturbing activities. Prior to project initiation, the Virginia DCR requests that SMC contact the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to ensure compliance with protected species legislation. In addition, under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the Virginia DCR, the DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state -listed threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current (proposed) activity will not affect any documented state -listed plant or insects. Based on the Virginia DCR's review and TRIAD'S site reconnaissance, the proposed project will have "No Affect" to any local threatened, rare, or endangered species. A copy of the Virginia DCR response is included in Appendix 5. 3.4 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Section 106 Review Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed undertakings on historical, archaeological, and cultural resources. Guidelines for implementing the Section 106 process are promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP) in "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), which mandate Federal agency compliance with other laws related to historic preservation including the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA), Executive Order 11593, and NEPA. Other agency -specific rules also require consideration of a proposed project's impact on "historic properties" and cultural resources. "Historic SMC Site No. TWR046 - Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 13 properties" is a term of defined statutory meaning. The term has been defined by the FCC to include; `any historic or prehistoric site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP).' In Virginia, the SHPO is managed by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). The DHR is the agency charged with managing information regarding historical, cultural, and archaeological resources within the State of Virginia. State policy regarding these resources is outlined in the DHR guidelines for cultural resource surveys and data recovery programs. Historical, cultural, and archaeological information must be gathered and submitted to the DHR in accordance with Federal and State laws and rules. TRIAD personnel conducted a records search of the Virginia DHR Inventory of Historic Properties database for information on file for the Site and a 1.0 -mile radius from the project Site. According to TRIAD's review of the information complied by the DHR, the project Site is not located on a historical property. The APE for visual effect has identified several properties within the required 1.0 -mile search radii from the proposed subject Site. A total of 10 properties were identified by the DHR file review. The closest of these is the Robert Keckley House (DHR 034-1144), which is located approximately 1,863 feet southwest of the proposed tower area. According to the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks Survey Form, this property was developed in the 1920's and is a one-story vernacular gabled dwelling. This property will likely have a limited view of the proposed tower structure to the northeast of this property. The remainder of the DHR database review is summarized on the following table: Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources Archaeological and Architectural Resources List UnK Approximate Number I Description I Distance From Site I impact to Historic Site 034-111 - G Jenki_ns Dehaven House 3,696 ft. SE None 034-1118 Jenkins House, Rt. 660 3,787 ft. SE None SMC Site No. TWR046 - Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 14 The Millburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) was another potential concern to the Virginia DHR. To assess if any potential visual impact would occur to this documented historic district, the Virginia DHR requested that a balloon test be performed for the project. The balloon test was performed by installing a weather balloon at the proposed tower location at the proposed height of the tower and traveling the local road network that surrounded the site vicinity to assess if the balloon was observable at any of the predetermined locations (i.e. historical districts, local road intersections, points of interest, or historical properties). The findings of the balloon test indicated that the balloon and the proposed tower will only be visible to certain locations along Redbud Road to the south and to Woods Mill Road to the east-northeast. The balloon was not observable from any public roads within the Millburn Historic District to the north. Based on these results, the proposed tower will have "No Adverse Effect" on the Millburn Historic District. The remaining identified properties in the search radius are anticipated to have no to very little view of the proposed tower, based on overall distance, view angles, trees near properties, and their topographic relationship to the proposed tower. Therefore, the location of the proposed antenna tower should have "No Adverse Effect" to surrounding site vicinityand historical properties. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources Archaeological and Architectural Resources List DHR Number Description Approximate Distance From Site Impact to Historic Site 034-1139 Kemp -Gruber -Jobe House 5,268 ft. NW None 034-1140 Culp House 4,991 ft. W None 034-1141 Charles H. Miller House 4,577 ft. W None 034-1144 Robert D. Keckley House 1,863 ft. SW Minimal 034-1146 Redbud School 3,176 ft. S None 034-1378 John Huntsberry House 5,210 ft. W None 034-5035 Milburn Rural Historic District 4,502 ft. N None 034-1147 Redbud United Methodist Ch. 4,228 ft. S None The Millburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) was another potential concern to the Virginia DHR. To assess if any potential visual impact would occur to this documented historic district, the Virginia DHR requested that a balloon test be performed for the project. The balloon test was performed by installing a weather balloon at the proposed tower location at the proposed height of the tower and traveling the local road network that surrounded the site vicinity to assess if the balloon was observable at any of the predetermined locations (i.e. historical districts, local road intersections, points of interest, or historical properties). The findings of the balloon test indicated that the balloon and the proposed tower will only be visible to certain locations along Redbud Road to the south and to Woods Mill Road to the east-northeast. The balloon was not observable from any public roads within the Millburn Historic District to the north. Based on these results, the proposed tower will have "No Adverse Effect" on the Millburn Historic District. The remaining identified properties in the search radius are anticipated to have no to very little view of the proposed tower, based on overall distance, view angles, trees near properties, and their topographic relationship to the proposed tower. Therefore, the location of the proposed antenna tower should have "No Adverse Effect" to surrounding site vicinityand historical properties. SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 15 There were no other historical properties identified within the required 1.0 -mile search radii that would be adversely impacted from the proposed tower. Upon review of the submitted New Tower FCC Form 620 to the Virginia DHR, the department issued a statement of "No Adverse Effect" concurrence for the project Site. In addition, the Virginia DHR requested that any comments regarding the projects effects to historic properties be forwarded to them. A copy of Virginia DHR database summary and the "No Adverse Effect" findings letter is included in Appendix 6. As part of the Section 106 review, a letter was submitted to Frederick County Historical Society for their review and comment on the proposed tower site and any potential adverse impacts to any historical structures that may result from the construction of the antenna tower at the Site. An adequate response has not yet been received from the historical society. The historical society will contact SMC should they have an issue with the proposed tower or questions. A no response from the group will be interpreted as their finding of no comment. A copy of the letter submitted to the historical society group is included in Appendix 5. As part of the Section 106 review, a letter was submitted to Frederick County Planning and Zoning informing the department of TRIAD'S involvement with the proposed construction and providing general details regarding the project and findings to that date. A copy of the letter submitted to Planning and Zoning is included in Appendix 5. To supplement the historical investigation for the proposed Site, and as requested by the Virginia DHR as part of direct effects on the subject Site, a Phase Archaeological Survey was completed for the Site. On April 9, 2008, Rivanna Archaeological Services conducted a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the project site. The project area for the Phase I archaeological survey consists of a total area of approximately 58,000 sq ft (1.33 acre) comprised of a 100 ft x 100 ft lease area SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 16 located approximately 0.36 mile northeast of Redbud Road at an elevation of 640 ft amsl, a 20 -ft -wide and approximately 2300- ft -long ingress/egress easement that connects the tower site to Redbud Road, and a 6 -ft -wide and 164 -ft -long utility easement that joins the ingress/egress easement approximately 365 ft southwest of the tower lease area. Approximately 85% (ca. 1930 ft) of the ingress/egress easement follows the existing graded and graveled drive that leads to the late 20th - century residence at 1203 Redbud Road. Because of extensive disturbances associated with construction of the drive this portion of the project area was not examined and the Phase I survey was limited to the tower lease area, the connecting utility easement and the roughly 375 linear feet of ingress/egress easement not located along the existing drive. Centerlines of the ingress/egress and utility easements as well as the corners of the tower lease area were clearly staked at the time of the Phase I survey. All portions of the project area subjected to Phase I archaeological survey support mature woodland. Approximately 0.3 mile northeast of Redbud Road the proposed ingress/egress easement leaves the existing gravel drive and proceeds northwest across roughly level terrain for a distance of 375 ft to the proposed cellular communications tower site. The 100 ft x 100 ft tower lease area occupies gently to moderately sloping (7% - 13%) terrain just north of the crest of Devil's Backbone. The 164 -ft -long connecting utility easement runs north from an existing electrical transformer box along the west side of the drive leading to the residence. The archaeological field crew walked all parts of the project area except that portion of the ingress/egress easement that follows the existing drive. Exposed surface soils were common within the sloping tower lease area and these were visually examined for cultural materials. The general vicinity was also inspected for potential, pre -modern cultural features. A total of 19 shovel tests were excavated within the project area during the Phase I archaeological survey, including 8 shovel tests along the ingress/egress easement, 3 tests along the connecting utility easement, and 8 SMC Site No. TWR046 - Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 17 tests within the tower lease area. No shovel tests were placed along the existing graded and graveled drive that constitutes the southernmost 1,930 ft of the ingress/egress easement. Shovel tests were placed at intervals of no greater than 50 ft along the centerlines of the utility and ingress/egress easements and within the lease area. Four shovel tests placed at 25 -ft intervals were also excavated with the tower lease area. Shovel tests measured 1.0 — 1.5 ft in diameter and were excavated to subsoil or bedrock with all removed soil screened through '/-inch hardware cloth to ensure consistent artifact recognition and recovery. Soil stratigraphy was recorded on standardized forms for each excavated shovel test and the location of each test was plotted on a scaled map of the project area. Shovel testing within the project area consistently documented very rocky, shallow surface soils overlying clayey subsoil or, more frequently, yellowish -brown saprolitic shale or siltstone bedrock. A single, small, cortical fragment of reddish -brown jasper was recovered from shovel test #2 in the northern corner of the tower lease area. This probable prehistoric lithic artifact shows no elements of classic flake morphology but may be a piece of shatter or spall. Surface exposure was relatively good (ca. 25%) within the lease area and immediate vicinity and these areas were examined for surface artifacts. Radial shovel testing at 25 -ft intervals was also conducted outwards from shovel test #2, however no additional cultural materials were recovered here or elsewhere within the project area. The single recovered object likely is the result of highly ephemeral activity at some point during prehistory, however alone it is not sufficient evidence upon which to define an archaeological site. The extreme paucity of cultural materials and the absence of non -modern landscape features observed during the Phase I archaeological survey of the Shentel Redbud project area indicates that the proposed project will not directly impact potentially significant archaeological or other historical/cultural resources. Consequently, no further archaeological research la recommended. Based on the findings of the Phase I Archaeological Survey, Rivanna issued a Statement of No SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 18 Finding. Refer to Appendix 7 for the full Rivanna Phase I Archaeological Survey report. 3.5 Native American Religious/Archaeological Sites There are numerous Federal statues, laws, regulations that require Federal agencies consult with Native American tribes, including; the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act. Implementing regulations of the NHPA found in 36 CFR Part 800 require agencies of the Federal government determine if their actions would have an affect on archaeological sites or properties of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic group. Resources of concern include, but are not limited to; fossils, prehistoric and historic artifacts, burials, and sites of religious or cultural significance to Native American groups. Pre -historic resources relating to human occupation by Native Americans may include cultural deposits, structures, artifacts, rock art, trails, and other traces of Native American human behavior. Other resources important to the heritage of Native Americans may include traditional resource collecting areas, habitation sites, religious/ceremonial sites, burial/sacred grounds, and topographic features. Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), require consultation with Native American tribal groups regarding proposed projects and potential impacts to Native American religious sites. In order to determine which Native American tribal groups may potentially have areas of cultural interest within this area of Virginia, TRIAD consulted with the Virginia Council on Indians. In addition, SMC entered the proposed project location into the FCC Tower Construction Notification (TCN) database. The FCC TCN database assigned IC No. 38821 tL0 the project site. Based on the response from the Virginia Council on Indians, a review of their files revealed no cause for concern for the subject Site. In addition, TRIAD reviewed the Native American SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 19 Consultation Database (NACD), which is a tool for identifying consultation contacts for Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages and corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations, the database search did not identify any Native American Religious/Archaeological sites on the subject Site. Although Virginia recognizes eight Native American Tribes, and several more that are pending recognition, there is no known tribal activity on the subject Site. Based on this information, it is TRIAD's professional opinion that the proposed SMC tower site would have "No Affect" on any Native American religious or cultural resources. Copies of the Copies of the Virginia Council on Indians response and FCC TCN database printout are attached as Appendix 5. 3.6 Floodplains Records Review Executive Order 11988, referred to in §1.1307 (a) (6), defines a floodplain as "the lowland and relatively flat area adjoining inland coastal waters, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." This is commonly referred to as the 100 -year floodplain or special flood hazard area (SFHA). Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of the 100 -year flood plain and to avoid adverse effects associated with direct and indirect development within the 100 -year flood plain. Within the Federal government, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) serves as the lead agency with responsibility for flood hazard assessment and mitigation. FEMA has adopted the 100 -year flood plain as the base flood standard used in administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood zone information is contained in a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by FEMA. These maps identify 100 -year flood plain boundaries and flood plain zone designations. According to the FEMA FIRM map for the subject Site, Frederick Countv, Virginia, and incorporated areas, Community Panel Number 5100630110B, dated July 17, 1978, the subject Site is located in Zone C; areas outside of the 100 -year and 500- SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 20 year floodplain. Based on TRIAD'S reconnaissance, distance to the closest stream, and elevation, flooding is not anticipated to be a risk to the Site. The construction of the structure will have no impact and "No Affect" on any local floodplains. A copy of the FIRM for the subject Site is attached as Figure 3. 3.7 Wetlands and Other Bodies, Change in Surface Features, Deforestation and Water Diversion This portion of the assessment process must meet the requirements of the Federal Regulations 47 CFR § 1.1307(a)(7) for significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion. Activities related to wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material to the `waters of the US.' Under Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, no discharge of fill material is permitted if a practicable alternative exists that would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have another significant adverse consequence. Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or loss of wetlands, if a practicable alternative exists. Under various regulatory regulations the United States Army Core of Engineers (USACE) has been delegated authority for determination of wetlands by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This section gives the Secretary of the Army authority to issue permits for discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters of the Unites States. The USACE presently uses the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1, Jan. 1987, Final Report) in making their determination. This wetland determination considers soil type (hydric), vegetation type (hydrophytic) and hydrology. Two permit types are used to regulate activities that involve a significant change in surface features. Nationwide Permits are pre -approval for construction activities that have been determined to produce only minimal effect on SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 21 the environment and can proceed without additional government approval or oversight. Individual permits are required for construction activities that exceed certain thresholds. Projects that do not fit within the confines of one of the Nationwide Permits require an individual permit. Typically, these projects involve a significant change to surface features over a larger area (1/2+ acres). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides county soil maps, which delimit hydric soils and assist in making the wetland determination. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains the National Wetland Inventory maps which presently cover about 75 percent of the United States (excluding Alaska). Where available these data overlay the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangles. A review of the Frederick County soils maps for the project Site indicate only one soil type exists at . the Site; Weikert-Berks channery silt loam (41 D — 15 — 25 percent slope). This soil type is not hydric that will support wetland habitats. A copy of the USDA soil map for the Site is attached as Figure 4. The "Stephenson, Virginia" National Wetland Inventory (NWI) digital data map generated for the Site was reviewed for this project. According to the data, no delineated wetland habitats are indicated on the project Site or on the adjacent properties within 100 feet of the subject Site. According the NWI data, a total of six mapped habitats were identified in the site vicinity. All designated wetlands habitats are located over 1,500 feet from the Site. The closest of these designated wetland habitats is a palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, impounded (PUBHh) habitat located approximately 1,550 feet southwest and topographically up - gradient of the proposed Site. Based on the distance to the identified habitats, the proposed SMC Site will not have an environmental impact to this wetland environment and will have "No Effect" on this habitat. A copy of the NWI wetlands map for the project Site and vicinity is attached as Figure 5. SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 22 According to the proposed conceptual engineering drawings supplied by SMC, there will be no significant change to any woodlands or forests or water diversion required as part of the proposed project. The proposed Site will only disturb an approximate 70 foot by 70 foot square portion of existing woodlands for the tower site and a 20 foot width by approximately 100 feet length for the proposed access road through existing woodlands. Based on the small portion of planned disturbance, this proposed Site will not significantly alter the existing landscape of the Site and will have "No Effect" on existing surface features. 3.8 High Intensity White Lights The FCC has been given the authority by Congress to require the painting and/or illumination of antenna towers when it determines that such towers may otherwise constitute a menace to air navigation. 47 U.S.C. § 303(q). The FCC's rules governing antenna tower lighting and painting requirements are based upon the advisory recommendations of the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), which are set forth in two FAA Advisory Circulars. 47 CFR § 17.21-17.58. The FCC rules governing tower lighting and painting are based upon the recommendations of the FAA, which provides regulatory guidance for towers more than 200 feet tall and for smaller towers within 20,000 feet of a major aviation airport and within 10,000 feet of a general aviation airport. To assure air navigation safety, the FAA will allow for more than one lighting or painting option for a particular structure. With respect to telecommunication towers, the most common option approved by the FAA is the substitution of white flashing lights instead of red lights and/or red and white painted structure. Where as the FAA requires the use of high-intensity white lights to illuminate a wireless telecommunications antenna support tower and the antenna support structure is located in a residential neighborhood (pursuant to local zoning ordinance), the FCC rules require the applicant/licensee/tower builder prepare an EA. The subject Site is located on a property currently zoned (RA) rural area use. The SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 23 subject Site is not located within 10,000 feet of a general aviation airport or within 20,000 feet of a major aviation airport. The Site is located approximately 24,590 feet north-northeast of the Winchester Regional Airport a general aviation airport. Based on the SMC conceptual drawings of the proposed Site will consist of a 195 -foot tall tower and associated equipment area. Based on the proposed design the antenna will not contain any high intensity white lights. However, based on a conditional use permit comment issued by the Winchester Regional Airport Authority, the airport is requesting that lighting be installed and maintained on the tower in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-a K Change 2. The Airport Authority cited that due to air medevac operations throughout Frederick County and given that the Site is within the Winchester Regional Airport's airspace the Airport Authority is requesting lighting be installed on the tower. Therefore SMC will install and maintain the appropriate lighting as requested by the Winchester Regional Airport Authority on the proposed tower; however, the use of high intensity white lights is not recommended for this height of tower. Refer to the FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-a K Change 2 for details. A copy of the Winchester Regional Airport Conditional Use Permit Comment letter is attached as Appendix 5. 3.9 Radiofrequency Radiation Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (i.e., radiating) through space at the speed of light. Taken together, all forms of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the electromagnetic "spectrum." Radio waves and microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy. They are collectively referred to as "radiofrequency" or "RF" energy or radiation. Often the term "electromagnetic field" or "radiofrequency field" may be used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy. The RF waves emanating from an antenna are generated by the movement of electrical charges in the antenna. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by a wavelength and a frequency. The wavelength is the distance covered by one SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 24 complete cycle of the electromagnetic wave, while the frequency is the number of electromagnetic waves passing a given point in one second. The frequency of an RF signal is usually expressed in terms of a unit called the "hertz" (abbreviated "Hz"). One Hz equals one cycle per second. One megahertz ("MHz") equals one million cycles per second. Biological effects can result from animal or human exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Cellular radio services transmit using frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz). Transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. Antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions are typically located on towers, water tanks or other elevated structures including rooftops and the sides of buildings. The combination of antennas and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS "base station" or "cell site." Typical heights for free-standing base station towers or structures are 50-200 feet. At a given cell or PCS site, the total RF power that could be transmitted from each transmitting antenna at a cell site depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized and the power of each transmitter. Typically, cellular base stations utilize more channels per sector than PCS base stations. PCS base stations utilize fewer transmitters due to the relatively greater number of base stations for a given area due to their smaller coverage areas. Both Broadband PCS and cellular networks are similar in design. As with cellular, several SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 25 other issues affect PCS cells; these include topographic terrain features and physical obstructions such as buildings and other structures. Studies have shown that for cellular cells, the predicted coverage areas ranges from an average of 2.49 miles in dense urban areas up to 16.65 miles in rural areas. For PCS cells, the predicted coverage typically ranges from 1.57 miles in dense urban areas up to 6.40 miles for rural areas. Signals from a cellular or PCS base station antenna are essentially directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. The radiation pattern for a sector antenna is fan -shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. Consequently, normal ground -level exposure is much less than exposures that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower- mounted antennas, have shown that ground -level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure. In fact, in order to be exposed to levels at or near the FCC limits for cellular or PCS frequencies an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam (at the height of the antenna) and within a few feet from the antenna. This makes it extremely unlikely that the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these guidelines due to cellular or PCS base station transmitters. Section 1.1307 (b)(1) provides categorical exclusion criteria for the RF exposure associated with telecommunication facilities, operations, and transmitters. Additional environmental processing to address radiofrequency radiation exposure is required only when existing or proposed transmitters, facilities, or operations exceed the limits of the relevant category as depicted in the following table. Within a specific service category, conditions are listed to determine which transmitters would be SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 26 subject to routine environmental evaluation and the preparation of an EA. Conditions include: • Operating power and height above the ground to the antenna (radiating center); • Location and proximity to other cellular transmitters; and • Characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. Transmitter, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation Required - if --._............... ._.... __....... _........ ......... _._........ ...... .._......... ................. __ ..._.._...... _....._ _....... .........._....... . Broadband PCS (subpart E) Non -building mounted antennas: height above Personal Communications Services ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m (part 24) and total power of all channels > 2,000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP). Building -mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2,000 W ERP (3,280 W EIRP). For PCS sites, the total operating power of all channels means the sum of effective radiating power (ERP) and equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of all simultaneously operating transmitters owned and operated by a single licensee. According to manufacturer specifications, the maximum power rating for the PCS dual polarized panel antenna that would be used by the licensee is 925 watts of ERP (1518 EIRP) per channel, per antenna. According to the conceptual drawings supplied by SMC, the proposed tower will contain three 4.4 foot dual polarized panel antennas, covering three sectors, on a 195 -foot tall monopole tower with a proposed radio frequency of 1850 to 1990 MHz. The panel antennas will be mounted with the radiating center at a height of 195 feet above ground level with azimuths of 140, 220, and 300 degrees, respectively. The tower and supporting equipment will be located in a 4,900 square foot compound situated over 300 feet to the north of the nearest residential dwelling. Applying a worst-case scenario by adding the maximum power rating of each antenna would SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 27 result in a total operating power of the proposed SMC tower to 8,325 watts ERP. The total operating power was derived assuming that all three, three channel antennas are operating at 925 watts each, simultaneously, for a total operating power of 8,325 watts. This total exceeds the 2,000 watts ERP stipulated by the FCC. An additional EA evaluation, pursuant to FCC rules (47 CFR 1.1307) is required when the total operating power of non -building mounted antennas, owned and operated by a single licensee, is greater than 2,000 watts ERP for a PCS network and the lowest part of an associated antenna is less than 10 meters (approx 32.8 feet) above ground level. Although the total worst case output exceeds the 2,000 watts ERP, based on the SMC provided specifications, the antennas will be located at an elevation greater than the minimum 10 meters height requirement. In addition, the worst case scenario totals the fact that all channels available on each antenna is simultaneously in operation, which typically is not the case. The extra carrier channels are only in operation on an as needed basis. Therefore, based on these facts, it is TRIAD's professional opinion that the requirement to perform an EA evaluation regarding the RF radiation characteristics of the proposed tower would not be required since the proposed tower did not exceed both requirements (antenna maximum wattage and minimum height). Based on this the site is not anticipated to have any adverse environmental heath effects or "No Affect" to the surrounding vicinity. A copy of the RF site approval form and antenna specifications are attached as Appendix 8. SMC Site No. TWR046 — Redbud TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FCC NEPA Checklist Screening Report TRIAD Project No. 07-07-0683-04 July 14, 2008 Page 28 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Checklist TRIAD conducted a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, according to the NEPA Land Use Screening Checklist for the proposed telecommunications tower site known as SMC Redbud — 046, located at 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. The review of the NEPA Land Use Checklist items found "No Effect" for the proposed antenna and that no further action is required for FCC Environmental Purposes other than the following. e The Virginia DCR requested that because the project Site is located in the same drainage basin as the wood turtle habitat (Opequon Creek), that to minimize any adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities, the project Site should implement a strict adherence to erosion and sediment control measures during all land disturbing activities. Prior to project initiation, the Virginia DCR requests that SMC contact the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to ensure compliance with protected species legislation. Based on a conditional use permit comment issued by the Winchester Regional Airport Authority, the airport is requesting that lighting be installed and maintained on the tower in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-a K Change 2 due to air medevac operations throughout the county and given that the Site is within the airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport. If you have any questions or comments regarding the information summarized in this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. William J alik, CPG Senior Environmental Geologist Attachments Figures Site Vicinity Topographic Map Site Diagram Property FIRM Flood Plain Map USDA Soils Map NWI Wetlands Map ':jjAj) TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 1 Shentel Site TWR s 046 Redbud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 Site Vicinity Topographic Map Source: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 -Minute Topographic Series, Stephenson, VA, WV 1966, Photo -revised 1987. Scale: Unknown M L N3 U Ll Triad Engineering, Inc. Site - lit Iv Z!"i Ni1Yf�. jrts_:�,�tt up,.;,,�„�. Location �� • ;,,all �«; t� L��' f } I if I . r i s 1 _ j;:ah;,rt r ;• t� `-t ..- tITn M t'np.�4.LI •. PxMrlMlntw }atmnttlA t•a Mx�e .M�n Axa P,d t. � � FAA M A- 1 14ON I—d I V i I -A uu. U .,.l .....�. ._ _.. . Source: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 -Minute Topographic Series, Stephenson, VA, WV 1966, Photo -revised 1987. Scale: Unknown M L N3 U Ll Triad Engineering, Inc. Wooded Area Unnamed Intermittent [] Tributary To Lick Run / ❑ Residential �• Farm Properties Pond / 0 Wooded Area '` Residential Properties / 7 Wooded Area 0 / Swale Access Drive Wooded Area •� / Reported Septic Drain FieldLocation • ' / Site / Proposed 100-Foot By Proposed Access Drives Swale Site 100-Foot Lease Area _ \ , IngresslEgress -L Horse Training Ring Acess Drive / Pole Barn Wooded Area • Barn Wooded Area / Pasture Existing ❑ / Access Dwelling Drive Farm / Pond / Pasture Site Pacel Boundary Scattered Trees / Wooded Area 13Redbud Road r (State Route 661) \ Residential Properties Wooded Area RIA/ �'.�. n �n 4;4e°tering, Inc. PROJECT: Shente! Site TRW- 046 Redbud FIGURE 2 ADDRESS: 1203 Redbud Road Site Diagram Winchester, Virginia 22603 07-08-0045 DTA P BY: 03//05/08 Not To Scale Stephenson664 j ?( ' ZONE C \ ieetown 1664 a 1 �•., �� �/\�729 :i ZONIE A Run10ZONE ,q -. - 1 Jordan Springs Run Site Location ZONE A V ZONE C\� If APPROXIMATE SCALE: 2000 0 2000 FEET Figure 3 111E I HiNAL FLODQ INSURANCE PROGRAM I M. ;'i it FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP i FREDERICK COUNTY, Illi I VIRGINIA !ijjII 1 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) ;i �! CDMMUNITY•PANEL NUMBER 510083 0110 B i;. ji PAGE 110 OF 200 I!; ISEE MAP INDEX VOR PAGES NOT PrIM7COI Il. ' l ;;. EFFECTIVE ll: JULY 17, 1976 i!i'i !Iil US, OEPAiiTMENTOFHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1 PEOERAL INSURANCE AOMINIST RAlf This is an offioal copy of a portion of the atmroe referenced flood map. ft was extracted using F-MITGn-Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest Product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at wxw.msc.fema.cc 01/ 'd V ZONE C\� If APPROXIMATE SCALE: 2000 0 2000 FEET Figure 3 111E I HiNAL FLODQ INSURANCE PROGRAM I M. ;'i it FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP i FREDERICK COUNTY, Illi I VIRGINIA !ijjII 1 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) ;i �! CDMMUNITY•PANEL NUMBER 510083 0110 B i;. ji PAGE 110 OF 200 I!; ISEE MAP INDEX VOR PAGES NOT PrIM7COI Il. ' l ;;. EFFECTIVE ll: JULY 17, 1976 i!i'i !Iil US, OEPAiiTMENTOFHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1 PEOERAL INSURANCE AOMINIST RAlf This is an offioal copy of a portion of the atmroe referenced flood map. ft was extracted using F-MITGn-Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest Product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at wxw.msc.fema.cc Soil Map—Frederick County, Virginia (Redbud TWR046) N Meters A 0 10 20 40 60 Feet 0 45 90 180 270 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 Fi ure 4 7/11/2008 � M Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey g Page 1 of 3 MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features •a Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot ♦ Closed Depression r, Gravel Pit „ Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow alc Marsh Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water O Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole t Slide or Slip yr Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Soil Map—Frederick County, Virginia (Redbud TWR0413) 1 Very Stony Spot Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope r.. Other Political Features Municipalities C Cities Urban Areas Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails Roads .v Interstate Highways US Routes State Highways ..s;- Local Roads Other Roads MAP INFORMATION Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale. Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Frederick County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 4, Dec 18, 2007 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 4/1/1997 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. UNatural Resources.01111111111 Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/11/2008 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Frederick County, Virginia Map Unit Legend Redbud TWR046 Frederick County, Virginia (VA069) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 9B Clearbrook channery silt loam, 0.5 21.3% 2 to 7 percent slopes 41D Weikert-Berks channery silt 1.9 78.7% loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) 2.4 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/11/2008 "i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Redbud TWR046 78-6-40 W 78-6-30 W 78-6-20 W 78-6-10 W 78-6-0 W 78-5-50 W z� _ M � 1P M I O Iz Legend Z Proposed Tower Ohio—wet—Scan N Location I 1P o C6 M o Out of range z I,/ Interstate i Major Roads ! Other Road + ^I Interstate State highway US highway z o tBDi�r'ncnt? m Roads Digital _.. N Cities o uad USGS Index 24K z LowerC48 Wetland Polygons Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland r�y � Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland "\ Freshwater Pond z _., Lake Other 0 ^�4.�4 N .. ....... �.,,._.�._ _..,,..� , � i � • Riverine a M , ; 861 b Lower 48 Available Wetland Data - z Non -Digital ! I I Digital - No Data i ... I Scan ' PUBHh A I NHD Streams Counties 100K o j w 0 States 100K South America rrni r-3 North America C 78-6-40 W 78-6-30 W 78-6-20 W 78-6-10 W 78-6-0 W 78-5-50 W z Map center: 39° 12' N Scale: 1:9,504 11" N, 78° 6' 14" W This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference otherwise only, Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. EE APPENDIX 1 REGULATORY SOURCES L ':IlJi TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. REGULATORY SOURCES WILDERNESS AND NATURAL AREAS • Bureau of Land Management • National Parks. U.S. National Park Service. • National Forests. U.S. National Forest Service. • National Atlas of the United States. United States Geological Survey. • National Parkways and Scenic Rivers. United States Geological Survey. • USGS Geographic Names Information System Parks and Forests. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Conservation and Recreation. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Fish & Wildlife Service. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. • National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. • National Wilderness Preservation System. • The Nature Conservancy of Virginia. • USDA Forest Service. • Department of the Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs. WILDLIFE PRESERVE • National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. • USGS Geographic Names Information System Parks and Forests. • Department of the Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs. • Bureau of Land Management. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Conservation and Recreation. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Fish & Wildlife Service. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. • National Wilderness Preservation System. • The Nature Conservancy of Virginia. • National Parks. U.S. National Park Service. • National Forests. U.S. National Forest Service. • National Parkways and Scenic Rivers. United States Geological Survey. • USGS Geographic Names Information System Parks and Forests. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES • National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage Resources — Rare Plants. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritaae Resources — Rare Animals. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Fish & Wildlife Service. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. HISTORIC PLACES • National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. • Historical National Landmarks. U.S. National Park Service. • Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Historic Resources. INDIAN RELIGIOUS SITES • Department of the Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs. • National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. • Virginia Council on Indians • Native American Consultation Database • Tower Construction Notification Database Scenic Trails • Appalachian Trail Conference FLOODPLAIN • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. APPENDIX 2 NEPA CHECKLIST L ':?I i) TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. NEPA Land Use Compliance for Cell Sites NEPA Land Use Screening Checklist Site Name: Shenandoah Mobile Company Redbud TWR046 FCC Category Agency Positive Negative 1 Will the facility be located in an National Park Service, U.S. officially designated Forest Service, Bureau of Appendix 1 X Wilderness Area? Land Management 2. Will the facility be located in an U.S. Dept. of Interior -Fish & officially g desi Hated Wildlife Preserve? Wildlife Services Field Service ( ) Appendix 1 X 3. Will the facility affect listed and Maryland Department of Natural proposed threatened or endangered species or Resources, Wildlife and Heritage g Appendix 1 X designated critical habits? Service 4. Will the facility affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or Appendix 1 X objects listed, or eligible for State Historic Preservation listing, in the Office (SHPO) National Register of Historic Places? 5. Will the facility affect Indian Religious sites? SHPO and Bureau of Indian Affairs Appendix 1 X 6. Will the facility be located in a Federal Emergency Appendix 1 X designated Floodplain? Management Agency (FEMA) 7. Will the facility construction Army Corps Engineers involve significant change in g g ACof OE ( ) Appendix 1 X Surface Features? 8. Will the antenna towers and/or Federal Aviation X supporting structures be Administration (FAA) Appendix 1 equipped with Determined by Shenandoah PCC High Intensity White Lights? Specs 9. Will the facility result in human Determined by Shenandoah PCC Appendix 1 X exposure to excessive Specs Radiofrequency Radiation? If the screening investigation for any of the above categories results in a positive screening, an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared and filed with the FCC. Construction may not start on any positively screened site prior to receipt of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) from the FCC. The undersigned has reviewed and approved the completion of this NEPA checklist for the above referenced site. Signed: A�l ;7�/ P Date: rint Name: William J. Mikalik APPENDIX 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS L ':?I TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. Photograph # 1: View facing south from the developed portion of the site. The 1996 residential dwelling is shown in bac and garage shed on the left. Proposed access road will improve this portion of the site. Photograph # 2: View facing north of the proposed tower access road course. IIIIIIIIIIIR L IJi Triad Engineering, Inc. JOB #: 07-07-0683-04 Page 1 of 5 DATE: 01/04/08 CLIENT: Shenandoah Mobile Company Project Name: Site 046 — Red Bud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia 22656 Photograph # 3: View facing north showing proposed access road course. Photograph # 4: View facing east from the western portion of the proposed lease area of the tower location and compound. Arrow pointing to actual tower location. L:qlA& Triad lEEngineering, Inc. JOB #: 07-07-0683-04 Page 2 of 5 DATE: 01/04/08 CLIENT: Shenandoah Mobile Company Project Name: Site 046 — Red Bud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick Countv, Virqinia 22656 Photograph # 5: Another view of the proposed antenna tower location facing north. Photograph # 6: View facing southeast from the center tower area to the southeast corner of the lease area. Note mound of soil in photograph was from land owner development of the property performing percolation testing for septic system for dwelling. IIIIIIIIIIIR L I J& Triad E=ngineering, Inc. JOB #: 07-07-0683-04 Page 3 of 5 DATE: 01/04/08 CLIENT: Shenandoah Mobile Company Project Name: Site 046 — Red Bud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester. Frederick Countv. Virginia 22656 Photograph # 7: View facing southwest of the center of the tower area to the southwest lease area. Photograph # 8: View facing north from the southwestern corner of the lease area facing downhill at the northwestern corner of the lease area. IIIIIIIIIIIR L I J& Triad Engineering, Inc. JOB #: 07-07-0683-04 Page 4 of 5 DATE: 01/04/08 CLIENT: Shenandoah Mobile Company Project Name: Site 046 — Red Bud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia 22656 Photograph # 9: View facing north from Redbud Road at the Robert Keckley House (DHR 034-1144) located approximately 1,863 feet southwest from the proposed tower. Photograph # 10: Another view facing northeast from Redbud Road at the Robert Keckley House (DHR 034-1144) located approximately 1,863 feet southwest from the proposed tower. Approximate tower location is indicated at an location. L IJ& Triad Engineering, Inc. JOB #: 07-07-0683-04 Page 5 of 5 DATE: 01/04/08 CLIENT: Shenandoah Mobile Company Project Name: Site 046 — Red Bud 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick county, Virginia 22656 APPENDIX 4 CONCEPTUAL ANTENNA DRAWINGS TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. a FO NR N PROP09Ep 1Q0' X 100' LEASE AREA `^1Y f PROPOSED 70' X 70' COM O,— p� DAVID k XATHERINE GREW t 55-A-1294 SSLLrE• GE 60 Pq. 61 r61 PROPOSED !2' X 20' TURN ARCUNO L 10 w il \ ,EROP0 BENCH DE ON CORNER FENCE POS7 85082 DAVID k XATNERNE CREW 55 -A -129A '+. CE EOO Pq. E! i W D a0 80 120 SGLE LEASE AREA ENLARGEMENT SITE MFCRMnPON: COUP RE" VLRGI L6GEN0 SITE NAVE RED- (SIE NO. 046 A) C. POLE U1HPY r8 .ER:UD PROPERTY OWNER GANG k KATHERINE GRCCG IROfN PN Sfl O e IPS 'AOEROROUNO IELEPRDNEA TA% ASSESSMENT MAP M 55 U7 PARCEL NO, A_129A GEED DOG gg ppq, 61 P 01'04£8 (EASE lRE -.__ MAGISTERAL OIS PV 9TdJ8CEWALL s[T&chi u f __ PROPOSE° TOwEfl LOCATION; PaOPOSEO eJe9ESIADREHi 2oH NG LATTIVDE 39' 12' !0.5'(J9.20g0j un rc ROTAS 76 mxTax UxE RESTRICTIONS A NS HONE RCULIURE Cun,: Redr„s Tmger.: -.I, OF Degree CNmtl CNwtl 9 - CI 50,00 .J7 60.22 69'00 C4 1 9'3530 58.85 N 99' 1 E C2 50.00 227 4,51 FT2T5 14'JS JO 4,54 ]9'143 E C 50.00 BI .91 e'4 21 114'3530 J. 0' S ])'29°5 E 500 49.90 )9.44 805259 I14' 30' ]0.8n N 81'5607 E C9 o.00 89 177 2'0155 114'35 JO 1.7) N 18'00]5 E CB 1 0.00 J9.04 )4.a5 s]'39 8 5)TJ aS J274 N 395558 E C7 15�0G00 n51t 67Ga }32836 JB'11'S 66.40 N 94'3116 E LE 11.59 ]2.Oa 36'90]1 114'3530 31.9 N 4Z9d 34 c c9 19.9) R as ,4' Jn J6 24']946 tl 4'3519 21.21 N 3]2452 E CO4ree =26"N L2 CI GHIaPce L2 L2 N 34 E .78 Lf S 7x'36 Jt E t 3!i7 L3 S 81594) E 1]5.01' 14 E 73V7 E tOD.il SC5p' L5 N 185 37 E 15 16's B30'� 191.i-§4- 9 I 11---N 217001 C 69,44 BOOL Ll1 y_ N 46' 946 E 55 G2 / ,/ 14FENCE POST W J6S• Cid 1 PROPo9ED 100' X 100' EASE AREA y 10 DANG k KATIIFRME GREGG .5-A-1294 / PR+SEO DPIVEWAY / IXVEWAT 6D W J8 4 I I �$ O III DAVID k !LATHERME OREOG 55 -A -129A DB $G0 Po. E1 80 C PC60 )40 / SCALE / INGRESS/EGRESS & UTILITY EASEMENT AND LEASE AREA PROPOSED INGRESS/EGRESS 81 UTILITY EASEMENT D-ESCRIPTION TN$ SUBJECT LEASE AREA SHALL BE CONNECTED TO REOBUD ROAD B1µ DJGRE59/EGRESS AND UTILITY 9ASELIENT, SAID E CEMENT CNABE BE A -FORM WIDTH OF TWENTY (20) FEET, AW SNAIL LIE ALONG TH9 FOLLOWING CE &KNE oTSCROTT!GH; BEGIN.- AT A Fo. ON THE CENTER LINE OF REDSIM ROAD, SAID FOINT BEND LOCATED N 81' 09' 33' W, A. DISTANCE OF 60048 FEET FROM A MHOE POST FOUND MARRING TND C. -LY UNE OF THE FFGP,.tt OF DAVID k KATHEPoN£ GRECO; THENCE N 34' 20' 44' E A DISTANCE OF 44.79 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RICK HAVING A MILE OF 50.00 FEET FOR AN ARC Drima OF 60.22 FEET, $.AID CURVE NSNNG A CHORD BEARING OF N SD 51' 00' E WITH A CMO' LENGTH OF 58,85 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE 5 78' }8' 11' E A DICTANCE OF 142,57 FEET TO A PONT; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TG - LER HAVING A RAG!U$ OF SD.GO FEET FOR AN µC CIS LENGTH F 4.54 FEET, SAID CUM -IND A CHORD BEARING OF 5 79'11' ND E WITH A CHOR LENGTH OF 5,45 FEET TO A POM"; THE!.CE $ 01' SO' 47' E A Q ANCE 174.01 FEET To A PORIT; THENCE ALONG A GURNE TO NE RIGHT !WWJO A RAOIS CF 50.00 FEET FOR µ APC DISTANCE OF 7.61 FEET, SAID M HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF S 77 29' 05' E WITH A CHORI LENGTH OF 7.60 FEF TO A PCINT; THENCE S 7T 07' 2A" E A C -NCE OF 100,97 FEET TO A POIK'; THENC'c ALONG A LURVE TO THE LER HAYING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 78.44 FEET, SAID CURAE :AMNO A CHORD BEARING OF N B1' SB' 07' E WITH A LHGI LN- OF 70.% FEET TO A POINT: HENCE N TB' SE' 37' E A DISTANCE OF 300,44 FEET 70 A POM': -C ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT NAMING A RACK; OF 50 W FEET FOR AN ARC GSTANCE OF 1.77 FEET, SNG CURVE HAMMO A WORD BEARING OF N Nr OD' J5' E WITH A CHORI LENGTH OF 1.77 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 10` 01' 32" E A DISTANCE OF 505.49 FEET TO A ZrA: THENCE ALONG A CUM TO THE RANT HANNO A RAWUS OF !00.00 FEET FOR AN ARC OI6tANCE OF 74,45 FEET, SAID CUM HAVING A CHORD BFARiNG OF N 3B 55' 58' E WITH A CMC! LENGTH OF 72.74 FEET TO A PONT: 7HEHOE N 81' 15' 34' E A INSTANCE OF 191.ED FEET TO A , 7HENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT NAMNO A RAIDS OF I5ODD FEET FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF OF— FEET, -0 CURME NAMING A CHORD SCARING OF N 44' 3!' 18' E MTH A CHG LENGTH OF 86.40 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 27' 4S' 58' E A DISTANCE OF 115.04 FEET 10 A POINT: THENCE KCMG A CURVE i0 NF. RA!It HAVING A RA01L5 OF W.. FEET FOR AN ARC RVE :LAV DISTANCE OF 32.04 FEET, SAI5 CUING A CHORD BEARING OF N W 08' 34' E WRH A CND! LENGTH 0' 31,50 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE N 04' 30' 10' E A D67ANGE OF 218.70 FEET TO p POINT, THENCE ALONG A CUM TD THE LEFT NXVNG A WiLS OF 5°,00 FEET FOR AN ARC OLSIANCE OF 37.62 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD 9EINHNS OF N 42' 50' OS' E WITH A CHOI LNG?H OF 3692 FEET TO A POINT', THENCE 1) 21. 10' Oil E A DISTANCE OF 89.44 RR TO A POINT: THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT INNNG A RADIUS OF K40 RET FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21,38 FEET, SAM CUMHAJMG A CHORD MING OF N 3T 2q' 6'2'E WTTH A 0801 LENGTH OF 2!.21 FEET TO A POLAR; THE19CE N AS 19' 46' W A DISTANCE OF 5542 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LME OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA EAR POINT BE- H 4 2D' 14- W A GISiANCE OF f040 FEET FROM AN IRON PILI SET MARKING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA. TNR: PROPOSED ;IMESS/EGRESS a URl.IIY EASEMENT INCLUDES 48665.2 SOLARE FM a VMD. LOCATION MAP 9l P'nn,e2 vA ._AUGtE I PROPOSEO UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPi10N THE PROPOSED LEASE µFA SHALL BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING IIDUTY Fd.R1E5 BY P UTRRT EASEMEN., SAX) FA5EM1]ii SHALL BE A UfAFORN WIDTH OF Sl (E)) FEET, AND SHALL LIE ALONG THE FOLLaNIN CEMERLNE; BEGINNING AT 0.N EX NG LRAN5FORIAER NUMBER W2210192993 NENQE, N OS' 54' 94' E, A CBTAMCE 163,59 FEET TO A POttrt ON iNE INGRE95/EGRESS k V11LTY EASEMENT. THE PROPOSED UTRM EASENENr. INCLUDES 9BT.6 SOMARE FEET. NOTES: 1. NO SUBSURFACE UTILITY LOCATIONS WERE DETERMIN BY JOSEPH A, KU.R•JNICH. P.E. LS.; R D THEREfORE, NO SUBSURFACE UT!LIDES µE SHOWN ON TH!3 DRAWING. 2. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE BASED ON HUNG 1929 DATUM, 1. NIS OR" -`G PREPARED B+ JOSEPH A KURTANICH, P.E., L3: IS I!TFNDEO i0 SNgY THE LEASE AREA �N �1N9R69iEfK AND VII.!tt Er55l1ENi ARES, Np EN.1!JEERINc SERJICEE RELARVE TO -, PI QNe'tYN23/pR T> 'i MSTALtAtYJH WEFE PRONGED BY -EPH A. KURTANICH, P.E., LS !;A, DYNATEK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC i TAX MAP INSERT / FreGerieX COVA:) Mpp SS NOl To SOU. SIPOeeep upgNlerbl OiPlrieL 1-01Oi1 Counly, MA No. CAPRI L'°TJ I, / LEASE / ggPERRG!ONNPOSED %%NHAREA wRDHESFACpRIMPTTIIONNp ,{ERL� p SUBJEVIF L,FASt1"A' AN°NIRbN PIN BEI.uC LOCJ1>FA O U�3 OS'mRAE01SANTCE OF 189.55 FEET FROM AN IRON FM HERMITAGE, PA 16146-0267 (724) 699-68J6 fCUN° WRX,T'L TAE EASiER� IP(IOPE'RiY IRlE Oi THE lANOi CF CAVO k XATHERINE GREOG; THENCE, N 4A' 20' W A 05TµCE OF OR. MMs PATE: OmemEer 28, 200] DWG. NO, FEET TO AN MON IN SET WITH tAP MARKING iH1E WESTERLY CORNER OF THE / SUBJECT LEASE AREA, THENCE N 4S' 39' 46' E A DISTANCE JF OOAO FEET TO AN µIRON PIN SET WIN CAP MINORING TXE NORNERLv CORHER OF NE SUBJECT LEASE / OF THE 5JBJECT LEASE PREM HENCE 544' 20' I4' 4 A D6TANCE Or 100.00 MET TO AN IMMPN SET 'MN CAP 1MAN1N0 Nc EASTERLY CORNER OF NE SUBIECT LEASE AREAI THENCE 5 A5' >9' A6' W, A OSiPNtE CF l0C.00 FEET i0 THE PCNL ANO PLA.C_ OF BEGINNING. 74E SUBECT LASE AREA INCLUDES 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, PROPOSEO UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPi10N THE PROPOSED LEASE µFA SHALL BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING IIDUTY Fd.R1E5 BY P UTRRT EASEMEN., SAX) FA5EM1]ii SHALL BE A UfAFORN WIDTH OF Sl (E)) FEET, AND SHALL LIE ALONG THE FOLLaNIN CEMERLNE; BEGINNING AT 0.N EX NG LRAN5FORIAER NUMBER W2210192993 NENQE, N OS' 54' 94' E, A CBTAMCE 163,59 FEET TO A POttrt ON iNE INGRE95/EGRESS k V11LTY EASEMENT. THE PROPOSED UTRM EASENENr. INCLUDES 9BT.6 SOMARE FEET. NOTES: 1. NO SUBSURFACE UTILITY LOCATIONS WERE DETERMIN BY JOSEPH A, KU.R•JNICH. P.E. LS.; R D THEREfORE, NO SUBSURFACE UT!LIDES µE SHOWN ON TH!3 DRAWING. 2. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE BASED ON HUNG 1929 DATUM, 1. NIS OR" -`G PREPARED B+ JOSEPH A KURTANICH, P.E., L3: IS I!TFNDEO i0 SNgY THE LEASE AREA �N �1N9R69iEfK AND VII.!tt Er55l1ENi ARES, Np EN.1!JEERINc SERJICEE RELARVE TO -, PI QNe'tYN23/pR T> 'i MSTALtAtYJH WEFE PRONGED BY -EPH A. KURTANICH, P.E., LS !;A, DYNATEK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC JOSEPH A. t; TR AMCbi Redbud (Site No. 046 A) J.la. No. I UZ SIPOeeep upgNlerbl OiPlrieL 1-01Oi1 Counly, MA No. CAPRI L'°TJ I, Joseph A. Kurtanich, P.E., I.S. P.C. BOX 1257 -Al(r1yf'1�2�(f IRI HERMITAGE, PA 16146-0267 (724) 699-68J6 r1L5 OR. MMs PATE: OmemEer 28, 200] DWG. NO, '�'C' C9V0T �REC9UD CH. JM1X SCALE: 1 BO' A-07-2079 C-1 APPENDIX 5 CORRESPONDENCE L ':?I TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. n a.. f � � L. Preston Bryant, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources �.. DEI'Ali"I'lt1EN'I'OF('()NSERVA7'ION AND RE('REATION 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-2010 (804) 786-7951 FAX (804) 371-2674 William Mikalik Triad Engineering, Inc 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Proposed Shentel Monopole Site #046 Dear Mr. Mikalik: Joseph H. Maroon Director February 20, 2008 The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) 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 our files, the Wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta, G4/S2/NL/LT) has been documented downstream in Opequon Creek. The Wood turtle inhabits forested floodplains and nearby fields, wet meadows, and farmlands (Mitchell, 1994). Since this species overwinters on the bottoms of creeks and streams, a primary habitat requirement is the presence of water (Mitchell, 1994). Please note that the Wood turtle is currently classified as threatened by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). In addition, Opequon Creek, which has been designated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) as a "Threatened and Endangered Species Water", is downstream of the project site. The species associated with this T & E Water is the Wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta, G4/S2/NL/LT). To minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities, DCR recommends the implementation of and strict adherence to applicable state and local erosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations. Furthermore, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Guidance dated September 14, 2000 "new construction of communication towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night -migrating birds". "Communications towers are estimated to kill 4-5 million birds per year and some of these species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act" (USFWS, 2000). Therefore, DCR recommends voluntary implementation of USFWS interim guidelines for Communication Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning (http://www.fws.2ov/northeast/virginlafield/PDFS/EndSpecies/MISC/commtower pdf). State Parks • Soil and Water Conservation • Natural Heritage • Outdoor Recreation Planning Chesapeake Ray Local Assistance • Dana Safety and Floodplain Management • Land Conservation Our files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's jurisdiction in the project vicinity. Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (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 -listed plants or insects. New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please contact DCR for an update on this natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before it is utilized. A fee of $125.00 has been assessed for the service of providing this information. Please find enclosed an invoice for that amount. Please return one copy of the invoice along with your remittance made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation, 203 Governor Street, Suite 423D, Richmond, VA 23219, ATTN: Cashier. Payment is due within thirty days of the invoice date. Please note late payment may result in the suspension of project review service for future projects. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 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 from www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/info man/index.html, or contact Shirl Dressler at (804) 367-6913. Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 804-371-2708. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, S. Rene' Hypes Project Review Coordinator CC: Ainy Ewing, VDGIF Literature Cited Mitchell, J. C. 1994. Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. pp. 88- 91. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning. 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Phone (540) 667-9300 Fax (540) 667-2260 www.triadeng.com TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. June 5, 2008 Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society 1340 South Pleasant Valley Road Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Cellular Antenna Tower Site Redbud -046 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia 22603 Dear Historical Society Review Coordinator: Triad Engineering, Inc. is currently conducting a review of the potential adverse impacts to any historical structures that may result from the proposed installation of a 195 foot tall monopole cellular communications tower at the above -referenced property. The site is located approximately 300 feet north of a residential dwelling (constructed circa 1996) and 150 feet north of a small farmstead consisting of a small barn and sheds. The proposed square shaped compound will be 4,900 square feet in size, will be constructed on a poured 160 square foot concrete slab, and will be protected by an eight foot high chain-link fence enclosure. The direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) will be confined to the 58,000 square foot project area that includes the 100 ft x 100 ft lease area and the 2,300 feet ingress/egress easement. Approximately 85% (1,930 ft) of the proposed access road utilizes an existing graded and graveled driveway. The remaining approximate 375 feet to the proposed tower site will be through a farm trail and woodlands. There is no direct affect anticipated to this property other than the improvement of the proposed access road. There were no historical structures identified on the parent parcel. The proposed project location is depicted on the attached portion of the USGS Stephenson, VA, WV 7.5 -Minute topographic quadrangle. As part of this assessment and as required by the Virginia Department of Historical Resources (DHR), a Phase I Archeological Survey was performed by Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC, which found only a single small cortical fragment of reddish - brown jasper that was recovered from a shovel test at the northern corner of the lease area. This probable prehistoric lithic artifact showed no elements of classic flake morphology but may be a piece of shatter or spall. Based on the extreme paucity of cultural materials and the absence of non -modern landscape features, the proposed project will not directly impact potentially significant archaeological or other historical/cultural resources. No further archaeological research was recommended. Based on this, Rivanna Archaeological issued a Statement of No Finding. There is no direct effect anticipated to this property other than the proposed improvements. TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. West Virginia Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia Proposed Monopole Tower No. 046 Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia June 5, 2008 Page 2 We request a review from your organization to assess if any potential impacts may occur from this proposed antenna location in order to obtain compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Process as part of the Section 106 review process. The approximate coordinates of the site are: N Latitude — 39.200620 W Longitude -78.105070 Based on our preliminary research and site visit, it is TRIAD professional opinion that the proposed construction of the cellular tower antenna will have "no effect" on existing historical structures in the site vicinity. TRIAD is respectfully requesting your written concurrence and authorization to proceed with the proposed project. Thank you for your organization's assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me by phone or via email at bmikalik@triadeng.com. Sincerely, TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. William ikalik, CPG Senior Environmental Geologist Attachments Ref. No. 07-07-0683-99 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Phone (540) 667-9300 L Fax (540) 667-2260 www.triadeno.com TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. June 13, 2008 Mr. Mark Cheran Zoning Administrator Frederick County Planning and Zoning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Section 106 Review: Proposed Cellular Antenna Tower Site Red Bud - 046 1203 Redbud Road Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia 22603 Dear Mr. Cheran: Triad Engineering, Inc. (TRIAD) has been retained by Shenandoah Mobile Company in order to obtain compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as part of the Section 106 review process, for the proposed installation of a 195 -foot tall monopole cellular communications tower at the above -referenced property. As part of this process, the Virginia Department of Historical Resources (VADHR) requires this letter officially informing the government of Frederick County of the proposed project. The site is located approximately 300 feet north of a residential dwelling (constructed circa 1996) and 150 feet north of a small farmstead consisting of a small barn and sheds. The proposed square shaped compound will be 4,900 square feet in size, will be constructed on a poured 160 square foot concrete slab, and will be protected by an eight foot high chain-link fence enclosure. The direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) will be confined to the 58,000 square foot project area that includes the 100 ft x 100 ft lease area and the 2,300 feet ingress/egress easement. Approximately 85% (1,930 ft) of the proposed access road utilizes an existing graded and graveled driveway. The remaining approximate 375 feet to the proposed tower site will be through a farm trail and woodlands. There is no direct affect anticipated to this property other than the improvement of the proposed access road. There were no historical structures identified on the parent parcel. The proposed project location is depicted on the attached portion of the USGS Stephenson, VA, WV 7.5 -Minute topographic quadrangle. The approximate coordinates of the site are: ni Lati±ude — 3-.200620 V V Longitude -78.105070 As part of this assessment and as required by the Virginia Department of Historical - Resources (DHR), a Phase I Archeological Survey was performed by Rivanna TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. West Virginia Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia Proposed Monopole Tower No. 046 Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia June 13, 2008 Page 2 Archaeological Services, LLC, which found only a single small cortical fragment of reddish - brown jasper that was recovered from a shovel test at the northern corner of the lease area. This probable prehistoric lithic artifact showed no elements of classic flake morphology but may be a piece of shatter or spall. Based on the extreme paucity of cultural materials and the absence of non -modern landscape features, the proposed project will not directly impact potentially significant archaeological or other historical/cultural resources. No further archaeological research was recommended. Based on this, Rivanna Archaeological issued a Statement of No Finding. There is no direct effect anticipated to the site other than the proposed improvements, and it is not anticipated that the tower will be visible from the majority of the architectural resources in the area. Based on our preliminary research and site visit, it is TRIAD'S professional opinion that the proposed construction of the cellular tower antenna will have "no effect" on potentially existing endangered species, critical habitats, historical sites, and cultural sites. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me by phone or via email at bmikalik@triadeng.com. Sincerely, TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. illiam J. Mkalik, CPG Senior Environmental Geologist Attachments Ref. No. 07-07-0683-99 �s 0 �\ s ro e y PROPOSED 100• N 100' LEASE AREA \EWE7 � (10.000 DAVIG & -Imm OREGG 55 -A -129A OR Boo P9. g1 ®WM��das2 DADS, "'�EI)S➢/>��RtQIDM�Y'� ■�-IIIIIIfF3fl�TI�JEl1U�}I1Cb���IICt®5mi� �Q4'lLi•111� PROPOSED 100' % 100' LEASE / (10.000 O.F.) \ %ATHERINE OR - 9 son P9. sl r C L / An- S9s fRhEWAY / a 40 0 40 00 120 REA SCALE Redbud (Site No. 046 A) Liu.IVo. LEASE AREA ENLARGEMENT _ SIZE INFORMATION: FWytXI'9�r_ N0 BA�NopeBTEN COUNTY STATE F4 EDERICK lEr:vNO SITE NAME RfD9VD (SITE Ne. 016 A) UDLIIY POLE or EDBVO REDBUD CII, JAK Q+EDVEAD V1ATIv PROPERTY OWNER MVip & KATHERINE ORECO IN ww I.. IN !Er B • 5 1PDEROPOV%9 iFLEPNMEe UT Tp% A99F55ME- MAP Ne. ARCEL 1 55 PROPOSED LUSE UBQQpT1ppI</PACE No. MEAGISTERIpj BIGTRICT A -720A 0 860 aa. E1 SI)DNEWpCC PRDPDRI Ix.R' -�-..� 2R0 N0� ED TOWER LOCATION: PROPOSED Y+WRE95/FTN99 k UI0.DT E4MMEx1 `p ��[p 79' 12' I45`(-781 0) CMM! VHI EL LION ELEYATIONE 644.3' 10` -78.1036 ) Cv,RmuR NINE ._______. REGIpICT10NG Al NONAGRICULTURE ®WM��das2 DADS, "'�EI)S➢/>��RtQIDM�Y'� ■�-IIIIIIfF3fl�TI�JEl1U�}I1Cb���IICt®5mi� �Q4'lLi•111� PROPOSED 100' % 100' LEASE / (10.000 O.F.) \ %ATHERINE OR - 9 son P9. sl r C L / An- S9s fRhEWAY / a S DAVID &KATHERINE GRECO A 12GA O OB 800 P0. 01 BO D 60 160 240 tCA. ! INGRESS/EGRESS & UTILITY % EASEMENT AND LEASE AREA / 1/ PROPOSED INGRESS/EGRESS k UTILITY EASEMENT DE6CRIPiION L ' ME SUBJECT LEASE AREA SHALL BE CONNECTED TO MOUD ROAD BY AN INGRESS/EGRESS MID UTN mm-, 9A0 EASEMENT SHALL SE A UNIFORM WIDTH OF TWENTY (20) FEST, / A AND SHALL UE ALONG THE FIRLOWING CENTERLINE OESCRIPNON; BEOINNMQ AT A MINT ON ! THE EENTER UNE OF REOSUO .MAO, SAID POINT BEING LOCATED H el' 09' 33" W, A DISTANCE IIIJJJJ l OF 800,00 FEET FROM A FENCE POST FOUND MARK No THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPM OF CARD & KATHERINE CREGG; THENCE N 3T 20' 44° E A DISTANCE OF 44.78 FEET TO A / l POW;; THENCE ALONG A "Ill TO THE RIGHT HAVINO A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET FOR AN AMC OISI0. OF 80.22 FEET, SAID CURIE HA- A CHtI11 BEARING OF N 65 81' 08' E W'IRR A CHORD POINT SILOS OF SILOS FEET 10 A POINT; THENCE S le 30' 31' E A DISTANCE OF 142.57 FEET TO A POINT; (HENCE ALONG A CURE TO 1HE IEFf H4VLH0 A RAOIVS OF 80.00 FEET FOR AN APC /' DISTANCE OF 4S4 FEET, 541G CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF S 77 14' 39' E WITH A CHDRO LENGTH of 5.45 FEET TD A PONT; THENCE S 81' 30' 4" E A DISTANCE ITJOI FEET TO A / POINT! THENCE -I'D A GI'WE TO THE RIGHT H NO A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET MR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 7.81 FEET, SAID CNNE RALRNo A CHONO REARING IS 77' 29' C3" E WITH A CHORD / LENGTH OF 7.80 FEET TO A POW; THENCE S 7S 07' 24' E A DISTANCE OF 100 e7 FEET TO A MINI; 1HLTlCE A10N0 A CtRNF. TO THE LEFT "N" RAD" A AADNIS DF SO.Op FEET FOR AN ARC OhTANLE OF 78.44 fr BA10 CU- HA- A CN'M SURIND OF N 61' SES' 0]" E WITH A CHORD LEN'GO{ OF 70. AL FIEF 1D A MIM; THENCE H 18. 59' 3T' E A 0G' I- OF "0." FEET TO A g PONT, THENCE AIONb p CURVE TO ME RICHT HAVAVO A ""S or SO.Do FEET MP AN RAC DISTANCE OF T.77 FEET, 5410 CURVE HAYING A CHORD BEARING OF N IR GO' JB' E WITH p CHORD LENCT4 OF 1.77 FEET TO A POI -t THENCE N IY 01' 32' E A DLSTANOE OF 505,19 FEET TO A PoI-; 7HL ICE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT -,MIT A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET FOR AN ARC / OISTM'CE OF 74.45 FEET, SMD CURVE NAVMO A CHORD BEARNG OF N - ESS' S4` E AN A CxOPD LENCT4 OF 7274 FEET TO A PoRR; TFRNfE N EST• T9' 3C E p 06TM10E OF 191.88 FEET /p A PoRO; THENCE ALONG A C. TO THE LEFT HAVING A RAONS OF 15NGE FEET MB AN ARC / DISTANCE OF 8].84 FEET, SAID CARVE H4NNo A CHORp REARAVO OF N A4' 31' IB' E W011 A CHOPO LENGTH OF 88.40 FEET To POINT; ihT:NCE N 2T 46' SB' E A DISTANCE pF 115.04 FEET TO A / / g POINT, THENCE a1ON0 A CURVE TO 7HE RIGH. HAVING A AAgVS OF 50.00 FEET FAR Ary ARC owmCE OF JL04 fEET, 9AlO CURVE HANNG A CNOPD BEARING OF N 46. OS 34' E WIH A CHORB LENGTH OF 31.80 FEET To A POUR; THENCE N 64' 30' 10' E A pISTANCE OF 21470 FEET TD A POINT, THENCE ALOND A CARVE TO THE LETT HANNC A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET FOR AN APC 8 DISTANCE OF 37.82 FEEt, SNO CURVE 4ANNa A CHORD BEORMC OF N 4Y s0' M. E WRH A CHORD LENGTH L4'-30.92 MU TO A PONT. THENCE N 21' 10' 01' E A OIBTANCE OF gM. FEET 70 p POINT; THENCE AL NO A CURVE iD THE RIG- H4VIN0 p RMII)S OF 50,00 FEET MR AN ARC 0104NCE OF 21.38 FEET, SAID CURVE MOVING A CHORD RIIT,MING OF ISTN 3i' 29' SP E 0 A CHORD PO! -TION THE NpR1HERLY UNE OOr 21.21 FEET To A F PONT,' THENCE ATOMSEO 39EAR AREA SAID PONT BEING N b' q0' 14' tv -UrTo 4 A UIS'TANCE OF MOD FEET FROM AN pOH %H SET MARIr�G THE SWTTH I PROPDSED LEASE AREA HEAEtERLY CORNER OF E ''�-•PENCE POST THE PROPOSED INGRE85/EGRESS & UMIl 'All" MCLVOES 46885.2 SQUARE F -_- __. EET OF Ukp. LOCATION MAP PAen.eP, w GDAmT.wDLE 'a IM P �57TE O TAX MAP INSERT FrmerteR MGP 55 M., TT.P same PI�ROPOS,LED LEryFAAp,SE 1A IR5q�EEA DRIESOACpRIPTIIONNO $5p @Ly Gp 0p 1H� 909TFFiT5FEA0�U AN "I�RODN PMNO NBOEWGTnpE gTu43Y PROp�R UI NE OCF OF THE LANDS OF CRMO & KATHERINE GREGG; THENCE, N 44, 20 14' W A WRECE OF IBD.00 FEET 70 AN IRON PIN SET WITH CAP MARINES TMI ESEiEL7CORNER OF THAREA, THENCE N 45 39' 46' E A DISTANDF00FEETroPN NI IRONM SETWITH-PNARKING THE NORHIERLYCORR OF THE STIE SU4ECT lEA4E AREA; THENCE S 44' RO' 14"E,1MICE DiIOO.OD FEET ANIRON PIETWITHCVPMACKDIDTHEEASTERLYGER OF ilE SUBIECT LEvSE A4EA; /HENCE 9 45 30' A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET To 11TE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING. THE SIRIXOT LEASE AREA INCLUDES 10.000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, PROPOSED lR�1FALRY pEASEMWE�NT ¢DESCRgIPTION qry p ANMPLRYPf�'ASEMENr59NDEt9EHJDB6HALL BEEP BUN FORMSRTNOF' SzgLBE ANO $HALL UE hLONO iNE f01LpWMO CEMERLME; BEGIHRRNG qT AN E%I MG A IANS NS ORMFR NUMBFA H112f 0192993 THENCE N O5 S4' 4A` E, A DISTANCE 16359 FEET t0 A POINT ON TINE INGPESS/EGRESS & U18RY EA9EMEM, THE PROPOSED 11TMT EASEMENT INCLUDES 981.5 SQUARE FELT. NOTES: 1, NO SUB_AUPFACE UNLNY LOCAAONS WE4E oE1ERLTIHEO BY JOSEPH A KURTANICH, P,E.. LS.: 4uO IHFREMRE, NO SUBSURFACE UTILI11E5 ARE EHOWN ON THIO DRpklMO, 2. THE CO -OURS SHM ARE BASED ON NOVO 1929 GATUM. 3. ANS RAVAN0 PREPARED BY JOSEPH A KURTAMGi P.E, LSENOTNLS EERINC 1Na SE TO SHOW ME LEASE AREA ANO UTILITY EASEME- AREA. NO FANCES Rc"TATNE TO THE PROPOSED // R MSTAWtHON WERE PflWI0E0 Br JOSEPH A. KURTMLIDHP.E, t5. H DYNATEK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC REA R' AATICII Redbud (Site No. 046 A) Liu.IVo. _ aROA MageleHol pHirX1 P -% -*, VA FWytXI'9�r_ N0 BA�NopeBTEN Joseph A. Kurtenich, P.C., L.S. P.D2 BOX 7267 HERMRACE, PA 16146-0267 (724) 849-6836 •�i-� ro oR, MUS DATE D-IN,r 26, 20D7 DWG, NO, SCALE, r - e0' A-07-2079 C-1 EDBVO REDBUD CII, JAK sys. to / i I 1 PRO ORPiEW'aY ! S DAVID &KATHERINE GRECO A 12GA O OB 800 P0. 01 BO D 60 160 240 tCA. ! INGRESS/EGRESS & UTILITY % EASEMENT AND LEASE AREA / 1/ PROPOSED INGRESS/EGRESS k UTILITY EASEMENT DE6CRIPiION L ' ME SUBJECT LEASE AREA SHALL BE CONNECTED TO MOUD ROAD BY AN INGRESS/EGRESS MID UTN mm-, 9A0 EASEMENT SHALL SE A UNIFORM WIDTH OF TWENTY (20) FEST, / A AND SHALL UE ALONG THE FIRLOWING CENTERLINE OESCRIPNON; BEOINNMQ AT A MINT ON ! THE EENTER UNE OF REOSUO .MAO, SAID POINT BEING LOCATED H el' 09' 33" W, A DISTANCE IIIJJJJ l OF 800,00 FEET FROM A FENCE POST FOUND MARK No THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPM OF CARD & KATHERINE CREGG; THENCE N 3T 20' 44° E A DISTANCE OF 44.78 FEET TO A / l POW;; THENCE ALONG A "Ill TO THE RIGHT HAVINO A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET FOR AN AMC OISI0. OF 80.22 FEET, SAID CURIE HA- A CHtI11 BEARING OF N 65 81' 08' E W'IRR A CHORD POINT SILOS OF SILOS FEET 10 A POINT; THENCE S le 30' 31' E A DISTANCE OF 142.57 FEET TO A POINT; (HENCE ALONG A CURE TO 1HE IEFf H4VLH0 A RAOIVS OF 80.00 FEET FOR AN APC /' DISTANCE OF 4S4 FEET, 541G CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF S 77 14' 39' E WITH A CHDRO LENGTH of 5.45 FEET TD A PONT; THENCE S 81' 30' 4" E A DISTANCE ITJOI FEET TO A / POINT! THENCE -I'D A GI'WE TO THE RIGHT H NO A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET MR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 7.81 FEET, SAID CNNE RALRNo A CHONO REARING IS 77' 29' C3" E WITH A CHORD / LENGTH OF 7.80 FEET TO A POW; THENCE S 7S 07' 24' E A DISTANCE OF 100 e7 FEET TO A MINI; 1HLTlCE A10N0 A CtRNF. TO THE LEFT "N" RAD" A AADNIS DF SO.Op FEET FOR AN ARC OhTANLE OF 78.44 fr BA10 CU- HA- A CN'M SURIND OF N 61' SES' 0]" E WITH A CHORD LEN'GO{ OF 70. AL FIEF 1D A MIM; THENCE H 18. 59' 3T' E A 0G' I- OF "0." FEET TO A g PONT, THENCE AIONb p CURVE TO ME RICHT HAVAVO A ""S or SO.Do FEET MP AN RAC DISTANCE OF T.77 FEET, 5410 CURVE HAYING A CHORD BEARING OF N IR GO' JB' E WITH p CHORD LENCT4 OF 1.77 FEET TO A POI -t THENCE N IY 01' 32' E A DLSTANOE OF 505,19 FEET TO A PoI-; 7HL ICE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT -,MIT A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET FOR AN ARC / OISTM'CE OF 74.45 FEET, SMD CURVE NAVMO A CHORD BEARNG OF N - ESS' S4` E AN A CxOPD LENCT4 OF 7274 FEET TO A PoRR; TFRNfE N EST• T9' 3C E p 06TM10E OF 191.88 FEET /p A PoRO; THENCE ALONG A C. TO THE LEFT HAVING A RAONS OF 15NGE FEET MB AN ARC / DISTANCE OF 8].84 FEET, SAID CARVE H4NNo A CHORp REARAVO OF N A4' 31' IB' E W011 A CHOPO LENGTH OF 88.40 FEET To POINT; ihT:NCE N 2T 46' SB' E A DISTANCE pF 115.04 FEET TO A / / g POINT, THENCE a1ON0 A CURVE TO 7HE RIGH. HAVING A AAgVS OF 50.00 FEET FAR Ary ARC owmCE OF JL04 fEET, 9AlO CURVE HANNG A CNOPD BEARING OF N 46. OS 34' E WIH A CHORB LENGTH OF 31.80 FEET To A POUR; THENCE N 64' 30' 10' E A pISTANCE OF 21470 FEET TD A POINT, THENCE ALOND A CARVE TO THE LETT HANNC A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET FOR AN APC 8 DISTANCE OF 37.82 FEEt, SNO CURVE 4ANNa A CHORD BEORMC OF N 4Y s0' M. E WRH A CHORD LENGTH L4'-30.92 MU TO A PONT. THENCE N 21' 10' 01' E A OIBTANCE OF gM. FEET 70 p POINT; THENCE AL NO A CURVE iD THE RIG- H4VIN0 p RMII)S OF 50,00 FEET MR AN ARC 0104NCE OF 21.38 FEET, SAID CURVE MOVING A CHORD RIIT,MING OF ISTN 3i' 29' SP E 0 A CHORD PO! -TION THE NpR1HERLY UNE OOr 21.21 FEET To A F PONT,' THENCE ATOMSEO 39EAR AREA SAID PONT BEING N b' q0' 14' tv -UrTo 4 A UIS'TANCE OF MOD FEET FROM AN pOH %H SET MARIr�G THE SWTTH I PROPDSED LEASE AREA HEAEtERLY CORNER OF E ''�-•PENCE POST THE PROPOSED INGRE85/EGRESS & UMIl 'All" MCLVOES 46885.2 SQUARE F -_- __. EET OF Ukp. LOCATION MAP PAen.eP, w GDAmT.wDLE 'a IM P �57TE O TAX MAP INSERT FrmerteR MGP 55 M., TT.P same PI�ROPOS,LED LEryFAAp,SE 1A IR5q�EEA DRIESOACpRIPTIIONNO $5p @Ly Gp 0p 1H� 909TFFiT5FEA0�U AN "I�RODN PMNO NBOEWGTnpE gTu43Y PROp�R UI NE OCF OF THE LANDS OF CRMO & KATHERINE GREGG; THENCE, N 44, 20 14' W A WRECE OF IBD.00 FEET 70 AN IRON PIN SET WITH CAP MARINES TMI ESEiEL7CORNER OF THAREA, THENCE N 45 39' 46' E A DISTANDF00FEETroPN NI IRONM SETWITH-PNARKING THE NORHIERLYCORR OF THE STIE SU4ECT lEA4E AREA; THENCE S 44' RO' 14"E,1MICE DiIOO.OD FEET ANIRON PIETWITHCVPMACKDIDTHEEASTERLYGER OF ilE SUBIECT LEvSE A4EA; /HENCE 9 45 30' A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET To 11TE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING. THE SIRIXOT LEASE AREA INCLUDES 10.000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, PROPOSED lR�1FALRY pEASEMWE�NT ¢DESCRgIPTION qry p ANMPLRYPf�'ASEMENr59NDEt9EHJDB6HALL BEEP BUN FORMSRTNOF' SzgLBE ANO $HALL UE hLONO iNE f01LpWMO CEMERLME; BEGIHRRNG qT AN E%I MG A IANS NS ORMFR NUMBFA H112f 0192993 THENCE N O5 S4' 4A` E, A DISTANCE 16359 FEET t0 A POINT ON TINE INGPESS/EGRESS & U18RY EA9EMEM, THE PROPOSED 11TMT EASEMENT INCLUDES 981.5 SQUARE FELT. NOTES: 1, NO SUB_AUPFACE UNLNY LOCAAONS WE4E oE1ERLTIHEO BY JOSEPH A KURTANICH, P,E.. LS.: 4uO IHFREMRE, NO SUBSURFACE UTILI11E5 ARE EHOWN ON THIO DRpklMO, 2. THE CO -OURS SHM ARE BASED ON NOVO 1929 GATUM. 3. ANS RAVAN0 PREPARED BY JOSEPH A KURTAMGi P.E, LSENOTNLS EERINC 1Na SE TO SHOW ME LEASE AREA ANO UTILITY EASEME- AREA. NO FANCES Rc"TATNE TO THE PROPOSED // R MSTAWtHON WERE PflWI0E0 Br JOSEPH A. KURTMLIDHP.E, t5. H DYNATEK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC JOSEPH A. K R' AATICII Redbud (Site No. 046 A) Liu.IVo. _ aROA MageleHol pHirX1 P -% -*, VA FWytXI'9�r_ N0 BA�NopeBTEN Joseph A. Kurtenich, P.C., L.S. P.D2 BOX 7267 HERMRACE, PA 16146-0267 (724) 849-6836 •�i-� HILTS oR, MUS DATE D-IN,r 26, 20D7 DWG, NO, SCALE, r - e0' A-07-2079 C-1 EDBVO REDBUD CII, JAK SITE PROF'OSEO SHENTEL 195' MONOPOLE TOWER PROPOSED SHENTEL ICE: BRIDGE LOCATION PROPOSED SHENTEL EQUIPMENT AND CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED B' HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE W/3 STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE ON TOP ANTENNA ORIENTATION COAXIAL CABLE CABLE SIZE CABLE LENGTH W" 0' - 100' tY." 101' - 200' PANEL ANTE DKA (TYR. OF 6) SECTOR i 709 AZIMUTH 0 \ SECTOR 3 220' AZIMUTH SECTOR 2 149 AZIMUTH COAXIAL CABLE MIWMUM B[7JD RADIUS CABLE SIZE MINIMUM SEND RADIUS k° 10' e" 18" Y." 22" ANTENNA INSTALLATION SECTOR 2 1. AZIMUTHS OF ANTENNA SHALL SE AS FOLLOWS: PROPOSED 4' HIGH SECTOR 1-140' SECTOR Z-220' SECTOR 3-100' LIGHTNING ROD 2. SHENANDOMI PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRE A SRD PARTY CERTIFICATION FOR THE AZIMUTH h RAD CENTER TYPE/SIZE TRY. R% OF EACH ANTENNA ANTENNAFLC JUMPER 3. CONTRACTOR S41ALL VERIFY THE DOWNTILT OF EACH ANTENNA ELC 12 5oJ C1 C2 WITH A DIGITAL LEVEL, 4, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PHOTO GOCUMEMATION THAT ANTENNAS ARE PLUMB. PROPOSED SHENTEL i/2 6' 6' ANTENNAS 0 195' 1 5/8" 215' 215' PROPOSED B' HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE W/3 STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE ON TOP ANTENNA ORIENTATION COAXIAL CABLE CABLE SIZE CABLE LENGTH W" 0' - 100' tY." 101' - 200' PANEL ANTE DKA (TYR. OF 6) SECTOR i 709 AZIMUTH 0 \ SECTOR 3 220' AZIMUTH SECTOR 2 149 AZIMUTH COAXIAL CABLE MIWMUM B[7JD RADIUS CABLE SIZE MINIMUM SEND RADIUS k° 10' e" 18" Y." 22" CABLE CODING SCHEDULE I 21 ,:111W TR =1I` DOAH MOEIlE CCMPA1gY 500 SHENTEL WAY P.O, BOX .1 EDINBURG. YA 22324 (540) 984.5123 .Dynatek TIILECOMMVN(CA770N9 SERVICES Hrookneld 7134rd. eaDRve off q<403 T>ho�l:eoo-33san4 Fox E330JW9.g33T mww.dynnmkktemm.cam Pnni u� 6666 DRAWN BY'. ML. CBEG'KED HY, O.C� SUBMITTALS 2 i/4- FINALS I/OBfOB REDLGNE REVIS" 0 If03/O8 ISSUED FOR REVIEW THE INFORMATION CONTAIfJED IN THIS SET OF DOGUMEMS 5 PROPRIETARY BY�NATURE. ANY USE DR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CLIENT NAME IS STRI T SITED. C Dftb'F'D C. BAUDD NO. 0111.7 0 o w it SITE: 0464 1207 RED. ROAD (E910 WINCHESTER, VA 22603 SHEET TITLE; TOWER ELEVATION/ SITE DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: A-2 SECTOR 1 SECTOR 2 SECTORS COAX LENGTH UT) CABLE COAX LENGTH (F'f) CABLE CDA% LENGTH (FT) TYPE/S2E TRX RX TYPE/SIZE TRY. R% CABLE TYPE/SIZE TRX R% ANTENNAFLC JUMPER 12 SOJ C1 C2 t/2" ELC 12 5oJ C1 C2 PLC 5 0.J C1 02 6' 6' 7/2" 6• B, i/2 6' 6' MAIN CABLE 1 5/8" 215' 215' 1 5/8" 215' 215' 7 5/8" 215' 215' EQUIPMENT JUMPER FLC 112"50J 4' 4' FLO 12 50J 4' 4' FLC 12.50d n 41 /2' CABLE COLOR CODE C1 YELLOW GROWN WHITE _.WR EDFROWN WHITE GS 1 GREEN BROWN WHITE C2 I YELLOW WHITE WHITE C41 RED WHITE WHFTE C6 GREEN WHITE WHITE ANTENNA RFS - APXVIS-2085165-C RFS - ApXV18-2065ISS-0 RFS - APXV18-2065165-C NUMBER OF ANTENNAS 1 1 RADIATION CENTER 1e5' 195' 195' MOUNT T—PE INTEGRATED INTO UNI -POLE DESIGN. (SEE POLE INTEGRATED INTO UW -POLE DESIGN. (SEE POLE INTEGRATED INTO UNI -POLE MANUFACTURE SPEC SHEET FOR FURTHER DETAILS) MAN'UFM,TURE SPEC SHEET DESIGN. (SEE POLE MMNFACTURC SPEC SHEET FOR FURTHER DETAILS) FOR FURTHER DETAILS; AZIMUTH 140 DEGREE 220 DEGREE 300 DEGREE D01YN TILT 0 DEGREE 0 DEGREE a DEGREE CABLE CODING SCHEDULE I 21 ,:111W TR =1I` DOAH MOEIlE CCMPA1gY 500 SHENTEL WAY P.O, BOX .1 EDINBURG. YA 22324 (540) 984.5123 .Dynatek TIILECOMMVN(CA770N9 SERVICES Hrookneld 7134rd. eaDRve off q<403 T>ho�l:eoo-33san4 Fox E330JW9.g33T mww.dynnmkktemm.cam Pnni u� 6666 DRAWN BY'. ML. CBEG'KED HY, O.C� SUBMITTALS 2 i/4- FINALS I/OBfOB REDLGNE REVIS" 0 If03/O8 ISSUED FOR REVIEW THE INFORMATION CONTAIfJED IN THIS SET OF DOGUMEMS 5 PROPRIETARY BY�NATURE. ANY USE DR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CLIENT NAME IS STRI T SITED. C Dftb'F'D C. BAUDD NO. 0111.7 0 o w it SITE: 0464 1207 RED. ROAD (E910 WINCHESTER, VA 22603 SHEET TITLE; TOWER ELEVATION/ SITE DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: A-2 Page 1 of 2 Bill Mikalik 011 From: Beacham, Deanna [Deanna.Beacham@governor.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:17 AM To: Bill Mikalik; tparker@triadeng.com Subject: RE: FAXed Cell Tower queries Greetings, I have reviewed your sites and find no cause for additional concern. In the future, I am unlikely to have time to respond individually to such queries, but I do read them all and archive them. If you do not hear back from me with 7 business days, you can assume that the VCI office finds no cause for additional review. Definitely I will let you know if there is something we need to check. Sincerely, Deanna Beacham Virginia Council on Indians Office of the Governor P.O. Box 1475 Richmond, VA 23218 804-225-2084 deanna@govemor.virginia.gov http://indians.vipnet-org From: Bill Mikalik [mailto:bmikalik@triadeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:02 PM To: Beacham, Deanna Subject: RE: FAXed Cell Tower queries Importance: High Deanna, Please find attached my three sites for review. Thank you, 200 Avlaftn Drive mug NNlinrwebel, VA 22002 NP 1 5+10.667.9300 trftice T ied 111mannal fnc. 540.667.2280 Feceknite arww.trieftng.com r . . IP, ectici Fngit�eerlr�g and Sclen: Solutions Since 1876'; From, Beacham, Deanna [mailto:Deanna.Beacham@governor.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:38 PM To: bmikalik@triadeng.com 2/15/2008 Page 2 oft Subject: FAXed Cell Tower queries Greetings Mr. Mikalik: There were some cell tower queries sent to the VCI via FAX that were interrupted this afternoon. FAX is not a reliable or cost efficient way for me to receive these reports. Please send via hard copy or email directly to me. I ani the only VCI staff member and handle all NEPA and Section 106 queries. Thanks, Deanna Beacham Program Specialist Virginia Council on Indians Office of the Governor P.O. Box 1475 Riclunond, VA 23218 804-225-2084 deanna@govemor.virginia.gov governor.virginia.gov hitt 1 /indians-viAnet.org 2/15/2008 Tower Construction Notification Page 1 of 2 FCC F�-deral FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filinq I Initiatives For Consumers I Find People CoCommissimmunications Tower Construction Notification FCC > WTB > Tower Construction Notification FCC _._Site _Map a Logged In: (Lo, Out) Tower Construction Notification Update Status Notifications Home Update the status of a proposed tower construction on or near designated tribal land, historic preservation or environr sensitive areas. Status of Notification ID 38821 4:! Proposed — Project Proposed _J Abandoned — Project Abandoned Constructed — Project Constructed ( UPDA7 The contact and structure information associated with this notification is listed below. Click on the pdf hyperlink to view a reference copy of the Notice of Organizations email/letter for this notification. Notification Information Notification Submitted: 04/25/2008 Notifier Information Tower Owner Individual: Tower Owner Entity: Shenandoah Mobile Company Consultant: Lynda S Burner PO Box: 459 Address: 500 Shentel Way City: Edinburg State: VIRGINIA Zip Code: 22824 Phone: 540-984-3009 http://wireless2.fcc.gov/TribalHistorieNotificationlupdateStatus.htm?trb_notifier id=38821 4/25/2008 Tower Construction Notification [mail: Lynda. Burner0emp.shentel.com Structure Data Structure Type: UTOWER - Unguyed - Free Standing Tower NAD83 Latitude: 39 ° 12 ' 14.5 " N(+) NAD83 Longitude: 78 ° 6 ' 10.0 " W(-) Address or Geographical 1203 Redbud Road Location Description: City: Winchester State: VIRGINIA County: FREDERICK Ground Elevation: 196.3 meters Support Structure Height: 59.4 meters above ground level Overall Structure Height: 60.7 meters above ground level Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level: 257.0 meters Page 2 of 2 ASR Help ASR License --Q lossary - FAQ - _Online Help - Documentation - Technical Support ASR Online TOWAIR- CORES/ASR Registration - ASR OnlineFilino - Application Search - ReQistratio Systems Search About ASR Privacy Statement - About ASR - ASR Home Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 More FCC Contact Information... Phone:1-877-480-3201 TTY:1-717-338-2824 Fax: 1-866-418-0232 Submit Help Request - Web Policies & Privacc - Required_ Browser Plu( - Customer Service Stai - Freedom of Informatio http://wireless2.fec.gov/TribalHistorieNotification/updateStatus.htm?trb_notifier id=38821 4/25/2008 Bill Mikalik From: Lynda Burner [Lynda.Burner@emp.shentel.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:14 PM To: Bill Mikalik Subject: Site 042 - FW: Reply to Proposed Tower Structure (Notification ID #38821) - Email ID # 1855514 FYI Lynda Burner phone (540) 984-3009 - fax (540) 984-4920 SHENTEL -----Original Message ----- From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov [mailto:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:43 PM To: Lynda Burner Cc: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Subject: Reply to Proposed Tower Structure (Notification ID 438821) - Email ID #1855514 Dear Lynda S Burner, Thank you for using the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). The purpose of this email is to inform you that an authorized user of the TCNS has replied to a proposed tower construction notification that you had submitted through the TCNS. The following message has been sent to you from Manager, Cell Tower Consultation Belinda Pryor of the Shawnee Tribe in reference to Notification ID ##38821: WE HAVE UPDATED OUR PROCEDURES FOR 2008 (EFFECTIVE 1-14-08). PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED AND READ A COPY OF OUR UPDATED PROCEDURES . Please use only the following address when sending materials to us: Please use this fax number to contact us contact us via e-mail. SHAWNEE TRIBE ATT: B. PRYOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPT. 29 SOUTH HIGHWAY 69A MIAMI, OK 74354 918-542-9915. Please do not The Shawnee Tribe is interested in consulting on this tower, as we are in all towers in this geographic area. Ms. Belinda Pryor is our manager for cell tower consultation. Please contact Belinda Pryor, Asst. THPO, at 918-542-2441 if o;. have -' y any Kues..�ons on this or any other TCNS project. For this particular tower to which we are responding, please follow our consultation procedures. If this tower is a CO -LOCATION, please fax us and let us know. We cannot always reliably tell from the TCNS web site when a tower is a co -location. I PLEASE, when you are mailing us regarding a cell tower, be sure to put Belinda Pryor's name and Historic Preservation Department in the address. If you send any mailing just generally to the Shawnee Tribe, without including the name and department, several days or more may pass before the mailing is properly directed. In the event that you are building another tower in this state and you did not receive a response from us through the TCNS, it is because the project was omitted from the TCNS web site, as we respond to ALL towers listed in our geographic areas on that web site. We take this opportunity to remind you that, even if a tower has been omitted from the TCNS web site, as occasionally happens, we are still interested in consulting on it. For your convenience, the information you submitted for this notification is detailed below. Notification Received: 04/25/2008 Notification ID: 38821 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: Shenandoah Mobile Company Consultant Name: Lynda S Burner P.O. Box: 459 Street Address: 500 Shentel Way City: Edinburg State: VIRGINIA Zip Code: 22824 Phone: 540-984-3009 Email: Lynda.Burner@emp.shentel.com Structure Type: UTOWER - Unguyed - Free Standing Tower Latitude: 39 deg 12 min 14.5 sec N Longitude: 78 deg 6 min 10.0 sec W Location Description: 1203 Redbud Road City: Winchester State: VIRGINIA County: FREDERICK Ground Elevation: 196.3 meters Support Structure: 59.4 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 60.7 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 257.0 meters above mean sea level 2 Bill Mikalik From: Lynda Burner [Lynda.Burner@emp.shentel.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:56 AM To: Bill Mikalik Subject: TWR046 - FW: Reply to Proposed Tower Structure (Notification ID #38821) - Email ID # 1886911 TWR046 - Redbud Lynda Burner phone (540) 984-3009 - fax (540) 984-4920 SHENTEL -----Original Message ----- From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov [mailto:towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:39 PM To: Lynda Burner Cc: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Subject: Reply to Proposed Tower Structure (Notification ID #38821) - Email ID #1886911 Dear Lynda S Burner, Thank you for using the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). The purpose of this email is to inform you that an authorized user of the TCNS has replied to a proposed tower construction notification that you had submitted through the TCNS. The following message has been sent to you from Administrative Assistant Jo Ann Beckham of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in reference to Notification ID #38821: May 23, 2008 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for notice of the referenced project(s). The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma is currently unaware of any documentation directly linking Indian Religious Sites to the proposed construction. In the event any items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are discovered during construction, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe request notification and further consultation. The Eastern Shawnee Tribe has no objection to the proposed construction. At present, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe does not wish to participate as a consulting party on the above referenced project(s). However, if any human skeletal remains and/or any objects falling under NAGPRA are uncovered during construction, the construction should stop immediately, and the appropriate persons, including state and tribal NAGPRA representatives contacted. Sincerely, Jo Ann Beckham, Administrative Assistant Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma For your convenience, the information you submitted for this notification_ is detailed below. Notification Received: 04/25/2008 Notification ID: 38821 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: Shenandoah Mobile Company Consultant Name: Lynda S Burner P.O. Box: 459 Street Address: 500 Shentel Way City: Edinburg State: VIRGINIA Zip Code: 22824 Phone: 540-984-3009 Email: Lynda.Burner@emp.shentel.com Structure Type: UTOWER - Unguyed - Free Standing Tower Latitude: 39 deg 12 min 14.5 sec N Longitude: 78 deg 6 min 10.0 sec W Location Description: 1203 Redbud Road City: Winchester State: VIRGINIA County: FREDERICK Ground Elevation: 196.3 meters Support Structure: 59.4 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 60.7 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 257.0 meters above mean sea level 2 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD rpt f xmia WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 1-1:- _-1w�,)) (540) 662-2422 May 15, 2008 Lynn Koerner Shenandoah Mobile Company Po Box 459 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Conditional Use Permit Comments Shentel Telecommunications Facility — 195 foot monopole structure Site 046A — 1207 Redbud Road Stonewall Magisterial District Dear Mr. Koerner: On behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority, we offer the following comments regarding the referenced Conditional Use Permit Application and site plan for a proposed telecommunications tower: We reviewed the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation dated March 12, 2008 in which the FAA has stated that marking and/or lighting will not be required by their agency. However, due to air medevac operations throughout the County and given that the site is within the Winchester Regional Airport's airspace the Winchester Regional Airport Authority is requesting that lighting be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2 as a condition for approval of this CUP. 2. Applicant is required to file with the Virginia Department of Aviation and applicant should send a copy of the FAA Aeronautical Study and a quadrangle map showing the proposed tower location for their review and comment. Provided these conditions are met, the Airport Authority has no objections to this application. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate contacting my office. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Cc: Chad Carper, FAANVADO w/encl Scott Denny, VDOA w/encl John Longnaker, Delta Airport Consultants w/encl REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMTI' COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number; Shenandoah Mobile Company, PO Box 459, Edinburg, VA 22824 540-984-3003 Name of development and/or description of the request: Telecommunications facility - 195 foot monopole structure and compound area Location: 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, VA 22603 Winchester Regional Airports Comments: kA Airport Signature and Date: &I K-'� (NOTICE TO AIRPORT: * PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and all other pertinent information. Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW -520 2008 -AEA -925 -OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 03/12/2008 Lynda S. Burner Shenandoah Mobile Company P O Box 459 (500 Shentel Way) Edinburg, VA 22824 ** 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: Antenna Tower TWRO46 Redbud Location: Winchester, VA Latitude: 39-12-14.50N NAD 83 Longitude: 78-06-1 O.00W Heights: 200 feet above ground level (AOL) 844 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: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. 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 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 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 if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. Page 1 of 3 lf`we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (817) 838-1994. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2008 -AEA -925 -OE. Signature Control No: 562792-101851399 Linda Steele Technician Attachment(s) Frequency Data Page 2 of 3 (DNE) Frequency Data for ASN 2008 -AEA -925 -OE LOW HIGH FREQUENCY ERF FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP UNIT 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX 6 DHR DATABASE REVIEW L ':?I TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 07/11/2008 13:13 8043672391 DEPT OF HISTORIC RES PAGE 01/01 L, Preston Bryant, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources July 11, 2008 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA. Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond., Virginia 23221.-031.1. William .I_ .M..ikali.k, CPG Triad Eugincering 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Proposed 199 -foot Manopole, 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester Frederick County, Virginia. DHR File #2008-0851 Dear Mr_'Mikalik: Kathleen 5. Kilpatrick Director Tel: (804) 367.2323 Fax: (804)367.2391 TDD: (804) 367.2386 www.dbr,virgiiiin.gov We have received your request lbr our review and comment regarding the above referenced project. We believe that the above -referenced uudertaki.ng will have No Adverse Effect on historic properties listed in Or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, specifically the Milburn. Rural .Historic District (034,5035). Sboul.d you receive any corarnents regarding the project's effects to historic properties please forward copies to t1 -.Ie Department of Historic Resources (DHR). If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Marc 14olma at (804) 367-2323, Ext. 1.14. Sincerely, Elizabeth B. Tune Manager Office of Preservation Incentivcs Administrative Services Capital Rcgion Office Tidewater Region Qfficc 10 Courthouse Avenut 2801 Kensington Ave 14415 Old Counhouse Way, 2' Floor Petersburg, VA 23803 Richmond, VA 23221 Newport News, VA 23608 "rel: (804) 863.1624 Tei: (804) 367-2323 Tel; (757)1;86-2807 ! ,qx: (804) 862-6196 Fax: (804) 367-2199. Fax: (757) 886-2808 Roanoke Region Office 1030 Peninar Avc., 5F, Roanoke, VA 24013 Tel: (540) 857-7585 Fax: (540)957-7588 Northent Repion Office 5357 Main Strcet PO Box 519 Stephens City. VA 22655 Tel; (540) 868-7031. Fax -(540)868-7033 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN1A Department of Ristoric Resources L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Secretary of Natu al Resources January 23, 2008 William Mikalik Triad Engineering, Inc. 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Detailed Archives Search Redbud Site -046 Dear Mr. Mikalik: Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Director Tel: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (804) 367-2391 TDD: (804) 367-2386 www.dhr.virginia.gov Thank you for your recent request for information from our archives on previously recorded archaeological and architectural resources within the area of potential effect, as delineated on your map, for the above -referenced project. Please note that your request for information from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) Archives concerning the location of historic resources does not relieve you or your client from possible obligations under state or federal historic preservation regulations. I strongly recommend that you contact Dr. Ethel Eaton of the DHR's Resource Services and Review Division at (804) 367-2323, extension 112, if you have any questions concerning state and federal regulatory requirements. Enclosed are the maps showing the locations of any archaeological or architectural resources within your project area. Copies of files on resources found within your project area are also enclosed. These copies include survey and site forms, photographs, and other pertinent material. Also included is.a spreadsheet printout from our architectural database with information on properties within your project area. The printout contains the DHR file number, resource name, register status (the "V/N" column), eligibility status ("Y" for potentially eligible, "N" for not potentially eligible and blank if not previously evaluated by DHR), and date of eligibility determination. We have also examined our records for information concerning eligibility determinations for archaeological sites within your project area. If any such determinations have been made, a spreadsheet printout from our archaeological database with information on sites within your project area has been included. The printout contains the DHR site number, resource name, register status, eligibility status ("Y" for eligible, "N" for not eligible, "potentially" if found potentially eligible and blank if not previously evaluated by DHR), and date of eligibility determination. Finally, an invoice is enclosed for the charges incurred through your use of our archives search service. Administrative Services Capital Region Office Tidewater Region Office Roanoke Region Office Winchester Region Office 10 Comlhouse Ave. 2801 Kensington Office 14415 Old Courthouse Way 1030 Penmar Avenue, SE 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203 Petersburg, VA 23803 Richmond, VA 23221 2"" Floor Roanoke, VA 24013 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel: (804) 863-1624 Tel: (804) 367-2323 Newport News, VA 23608 Tel: (540) 857-7585 Tel: (540) 722-3427 Fax: (804) 862-6196 Fax: (804) 367-2391 Tel: (757) 886-2807 Fax: (540) 857-7588 Fax: (540) 722-7535 Fax: (757) 886-2808 DHR serves as the official state repository on historic resources. This information has been compiled primarily by independent cultural resource consultants. DHR makes no warranty as to the fitness of the data for any purpose. The absence of historic resources in DHR records does not necessarily mean that no historic properties are present. It is advisable to check with local government planning offices for information on any properties that may meet the age and significance tests of the National Register criteria and have not yet been recorded in the DHR archives. Also, the area in question may not have been systematically surveyed for resources, possibly necessitating a survey and submittal of that data with your Project Review application. Please contact me at (804) 367-2323, extension 125, if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, ioa Ann D.r. Wellfor Archives - DHR Administrative Services Capital Region Office Tidewater Region Office 10 Courthouse Ave. 2801 Kensington Office 14415 Old Courthouse Way Petersburg, VA 23803 Richmond, VA 23221 2"`' Floor Tel: (804) 863-1624 Tel: (804) 367-2323 Newport News, VA 23608 Fax: (804) 862-6196 Fax: (804) 367-2391 Tel: (757) 886-2807 Fax: (757) 886-2808 Roanoke Region Office 1030 Peronar Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 Tel: (540) 857-7585 Fax: (540) 857-7588 Winchester Region Office 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel: (540) 722-3427 Fax: ('540)722-7535 _ �,+,,�• ..+ 1'. ` �': J - _ .r �, Fj .. �... r� •_�.Sy� r,r,—r *`G",a,^,.- T ^..�^ 5. } 7 y.." 44FK0340 }� ' 44FK0411 y "r * -•�, ` '� s,,s � �. ry'�:• • •'moi f�' t!• /� ,i , 'rr r r ': M l • r 'j '�� 4 � S'y*� �� • �~., P ' � 44FK0388 � - •,. � 44FK061,8 � I �• 'r 1 ''� � -0� _ >'` "'! 44FK0620 - `� f r 44FK0615 ! s �k �. r�- c =,.;� y ... ;. j ) •` �f`'r �' r7.-,�.�r� �`y �` ��-•-'r9r .r—` ... 44FK03421 `'' ,.-• . � ), ,�"- _e�r� �,:: J J I: x'' r� � r+ �- ':,,_ f�.�., ''� ���;� ., . Shale 034-1140 '� .� /1. 034-1141 rk _ �. �v�,,, ,.,_; 5,� �u• �. .;(�r 'r, F Y k'' 4� � tl. r�,r I. .ir y r �, }r,.• �or `"" ,ih � . �' r4C..ty(�-„,�.. � -fir. � r�'v,i r y 44FK0352 , 034-1144 c .L ` aY I -r., ,�� _� ��� Ir�',4 _, �' 9 � � ',, � r �,'� �r•''"fj� 5 ' � ..-'f,�r f tr��f. ;t� ''y �P�',� yip' � ? � ���� t:.,: ` : - � /"�✓"”` r r y -"_ "' �rr �� l - +77Y S � - jy I r�; r�' �I �C } ��,n`�, 9 i���, � •'' r� a F '� 'A' I . r .r y,,+Y'�b it% ,-. 5.•.,e�u i ry,v. ;Y 44FK0379 f 44FK0526 '„ �^ _ � �� '1_ �• �4 -� _� � ,,� u 44FK0346frTr7 J. •� y .1"- .l i til I /.. r' h" - v �r� , ` >P 44FK0343 . d'I r 'I'.� r ti 1 '4 - �`� � ,�w, I',� �� •��� .s ��'`k-".."= Ih' • y i,.f �' 11 41� ` � � r 'h � r, i � r r r 44FK0344 44FK0337 ru Legd9+ 10 44FK0372r 034-1146 44FKd34r Zq f_� ., �... � t• __ „ ,, yYr�,.� f'I 1. ,f � li. ��,.. ', R���r r Y,sk .h.,Sti,4,v �.�t�,'h. ,.9,��' Redbud Site -046 44FK0383 v� SNT ,.. + � ice. f •r., c w } i rl v, 44FK0385 �� L - 44FK0381 ROJECT SITE I nad Engineering, Inc. Stephenson Quad/Frederick County Archaeological Sites 01/27/2008 Architectural Resources -isa Williams/VDHR Architectural Resources Stephenson Quad DHR File No :1 '$t6'Ohenson.,Quad,R&sourc6 Nam -1 , City County Regist&/Ease I Comment fEli bl'2 [Eljgj?,Date I Eli i? score 034-1116 034-1118 034-1139 034-1140 034-1141 034-1144 034-1146 034-1378 034-5035 Jenkins-Dehaven House Jenkins House, Rt. 660 Kemp -Gruber -Jobe House . .... . Culp House Charles H. Miller House :Robert D. Kecklev House 'Redbud School John Huntsberry House Milburn Rural Historic District Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick Frederick ---- --------- Frederick Frederick ;N 01 -Oct -921, N 01 -Oct -921 ...... - - ------- N 01-Oct-92i ;potential Y 25 -Jun -97 Architectural Resources Winchester Quad DHR File No I Winchester Quad Resource Name Cit /Count' Register/Ease'` Comment Eli i? Eli I?Date Eli i? Score . 034-1147 Redbud United Methodist Church ;Frederick 3/7/2008 Archaeological Resources DHR 1D Stephenson Quad Resource Name Other DHR ID# ' 'Elig? Eli i? DateI RegisterRegistul VLR Datel NRNP Date "; Comments 44FK0333 null 44FK0334 null 44FK0335 null 44FK0336 null 44FK0337 null 44FK0339 •null 44FK0340 null 44FK0341 !null 44FK0342 null 44FK0343 null 44FK0344 mull 44FK0345 null 44FK0346 .null 44FK0347 ;null 44FK0348 null 44FK0349 null I 44FK0351 mull _. 44FK0352 null k 44FK0355 Charles Wood House ... _..... _ . . 44FK0372 T.H. Hoffman Site 44FK0379 null 44FK0380 null _ 44FK0381 null 44FK0382 null. 44FK0383 null 44FK0384 null 44FK0385 ,null 44FK0386 null 44FK0387 null 44FK0388 null 44FK0389 null 44FK0410 inull 44FK0411 Joseph Jackson House potentially 38735' 44FK0423 null 44FK0438 null 44FK0457 null 44FK0526 null 44FK0527 null Potentially eligible 44FK0615 J. Yost Farmstead 'N 39422, on 1.18.2006 44FK0618 Stephenson Village Site E N 38735' 44FK0620 John Deck Farm 3/7/2008 112. Landscape Features: Right off road; mature trees; 2 -rail fence; many young trees in front yard. 13. Significance: One of few side passage plan houses in area. Has been somewhat altered. Surveyed by: M. KALBIAN & J. PERKINS Date: 3/92 VIRGINIA 16 DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS 111676 Negative n s ..- HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM City/Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COUNTY County FREDERICK eet address or route number Rt. 660 U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON storic [tame Common name Jenkins-Dehaven House Present use RESIDRNITIAL Building Style Vernacular side passage Original use RESIDENTIAL, Building Date(s)ca.1880-1910 Construction Materials 3. Stories (number) 2 �41ow basement ❑ raised basement wood frame ❑ rick 4. Bays (number): front 3 side (church) bond: ❑ English ❑ symmetrical symmetrical ❑ Flemish ❑ _-course American 5. Roof Type ❑ stretcher ❑ shed ❑ hipped El parapet? ❑ pyramidal? stone gable ❑ mansard ❑ random rubble -pediment? ❑ false mansard ❑ coursed rubble ❑ parapet? ❑ gambrel ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ clipped end? ❑ flat ❑ rock -faced ❑ cross gable? El parapet? log central front gable? ❑ roof not visible ❑ squared ❑ unsquared ❑ of er notching. ❑ V -notch ❑ half dovetail 6. Roofing Material ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond ❑ shingle ❑ concrete block ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) ^ terra cotta ❑ wood steel frame metal other standing seam corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) 2ladding Material ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ glazed weatherboard 13 composition siding ❑slate ❑ vertical siding ❑ stucco ❑ not visible ❑ board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding �hingle: ❑ cast iron 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ hi ply -1 bricktex D other 8. Primary Porch style Colonial Revival stories 1 levels full height bays 2 materials wood i description and decorative detail Tuscan columns; plain friezeboard; hipped roof; concrete pad; wrought iron railing. 9. General supplementarydescription and decoration: 1/1 windows; oxed cornice; diamond-shaped 1 -light window in cen- ral front gable w/ pent roof; transom over door; side [bulkhead basement entry; stone foundation; 4 -light attic 0. Major additions and alterations: window In a e en s ; rear 2 1/1 PHOTO -story ell w/ wlndows;I or New 1 -story abled side y int. brick flue; enclosed 21 porch w/ lat ice; new sid-story side stone porches; ing; new shutters & win dow foundation & some new windows. 11. Outbuildings: Modern garage; board & batten shed. 112. Landscape Features: Right off road; mature trees; 2 -rail fence; many young trees in front yard. 13. Significance: One of few side passage plan houses in area. Has been somewhat altered. Surveyed by: M. KALBIAN & J. PERKINS Date: 3/92 . —I m— r.— it k INv- —IgIual IcataRS, aaa11JonS, an a]terahORS) urnwmng of rian Sketch of Site Plan Historical Information f - h lten;"5 f �tgy�4' p°,'`KP.�.• i � M CII � t k ry\ `!•� �r 4r ij� K° sin '� ta��"az' a `` �,. I tla S �I 1 d� l �' F'. � •t � t Ali HiM EM p gf� fiLI AU'ihi�S41'`i ,mow --• ....i,t:F� ....n.,+ua:.`nw��.;�niss:,.. �i A Y, � 4 irka'i .. -tPul ai ,'J �+�w:x :`\ c,� ll)5,.§r1(fY!} J•t`�dgg ( e Y G'. j♦ � J uJ�rce5.. (,'.` vc - �'fk+�Ri iiT t�J.«✓i .f�� ' ...wrr 41•-.._.Sw,uezi`i l`a.... '..iMi. .... ... ......r .. .. _.ix> .a"��^.f"v.A6rt. �4.+i�Fwl�n. ',+�+„•. i�V j'v�'A .wItVTVIII1 � L '. A BKA ��C,��k9 a 1r1u Eyyyl S t S d �� T4s :. .. ...... .... .... ': '.. .. S t 1` 1• I �!t'' th� 1. 41 � .., COMMONWEALTH ®f `yIRCjINIA Hugh C. Miller, Director Department of Historic Resources October 1, 1992 221 Governor Street Richmond Virginia 23219 Ms. Monika Fraley Comprehensive Planner Maguire Associates Inc. 770 Lynnhaven Parkway, Suite 240 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 RE: Draft Architectural Survey Report Route 37, Frederick County VDHR File No. 91-445-F Dear Ms. Fraley: TDD: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX: (8(34) 225-4261 Thank you for providing us with a draft copy of the Phase I Architectural Survey Report for the above referenced project. The report was prepared in August 1992 by Maral S. Kalbian. The report provides a description of the project's goals, methodology, fieldwork, results and recommendations. The level of effort and resulting report are consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Archaeoloav and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716 - 44742). We acknowledge and appreciate Maral's use of our recently issued guidelines for survey reports and historic contexts. As you know, our staff evaluation team has recently reviewed the phase I survey of the eighty-two properties within the area of potential effect. We concur with the recommendation that the following properties are potentially eligible and warrant a phase II evaluation: Mill Bank (34-5) Valley Mill Farm (34-108) Sulfur Spring Spa (34-110) Hilandale (34-126) Frederick Hall (34-143) Carysbrook Redoubt (34-32) Hilandale Earthworks (34-321) Parkins Mill Battery (34-458) Thomas McCann House (34-729) Glengary (34-1099) Clevenger -Cornwell House (34-1120) Fuller -Chapman House (34-1133) Clevenger-McKown House (34-1448) In addition to the above properties, we feel the following two properties are potentially eligible and warrant a phase II evaluation: Byers House (34-1124) 1113 Martinsburg Road (34-957) As stated in the report,.the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield has Ms. Fraley - 2 - October 1, 1992 already been determined eligible by this office. Therefore, no additional evaluation is necessary. However, the phase II report should included a final determination of effect for this property. We agree with your proposal that, for the purposes of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, all the above properties will be treated as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This agreement is conditioned on the understanding that all phase II evaluations will be completed prior to, and included within, the final Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, we are both of the understanding that the EIS process is not intended to replace the Section 106 review process. The following properties were also identified within the area of potential effect; however, your consultant has recommended, and we concur, that they do not appear to be potentially eligible: 34-112 34-319 34-320 34-329 34-396 34-397 34-398 34-402 34-423 34-454 34-455 34-703 34-704 34-705 34-707 34-721 34-724 34-727 34-728 34-950 34-951 34-952 34-953 34-954 34-955 34-956 34-981 34-984 34-1017 34-1067 34-1115 34-1116 34-1117 34-1118 34-1119 34-1121 34-1122 34-1123 34-1125 34-1126 34-1131 34-1136 34-1139 34-1143 34-1149 34-1150 34-1151 34-1152 34-1154 34-1155 34-1173 34-1174 34-1182 34-1185 34-1382 34-1383 34-1399 34-1447 34-1449 34-1450 34-1453 34-1455 34-1456 34-1533 34-1534 34-1535 34-1536 We look forward to receiving the final phase I report. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or if we can be of further assistance at this time. Sincqyely, H. Bry Mitc 11 Deputy ate 'storic Preservation Officer cc: Maral Kalbian E. T. Robb, Virginia Department of Transportation Bob Watkins, Frederick County ♦moo /` 4 / : �b �/ - JO , '. 'EY - ° - - �O 660' \ �.. ° \d`` ;' L✓ 0. Ed 6 574 �o r •\,;• �', .� _ lr\ _. err __ :r P 9 659 61 it to 57 If . 5821 ^1 •y 586 .. . C` h�'•1 . 645r )) Burnt°:: Factory • rt \ -/ O `� _ 660 1 tl 6°P — - dbud.- u h 55 - �'�� ,-! �\ / /- \ Dpi,' •'\ '/ :'�-�'�� .. 635 i'o L•? 550,\r .10 i '♦ • - I (� l j ' I - '+793 h � ESC �,_\�-' ♦ j t`ni ow _ -��� - I� ,- _ - -'� '� . cW ging Sta 'O - ._.�BM83 - `552 / c rrH C —�1� -.i' 'li - ill 4 I 'r' ♦ �'� - 4/ y S t / �,.�- r �\ ^ , _ � � _ f��\ - �� _ �• 635 'I �1 -: . - / Page No. 1 IPS (INTEGRATED PRESERVATION SOFTWARE) Melissa Zimmerman DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FORM DHR Idenfication Number: 034-1146 Other DHR Number: PROPERTY NAMES Red Bud School Property Date(s) 1870-1890 County/Independent City: Frederick State: Virginia Magisterial District: JSGS Quad Map Name: STEPHENSON UTMs of Boundary: ***************** Center UTM: ***************** Restrict location and UTM data? N ADDRESSES Number Thoroughfare Name Route 661, And Route 656 licinity: Town/Village/Hamlet: Name of National Register Historic District: Tame of DHR Eligible Historic District: Name of Local Historic District: Physical Character of General Surroundings: 'ite Description/Notable Landscape Features: >wnership: Seq . # # of 1.0 1 TOTAL: 1 Historic: 1 Non -Historic: 0 Tax Parcel: 09/17/1997 EXPLANATION Historic/Current Explanation Current NR Resource Type: Building WUZITS Wuzit Types School Historic? Historic PRIMARY RESOURCE EXTERIOR COMPONENT DESCRIPTION VIRGINIA DIVISION DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Negative no( 1146 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF 4" SURVEY FORM `y/Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COUNTY County FREDERICK xt address or route number At. Rt. 661 & Rt. 656 U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON .toric name Red Sud School Common name Red Bud School 'resent use CHURCH "ginal use SCHOOL -onstruction Materials \O-VVood frame 3\brick bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑ course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other 7 stone ❑ random rubble 13 composition siding ❑ coursed rubble ❑ stucco ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced J log: ❑ cast iron ❑ squared ❑ unsquared notching- otching❑ ❑ enameled metal 0V -notch ❑ half dovetail ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond ❑ concrete block terra cotta steel frame u other Madding Material German lap weatherboard 13 composition siding vertical siding ❑ stucco 7 board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl- siding shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass 1 bricktex ) other Building Style Vernacular gable end Building Date(s) ea.1f70-1890 3. Stories (number) 1 �ow basement ❑ raised basement 4s (number): front .t side (church) /1�1symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical 5. Roof Type ❑ shed ❑ parapet? gable pediment? ❑ parapet? ❑ clipped end? ❑ cross gable? ❑ central front gable? ❑ other 6. Roofing Material ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal? ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ gambrel ❑ flat ❑ parapet? ❑ roof not visible ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) J� wood tal standing seam ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the . ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped ❑ glazed 8. Primary Porch style Vernacular stories 1 levels full heictht bays 1 materials wood description and decorative details Enclosed w/ aluminum siding; hipped roof; double doors. 9, Gen ral,su pl mentary dtigtion a�d ti�corati�n: Boxed cornice int. ebric)°Clue; go i arc e ven window in front gable end; formed concrete foundation; ribbon 6/6 windows on side & 5 -panel door; cornerboards; side 10. Major additions and alterations: PHOTO Enclosed porch; enclosed window on rear elevation. 11. Outbuildings: None. 12. Landscape Features: At intersection of Rt. 661 & Rt. 656. 13. Significance: One of a series of country schools in county that stopped being used after the consolidation of the schools. Is now church for the House of Jacob. Surveyed by: M. KALBIAN & J.PERKINS Dom: 3/92 Primary Sources Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Published Sources Phone Scheel Is map of Frederick County, Va. 1974 Date Lake's Atlas of Frederick County, Va. 1885 Name Address Phone Daze Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan Historical Information -631 � \ N X30 p • •``�! r �� E6C — 6GG / — \ _ - ` SSG—'` o: l Shale Pit \ \ \ \ --e O 660,�i•,l ! c Ett,� 601 -` °G`Ford � 6� Burnt N, 6451; actoryv bud old Ce I�b—ud �57�1 \l �1 t,:h ( ,' !�.\ 't. -•QVC/� O 1,.- y _ _. - 64 r• I6VG o 656 \ _ M ;�• � 5 _ �`� \�O IU ;• _ /• _Jr v - c ^Park �-LbM. 36 65 -cry ging Sta It / 6q, 66/ lig — �� / .y G� llll L `, I __ �i -•� ' 65C • �� �'r _ 4. 600 �J�A 1,'. 1 a�r� �Al r : VIRGINIA 47 DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS NeeNg 34_ 11alitivv e nos . 116868 4 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM "/Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COUNTY County FREDERICK et address or route number Rt 661 U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON oric name Redbud Church Common name RF:d Bud Church 'resent use CLUBHOUSE - ?^'=al use rHUREH - --_ _�onstruetion Materials wood frame Nrick bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑ --course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other I stone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed rubble ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced L_J log: ❑ squared ❑ unsquared notching. ❑ V -notch ❑ half dovetail ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond ❑ concrete block erra cotta teel frame _., other ladding Material weatherboard ❑ composition siding ❑ rtical siding ❑ stucco I board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding I shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass bricktex other Building Style Vernacular Building Date(s) ca. 1870-1890 3. Stories (number) ow basement 4. , Bays (number): front 5. Roof Type ❑ shed parapet? gable pediment? ❑ parapet? ❑ clipped end? ❑ cross gable? ❑ central front gable? ❑ other 6. Roofing Material 1 ❑ raised basement — side (church) 3 ❑ asymmetrical ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal? ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ gambrel ❑ flat. ❑ parapet? ❑ roof not visible ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) Lod metal standing seam rrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped 8. Primary Porch style stories levels materials description and decorative details bays ❑ glazed 9. neral s lemenkvy descn ti n and deco on: Stone basement ; 2 front aP�grs w/ single transomsve; gable end re- turns w/ rounded vergeboard decoration; cornerboards;i plain friezeboard; half -circle attic _window in the 10. Major additions and alterations: flue. PHOTO Rear elevation has been rebuilt after fire in late 1980s. 11. Outbuildings: Modern outhouses. 12. Landscape Features: Cemetery both behind & to side of church, earliest stone dates to 1876, family names include: Dunn; Johnston; Gruber, Kline, Keller & Strickler. 13. Significance: Country church in very original condition w/ ori double entries & windows. Now used as Shenandoah clubhouse. Surveyed by: M. ICALBIAN & J.PERKINS Dom: 3/92 Primary Sources Published Sources Lake's Atlas of Frederick County Va. 1885. Scheel's map of Frederick County Va. 1974 Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan Iv Interviews Name Address Phone Daze Name Address Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Historical information `� _ � � Vim/ , � 1, - c� -�- ...- !/• o �..600� •/- 1 71-10 66 IF y Shale Pit 60 II b•!'171/ .� r- 6U .. - =7-`,� •� 61 �., ``Ford i CL O _ j r Ic n • `'� , •� _ . / •;� �� - y ' �� Frit . `/ Cebu rd e�d - \ / • U (� �'�.\ '� .O C Park J • _ O;. -� 6 - �rlO .i c r � ''�. �'. ,__•�\ 6451 _ / I l \ � 6 c 1 00 � I c �-� , �\ • . � . r� M� I 5 ging sta �: h r r i' -560 ��'r�""l ._�: �"•` -! - '� O �c �{ _ �/ i ! � - �'. � " ,�/ .•' �lJ" 650 �� � ' 8 � __ a'�'� r�i , ��� I {. ,— - �, � fir•` � it `_ �--_ �=5r�/� � � - - i`�� �•n / r'� ' o� :•• , tri r0 ��- ,= 0 r � 600\ .' �M _ - �'� Community Services Weekly Repo. 8 November 3, 2006 Heritage Education/Partnerships R. Turner attended the fall Board of Directors meeting of the Fairfield Foundation in Gloucester County. The foundation supports the preservation and interpretation of the Fairfield ruins and has an active archaeological research program at the site, with very extensive public education programs associated with the excavations_ C. Bowman initiated discussions with Terry Graham, APVA, about next year's APVA annual conference, including CLG training. Bob Carter responded to interview questions from Brian Kittler of the Chesapeake Bay Program regarding the role and effectiveness of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Working Group. NRPO provided a support letter to Jim Lawrence of the City of Winchester Parks and Recreation for the next round of funding from the transportation enhancement grants to provide another link to the city's Green Circle Project, which will connect historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in the community and provide a safe pedestrian and biking path around the city. Other Technical Assistance Joanie Evans received several phone calls from David Hibbard of Pennsylvania who was concerned about the lack of stewardship of a late -18th -century church, Redbud d 3 � United Methodist Church, located in Frederick County. The church includes a cemetery in which some of Mr. Hibbard's relatives are buried. The church was given to the Methodist Church Council by the United Brethren Church circa 1960, and it appears that the church has not been active since that time. According to Mr. Hibbard, the tombstones are in need of repair. Mr. Hibbard has contacted the Methodist Church with his concerns and is seeking funding to help in the repairs to the stones as well as the upkeep of the church. Evans provided him with architectural survey information from the DSS for the church as well as contact information for Partners for Sacred Places. NRPO received a visit by Diane Medley who is a trustee of an historic church located within the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District, Town of Stephens City, Frederick County. Ms_ Medley was concerned over the condition of the foundation of the church as well as exterior work that needed to be done on the building. Evans made a site visit to the church, which is down the street from the NRPO office. Funding for the work needed is also a concern. Evans informed her of the tax credit program and asked her to get in touch with Kyle Meyer regarding the program. Also she was given contact information for Partners for Sacred Places. Evans also made a site visit to another house located with the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District, Town of Stephens City, at the request of the owner. The house is being renovated for use as an express mail service_ Although the owner had expressed interest early on. in the tax credit program and information was given to her, it was observed that inappropriate work was being done to the building. Apparently the owner has had trouble finding contractors to do the work, and in an effort to opo, the business quicker, she and another helper have begun the work themselves. 'kit , t ii1 F �,o�t-�a }} iy® �� F• y bl'H,i I r SIS ', t �iS H °'T, Cp.{� ,fie. 1. ' Q tr. — kl i4 T OT IMF S!' R � �•."`�: ��� ��Y���y ver• :. k° �;,�` _ 4„�'�s►A t. ':� .,:. ir .,&+ f: '-^"fz+dr.ta^�'rj"r' "r►Fj! ..vJ�' n.:. >z'y ,� y`'+3t_. r -•�' $w (4� ,4f . Miis Xj .. 9 r - � e. p4^, � „_ y i 7e. �.1 ,ii i ►a ' y (� j , '� f'3. � � F ler 4 1 - P�`' � 1,� . 't N ti is E'• 1 _ sir �� ,-P11� �r. atG + :Q.,Nt� nJt Is, � �,�� a� "4� 1 .�•� y � +e. t � � q � ` '��¢ Fi �.fi� I s j ; �, EAfn11�7lAXc"` �-���+--, 3 t �%�' -~ "��'"` � i�- Y�•� a 1 s _ s a 4cFs:31 c,' 0 r� Church, By Linda McCarty Edition Staff Writer Red Bud Church closed around 1967, and when it caught on fire during Apple Blos- som Festival weekend six years ago, most people thought the end was at hand for the century -old building. Butitwasn't. The fire was extinguished and the building was saved—for what, no one was quite sure. The answer came last February, when The Shenandoah Club leased the church, which sits on a curve on Red Bud Road (Route 661) near its intersection with Route 656. According to the lease, the club is obligated to repair and maintain the building and the adjoining ceme- tery. Now, its boarded -up windows have been re- placed with panes of glass, fresh paint is being applied outside and inside, and the burned -out back wall has been repaired. The whole chunk is getting a facelift. According to PresidentJanie Whitacre, the The Shenandoah Club is for people recovering from addictions. Meetings are held at Red Bud Church on Sunday mornings at 11. Anyone in recovery is invited to attend. We've had people come by and offer to help damaged us. One man said he'd help paint and another said he'd mow the yard. They both have rela- tives buried in the cemetery," Whitacre said. Red Bud Church is on the mend. "It's coming along and we're real excited," said Whitacre. "We're goingto make it." Red Bud Church was built in 1882 by a If it could be restored the way it was when I was a kid, that would be wonderful. 75 Dorothy Zombro United Brethren congregation that originated from a revival held near Jordan Springs in 1875. Before building the church, the 40 con- verts met at other locations, including Red Bud School, which houses a church on the corner of Red Bud Road and Route 656. The congregation was never large, said for- mer member Olga Lanham, but it was able to make ends meet until the membership dropped to just a handflil. Mrs. Lanham and her husband Nevin were two of about eight people who were at the church for its last service. Although they can't recall what the sermon was about, they re- member there was Sunday School that day and a worship service. I had mixed feelings about it closing," she said. On the one hand, she said, it was a relief for such a small group not to have to struggle to meet the church's bills, but it was sad to see the church close. After its closing, the care of the church was placed in the hands of the trustees of Mount Pleasant United Methodist Church of Gerrard- stown, W.Va-, where the I-anhams are now members. Lanham, who is a trustee, has been given decision making authority for the church. He staid he was glad to see itbeing cared for again. The Lanhams recall good times at the church. Mrs. Lanham, 69, remembers going to Red Bud as a teenager. "I walked to church with my mother. We used to havehomecoming services and Christmas programs. It was a friendly country church. My mother and father are buried there." Lanham joined the church after the couple $40,000 raised for mobile class facelift married. He remembers when the church's kerosene chandelier: were vrired for electricity in the late 1950s. "We had two beautiful chandeliers. One had an angel in the middle of it," Mrs. Lanham said. Akerosenelamp that hung inthe church is now in the dining room of their Senseny Road home. Dorothy Dunn Zombro, 69, of Jackson Woods Estates, remembers the church in a different way. She remembers going to the Dunn family reunions held at the church, and she still has photographs of the gatherings. The last Dunn family reunion held at the church was following World War II. Mrs. Zombro, her husband, Jim, and their son, Jimmy, were there. The reunion before that was in October 1941, just two months before the country entered the war. The Dunn reunions lasted all day, with lots of reminiscing, visiting, and eating. In 1941, the family made an offering to help the church. According to a newpaper article describing the reunion, the offering was "very liberal." "That's wonderful," Mrs Zombro said when told of the church's repair. "If it could be re- stored the way it was when I was akid, that would be wonderful." Fall in Albin VIRGINIA 3 DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Negative n s . 114684 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM i Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COWTY County FREDERICK t address or route number Rt. 661 U.S.G.S. Quad STEPI-IENSON L..rricname Robert D. Keckley Cornmonnarne Keckley, Robert D. Nouse -esent use RESIDENTIAI. Building Style Vernacular gable end nal useRESIDF,NTIAI. Building Date(s) ca.1920s wnstruction Materials {wood frame 3. Stories (number) I \12(low basementsplit level raised basement 4. Bays (number): front 2 side (church) ❑ symmetrical asymmetrical brick bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish 5. Roof Type ❑ _-course American ❑ stretcher ❑ shed ❑ hipped ❑ otherparapet? ❑ pyramidal? stone ❑ random rubble gable ❑ mansard ' pediment? ❑ false mansard ❑ coursed rubble ❑ parapet? ❑ gambrel ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ clipped end? ❑ flat ❑ rock -faced ❑ cross gable? ❑ parapet? IJ log: ❑ central front gable? ❑ roof not visible ❑ squared ❑ unsquared ❑ other notching. 6. Roofing Material ❑ V -notch ❑ half dovetail ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond ❑ shingle concrete block ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) era cotta :eel frame ❑ wood metal J other standing seam corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) adding Material ❑ we German la weatherboard p ❑ composition siding ❑ pantile ❑ flat 11 glazed ❑ slate ❑ vertical siding ❑ stucco ❑ not visible board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding 7. Dormers (number): front side shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ shed ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ hipped bricktex 8. PrimarY� Porch style Vernacular stories 1 ' levels full height bays 2 other materials wood, glass description and doratiye de Enclosed w/ triple/1 windows & 3 -light door on brick foundation; hipped roof; exposed rafter i ends. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 1/1 attiq win- dow in gable front; formed concrete basement; side bulkhead basement entry; 1/1 windows; exposed rafter ends; int. brick flue. 10. Major additions and alterations: PHOTO Side 1 -story shed -roofed bathroom addition w/ 6/1 window & exposed rafter ends; enclosed rear porch on concrete block; enclosed front porch. 11. Outbuildings: Frame shed. 12. Landscape Features: Right off road; mature trees. 13. Significance: One of few vernacular gable end dwellings from this period on this road. Built by Robert Keckley in the 1920s who also owned house next door (34-1145). Now owned by Bonnie Sue Keckley. Surveyed by: M. KA BIAN & J.PERKINS Dom: 3/92 Primary Sauces Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Published Sources Phone Date Name Address Phone Date Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan I Sketch of Site Plan Historical Information I i � Sly �// /�: 1 � � \ \tea} -^ ` \• �. r -'., . o '- ''., `- . - �\ _ - �% ._ / \ ` UDI .��;_ C S,.?, �^ ��; �• �••• \\4 O ,'_ '- �•E05 ._ -7.6/7 tY a j - c�j 1 Shale �• °y - / ; _— .—�� Pit O 1' fed• 650 CeI _j ,� ,I � •'. � 'f;. ' C3 vt fµ _ _ 6 � !, -::'` , _ •���_�, BsrnC ; mrd v dbud 661 =O //� . _ 1. .� • i 15 5 ,. �(•, j . (- f t 71 59 r:: j ! Park 'f5m Of I � 645 rami o M . 'Ling Sta 650�'�'� � yj _ i _ s�`%9` � ." �� , �' . / �6 . - �\a r • ' C �� � 600 =1�y ) ,;� '4,?- iv> VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS File no. 34_ 1141 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF Negative n s . 11683 ,11684 SURVEY FORM y/Town/ Village/ Hamlet RURAL, COUNTY xt address or route number Rt. 661 tntoric name resent use AP,ANDONED ginal use RESIDENTIAL Construction Materials 11�woodfrane Heavy timber frame w/ 3brick stone nogging. bond: D English ❑ Flemish ❑ course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other L-7 stone ❑ random rubble ❑ composition siding ❑ coursed rubble % `stucco ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced ❑ log: ❑ cast iron ❑ squared D unsquared notching. ❑ enameled metal ❑ V -notch ❑ half dovetail ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond concrete block terra cotta steel frame 11 other Gadding Material D weatherboard ❑ composition siding 77 vertical siding % `stucco 1 board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding 3 shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass I bricktex ] other PHOTO County FREDERICK U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON Common name Miller, Charles H. House Building Style Vernacular I—house Buildine Date(sl ca.1890-1910 3. Stories (number) 2 Flow basement ❑ raised basement 4. ys (number): front side (church) ,symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical 5. Roof Type D shed parapet? gable pediment? ❑ parapet? ❑ clipped end? ❑ cross gable? O central front gable? ❑ other ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal? ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ gambrel ❑ flat ❑ parapet? ❑ roof not visible 6. Roofmg Material ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) wood m tal standing seam ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ glazed ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped 8. Primary Porch style Folk Victorian stories I i levels full height bays 1 materials wood descn tion and decorative details SgBare supports; hipped roof; brackets & pendants) in eaves; plain friezeboards. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 2/2 & f/6 win doves; int. end chimney; gable end returns; 4 -light attic window in gable end; stone basement / side bulkhead entry; rear 1 -story gabled wing w ext. end 10. Major additions and alterations: Enclosed porch; new flue flue, weather enclosed side 11. Outbuildings: Frame meathouse w/ overhang; outhouse; chicken coop; shed; garage. 12. Landscape Features: Right off road; some mature trees & bushes. 13. Significance: Unusual building material, heavy timber framing w/ stone nogging under stucco siding in a vernacular I -house form. Surveyed by: M. KALBIAN & J. PERKINS Dom: 3/92 Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan ❑ bl� Historical Information aMq iA Em v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COMM( GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIVIS10 �/ 30 74900 E. INWOOD a M,. �st) 750 BUNKER N,u 6 au- 151 5' 752 St all; h Bm eM.. GIB. { Ab Rest Area,.- ` 1 �i 633 8367 �+ O ` /Trailer Park v _ 6 /yl - �606// BM _--`Emmanu;Ch <+ b02 - /�S *f ��`\�,� Trader Stephenson y J / ) Park ; 664 fTrailer • /. % i -. / Park 817 _;�� — •/ . J •�,�. li • ^J _• \ _ _ •11 `6 �' /� ' , H •".•., 623 '`�/\) rl• \ 1� - Il h5 .662 / / 66Ace� 161 BM 637 r i burn It If 51 6/4 c• �, ✓ :.p _ - I - ..;c li rinitY BM e 520 �• Semin � '\ ;'�•' -a�`I' 1' _ l/ 600 /� tl� pd Shale Pit 4�'s 0 661 •'./ - .itec \ ui' �. _ bp°'V a.e'µ �• / _ ; (\\ 4 5 _ 0 • t • - tib_ _ .-V G �`_ y fit l� jiaV. 4 Ford o its (Town/ Village/ Hamlet RURAL COUNTY I :t address or route number Rt.. 661 )ric name resent use RF.SIDENTII-J ri6mal use RESIDENTIAL. onstruction Materials wood frame bnck bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑ -course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other stone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed rubble ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Negative no( 11683 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORINT log: ❑ squared notching. ❑ V -notch ❑ saddle ❑ square I concrete block :rra cotta teel frame tether ❑ unsquared ❑ half dovetail ❑ full dovetail ❑ diamond adding Material U weatherboard composition siding El vertical siding /❑`stucco - board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass bricktex other PHOTO County FREDERICK U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON Common name Culp House Building Style Vernacular I -house Buildine Date(s) ea. 1890-1920 3. Stories (number) 2 low basement split level,'Zr--d basement 4. Bays (number): front 3 side (church) � symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical 5. Roof Type ❑ shed ❑ parapet? Viable � `p pediment? ❑ parapet? ❑ clipped end? ❑ cross gable? ❑ central front gable? ❑ other 6. Roofing Material ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal? ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ gambrel ❑ flat ❑ parapet? ❑ roof not visible ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) ❑ wood m tatanding seam ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped ❑ glazed 8. Primary Porch style Vernacular stories 1 levels full height bays 1 materials wrought iron desc tion d dec tali a details Hippea root; SY curve wrought iron supports; sawn pendants. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 2/2 windows; int. brick flue; stone foundation covered w/ brick e ee tl asement wintton lar ttic vents in gable nd g d ws� gabie end returns; rear i - 10. Major additions and alterations:titdi yauleu �usu�icii� Cii�iy. New siding; new brick veneer in fVont• new front poral new louvered shutters; enclosed side] -story porches z 2/2 & ribbon 1/1 windows; new side 1 -story porch. 11. Outbuildings: Frame chicken coop; frame garage. 12. Landscape Features: Right off Road; mature trees. 13. Significance: Vernacular I -house w/ rear 2 -story ell. Has been moderately altered. Surveyed by: M KALBIAN & J. PERKINS Dom' 3/92 Primm7 Sources Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Published Sources Phone Daze Name Address Phone Date Pian and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan I Historical Information UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COM] GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIV1S 3- 7'30" 74900Dm-E. I B nal. 81, 750 BUNKER HILL 6 MI. 751 5' 752 54 Stwall: ,\ - - /^'-Y';bi%'mac% m.N_ .. .-•.�II '�' - -f"=Pit=��' J QF,I 5.- Eb 8__ ,moi"'',.! c- 61 Rest Area,, 633 �36j• Freye ./ r, 1. /i railer Pa Park �^ / r7 ---- W b.BM , BM �6ti - 110 t 606 s- % E6manv_e1Ch t •'i ^602 .• ;/( s\� - -- L T ailer ;'r' • .Stephenson rry%Park\.c'��\ _:_;� / �P - 6661 �•'--•�.;' ,-, ___) �-' • .l railer <• � , � i3 Park / ' _, • / - E 575 7 5- r ti i', D 't: ; 662 // / u .'�, � . G > • \� •11 /, i l /Gt- �'__-. 623 �• - BM '---moi ii �� / �� �.�,� �11t: inau(J'j:,,� \==. \ice- ` BM 63 \\ Alf 7,.\` a / ❑ O 59/ \1� l ) / - r .1-' ^�' �• 1600- „F ., / .. \ � ` 634 r 1 1 c \� 4✓ V Y. bot il• �. \�\s.`.- '`. C\ 30 C) 66 y, Shale kUhl/ e -665 �\ Pit i ..l• /. , :641 ,' _ — •.� �� O 660 ,: \ G 661 6 _6.. - - 'a ..J. _ ) --•I - I',r ;(�l ;. �! J1 fit.. ¶lo i�! ! ;l', 9 / l� � =,1� 1, �1 VV ,/ I�O•i.U• ` • :-�.�__ C 0.1 �1 .0 1!/ ^�, Irl r t /; '�•� . ° - __ A56 >_ CC � �e vA_,Aj Nigure 2: Map Shentel Redbud site (#46A) showing the project area and the locations of shovel tests excavated during Phase I survey; data sources: 2003 NA -1p aerial imagery andproject design files produced by Dynatek Telecommunications Services. 0 I . . . . . . . . . . . I COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Hugh C- Miller. Director Department of Historic Resources TDD: (804) 786-1934 221 Governor Street Telephone (804) 786-3143 October 1, 1992 FAX: (804) 225-4261 - Richmond Vir¢inia 23219 Ms. Monika Fraley Comprehensive Planner Maguire Associates Inc. 770 Lynnhaven Parkway, Suite 240 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 RE: Draft Architectural Survey Report Route 37, Frederick County VDHR File No. 91-445-F Dear Ms. Fraley: Thank you for providing us with a draft copy of the Phase I Architectural Survey Report for the above referenced project. The report was prepared in August 1992 by Maral S. Kalbian. The report provides a description of the project's goals, methodology, fieldwork, results and recommendations. The level of effort and resulting report are. consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Archaeoloav and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716 - 44742). We acknowledge and appreciate Maral's use of our recently issued guidelines for survey reports and historic contexts. As you know, our staff evaluation team has recently reviewed the phase I survey of the eighty-two properties within the area of potential effect. We concur with the recommendation that the following properties are potentially eligible and warrant a phase II evaluation: Mill Bank (34-5) Valley Mill Farm (34-108) Sulfur Spring Spa (34-110) Hilandale (34-126) Frederick Hall (34-143) Carysbrook Redoubt (34-32) Hilandale Earthworks (34-321) Parkins Mill Battery (34-458) Thomas McCann House (34-729) Glengary (34-1099) Clevenger -Cornwell House (34-1120) Fuller -Chapman House (34-1133) Clevenger-McKown House (34-1448) In addition to the above properties, we feel the following two properties are potentially eligible and warrant a phase II evaluation* Byers House (34-1124) 1113 Martinsburg Road (34-957) As stated in the report, the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield has Ms. Fraley - 2 - October 1, 1992 already been determined additional evaluation is should included a final property. eligible by this office. Therefore, no necessary. However, the phase II report determination of effect for this We agree with your proposal that, for the purposes of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, all the above properties will be treated as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This agreement is conditioned on the understanding that all phase II evaluations will be completed prior to, and included within, the final Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, we are both of the understanding that the EIS process is not intended to replace the Section 106 review process. The following properties were also identified within the area of potential effect, however, , �c©�nzs=1t"at his r�cotmmN. r�dh;a rind,; hat:e'�- ,fin 034-112 34-319 34-396 34-397 34-398 34-423 34-454 34-455 34-704 34-705 34-707 34-724 34-727 34-728 34-951 34-952 34-953 'H 34-955 34-956 34-981 34-1017 34-1067 34-1115 .. 34-1117 34-1118 34-1119 34-1122 34-1123 34-1125 34-1131 34-1136, 34-1149 34-115034-1151 34-1154 34-1155 34-1173 34-1182 34-1185 34-1382 34-1399 34-1447 34-1449 34-1453 34-1455 34-1456 34-1534 34-1535 34-1536 We look forward to receiving the final let us know if you have any additional of further assistance at this time. 34-329 34-402 34-703 34-721 34-950 34-954 34-984 3034-1116 34-1121 34-1126 34-1143 34-1152 34-1174 34-1383 34-1450 34-1533 k(e phase I report. Please questions or if we can be Sinc#ely, H. Bryan Mitc 11 Deputy ate storic Preservation Officer cc: Maral Kalbian E. T. Robb, Virginia Department of Transportation Bob Watkins, Frederick County UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COM GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIMS 7,30'I �490mf°E. lNWOOD B M/- 61 �5O BUNKER HILL 6 Ml. 751 rj751 St wall, r'� -�:�• 618.` �``-Cr,- - - RestAreaArea 1, -633 83f 1 !b J to L) IT - u p�f ; `� / railer a. .BM - f% .'M gi �606,ark 02;6Eimanuel L Trailer.Stephenson - C�uarry �� /Park. - -✓; _ _ / •' r '� �> 664 / - - - -- ' ��`a l � \ . <.;_.."� / .Trailer \� i? Park sus 837) • < \4e, \r tr- '��` 662 I' �� a :'•�.. .• •• - ��• �t 17 l �/ �in N '__-. C� hi e n .662 •- / ° /664'. ) am 63 ilburn I % a .� ; ( j0i `-� - N. , loi:.• 5 J'•', 1600. c fill o - %:' 634` ; • '.( `\ ,'. �' -- .. �_-- •' -- / 11 - .� ; .'\, , j 630 j - 'L� H rin ity opo 10 — u Y Shale GX - „ 660 lo 60 J VV A'S61 � 6 ' 1 I - •n ?9a,' In j )t ''J/ J '�_ - A° _ T _ �1 VIRGINIA File no. 34-1139 �'' '_I HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Negative no(s).1168-1 SURVEY FORM iiStOric name Louis Kemp Common name Kemp -Gruber -Jobe House - bunty/Town/City Frederick .street address or route number Off Rt. 662 USES Quad Stephenson Date or period ca.. - , ca. - -)riginal owner Architect/builder/craftsmen hivincl use residential resent owner Allen Jobe Source of name Lake's Atlas/owner Present owner address Source of date architectural evidence Stories 2 resent use Abandoned Foundation and wall const'n log on stone foundation .creage 26 Rooftype stabled w/ standing spam metal State condition of structure and environs Poor ;tate potential threats to structure Neglect Note any archaeological interest Unknown huuld be investigated for possible register potential? yes — no X ..rchitectural description (Note significant features of plan, structural system and interior and exterior decoration, taking care to point out aspects not visible or clear from photographs. Explain nature and period of all alterations ^nd additions. List any outbuildings and their approximate ages, cemeteries, etc.) The Kempt-Gruber-Jobe House is an example of early 19th. century 2 -story vernacular V -notch log construction w/ suggested Greek Revival details. It may have originally been a 12 -story dwelling which was later raised Mut I was unable to examine the upper floor to confirm this. It is hall/parlor in plan w/ a side 11 -2 -story log kitchen wing, all on a low stone basement. The 2 wings share a large chimney w/ a stone hearth and a brick flue. Decorative details include 9/6 windows on the 1st floor and 6/6 in the upper story, a 4 -light transom above the door, and a boxed cornice. The front porch is a 2 -story full height pedimented portico w/ square supports. To the rear of the main house is a 2 -story balloon frame ell w/ horizontal 2/2 windows, an int. end brick flue, and stone basement. It has a side 1 -story enclosed porch. A side 1 -story concrete block shed -roofed wing w/ horizontal 2./2 windows has also been added. Outbuildings include the ruins of a small log structure behind the house which may have been the original meathouse. A ca.1924 frame barn and machine shed are located east of the house. The. property sits on 26 acres and is set back_ from Rt. 662. A modern house now occupies the front of the lot. There is a pond nearby and several mature trees. This is one of the oldest properties in the area an a fine example of the vernacular Greek Revival style expressed in log construction. However the property has been abandoned and neglected for many years and is quickly falling into ruin. Inleriorinspected? No. i ;torical significance (Chain of title; individuals, families, events, etc., associated with the property.) Previous owners: Louis Kemp ca. 1885 Gruber Jobe, Allen Form No. VHLC-01-004 Sources and bibliography Published sources (Books, articles, etc., with bibliographic data.) Primary sources (Manuscript documentary or graphic materials; give location.) Lake's Atlas of Frederick County Va., 1885 Names and addresses of persons interviewed Plan (Indicate locations of rooms, doorways, windows, alterations, etc.) Site plan.(Locate and identify outbuildings, dependencies and significant topographical features.) �f_ - I I I T f It TH } i 1-4 '14- 1._ f t I. t I • i LI I iI-.{ i �i�ii �i I � F -I -I r I{ -r•� F 1 I i ''t 1 1 'It. • � ' � IsxJA ��.�� l,iipl't r>" 4f C '�"x I'�P�y*y� t 11 ��u' , +r-I�.w t^u9' �XA,. t{ : M1� � � �1J c! i..,6 yry��' 1` •� i ti's : �_ 'tel 44 [I, :�t•-r�4t��„J r�l��,C�`Fi f�P�� 4 �'�.. �a .. �� r YfKty7�I n1«�3a r.1�9rz N4��lil Mlit �g'i 5 �¢h i, n OR, �- ._ s 43I3"`" _ i , ,. �-1-yw+�' fi& i aul�t'"�'Liv 'h1 r11 .des.",.<�•,`*�,��w�.`'l'.,ge:.+is i_'ati 1'kA Ci ,M1 i ...��..x�iW ' f rr t 6W�1 I' I I ,•. - _ _ ' : �. _-�_`_ � --rn-jam]=.:, '�`:v` ,.. :s• a^�_-^a�".3 n `` 1 �� � �,�.�k d°' 4x' `���{�k`,ry,'f� � es ^1 �'•r- t. t ' ,<} "' -°@%s. k L .'.'v. l ,. � e�di �,�aF t �.��A�T� r. •y'^,�„� 4C 7�+F i,� .�a.�. b � a,.ia? • !r , ,X.. .�' �. "Em PL'S"01rS,' . 1 "llev.+r- I I r q I ^ y - a � r; i t::7 j as �. �7f VERGI VIA File no. 34— 1376 _I 3 DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Ne alive n s . 11717 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM 'itv/Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COUNTY County FREDERICK i :t address or route number Off Rt. 661 U.S.G.S. Quad Stephenson I otic name John Huntsberry (Lake's Atlas) Common name Huntsberry, John House 'resent use APANDONED Building Style Vernacular 2 -door original use RESIDENTIAL Building Date(s) mid 19th century, late 19th C. onstruction Materials 'Ii�Yood frame brick bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑ course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other stone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed rubble ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced Ilog: ❑ squared ❑ unsquared notching. ❑ vertical siding ❑ V -notch ❑ half dovetail ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond :1 concrete block ❑ asbestos 7 erra cotta ❑ asphalt teel frame Cbricktex ither I other ladding Material firman lap originally weatherboard ❑ composition siding ❑ vertical siding ❑ stucco * board & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass Cbricktex ❑ other I other 3.St ri-�e-s (number) 2 basement split level , raised basement 4. Bays (number): front 4 side (church) ❑ symmetrical asymmetrical 5. Roof Type ❑ shed ❑ hipped parapet? ❑ pyramidal? able ❑ mansard ❑ pediment? ❑ false mansard ❑ parapet? ❑ gambrel ❑ clipped end? ❑ flat ❑ cross gable? ❑ parapet? ❑ central front gable? ❑ roof not visible ❑ other 6. Roofing Material ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) Inmeta! ding seam ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped ❑ glazed 8. Primary Porch style VernaeuI ar stories 1 levels full haj�ht bays materials wood descri ton and decorative details Hipped roof w/ standing seam metal. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: Windows missing, 2 front doors. Rear wing on brick foundation has been demolished -appears to have been older section of house' but most of original framing (logs?) have been removed,1. had a slate roof; front framed section is on stone foundation w/ side basement entry. PHOTO Has 4 -light attic windows in gable ends, gable end re- turns; rear int. end flue; Victorian cornerblock sur - Il. Outbuildings:l raunas on rnL. wlncrvws acurs. Ruins of meathouse behind house; 3 frame sheds. 12. Landscape Features: Set on hill above banks of Redbud Run. 13. Significance: Has been abandoned for several years. Older portion of house which sat on a brick foundation has been demolished. The remaining frame late 19th C. section is a vernacular 2 -door & is in poor condition. Surveyed by: M. KALHIAN & J. PERKINS Date: 1/92 Primary Sources Interviews Name Address Phone Date Name Address Published Sources Phone Lake's Atlas of Frederick County Va. 1885. Date Plan and Massing (Note original features, additions, and alterations) Drawing of Plan Sketch of Site Plan 0 T-1 Name Address Phone Date Historical Information 6662 u j i 665 Pite 64r,Shal ° -,=�' / - ..�•1_. , `_` .- 12 / \ C1 660 11: r 11 '��, � /%�����'l'/(C �: 1,v .1. \ - 60 td 4343 4. �\\ n• ' u J '`:! -r-` �:. Soo_ 86 .. !' / ?e 62 ✓ Burnt,"; �. bas/, 4342 lactor elm 1', rt...aM -- y\•'Sri ,i' i. • r `,{. 'tel. � - r • ` 1 • � r, J`-'f ° .r, �.�`ord�, fir•• N�dJ� ` 1 7i �'I� _:-_'�..`_ ,'%�•(Ce u -_ �— 1 dbud 661•, li //' i � - � .o' QJ 3 I 2 Vtii•II'IJ I _ �57�6�� 3 W It 4 j�• •/ 1:1 °� M Q - . u00 a \ i`` Q1 N\\ it - All -64 650 1645 65 v� 3,bging Staff 4340 .� _ f. '—'•(�"�..J 650 _ f }� r� �, �` ! All u ��. 656 bs' ` � �.. - �� `' {, '- _ %'"1i .� ..,� _ -'�/ �• .•\� u / / ' N !'I 0 m' "_ •i °• - O 1111 \`�, oC'' , ..:Greenwood I �� � `' I . 'I p '�' � \.I: I• � ` ' Ch l 65 . '•-'>=-'�.•..�. 7 , ..: , - _ o� x 6 2/ \� � (J; a• _ , •, 1 ' i '�J c i �•�F � IIR�' �ip{�` 'I "�,�yi°'°*jam `'._,'1-,••� .t ism / ®'" �_ Yc� •-1 �. i i f •711 � , y .� - I.,,.,. � .� _ S a • �: tr r F" —k �CEFap a15E`!�i{!11. ' �g ��. 6lk�{ C `REEK { { { { ais s� l�l� c i " r 1 0 , Gk: : = e. t •_ nil �•axiPIT !�4lfl 111th,!�! {13ofd* ;aaCGll9 a4ll BEIE {c{{ 'I'll R�f'y5]9eiE6' t {{;� j${ ! a" 6i'` 1 u y _m� 1 1 /��s�=O - Pi,>F -'G f. , sy=, Il ys l y•,� t �a f , Cfi6gY r l,a(!ry llr� C [�}��s {[��� �4 :"• !`, ��' E �°` �'"q+ ��.S46,YQ.. .SP1�rb ism r! a L! C E 6 { R i iIst, p t{„t* ��i'E�6� it r�'.��'Y�'. '• � : ` _ � . _ -7.�`, ” ��ll€1!{.1$-a ilt, a ipi �$�{ � @l Rim a � til B� 1p I,{ a 6' {''`,. p '4 l.�ultcjlt@{ {1 : ` r � f a- Y¢ � •�. ' •- 'tK. �: ��, `�� ���, i MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, AND THE VIRGINIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING THE ROUTE 37 BYPASS, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO 36 CFR § 800.6(a) WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), has determined that the construction of the Route 37 Bypass (Winchester Bypass), Frederick County, Virginia (FHWA-VA EIS; VDOT 0037-034-102, PE100) will have an effect on the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield, the Milburn Rural Historic District, Camp Russell Historic District, Clevenger/McKown House, Glengary, archaeological sites 44FK452, 44FK539, 44FK63, 44FK397, and ??, properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (VA SHPO) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 (the Act), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800); and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the County of Frederick (the County) have participated in the consultation, and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the VA SHPO agree that should the FHWA proceed with the undertaking, the FHWA will ensure that the following stipulations are implemented to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties. Stipulations The FHWA will ensure the following stipulations are implemented: A. StenhencnnIs i pul Battlefield - During final design plans, all attempts feasible and prudent will be made to avoid any physical encroachment within the boundaries of this historic property. Should avoidance be feasible and prudent, final design plans will be forwarded to the VA SHPO for comments within 30 calendar days of confirmed receipt. If no comments are received within the comment period, the FHWA and VDOT will assume concurrence. Should FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, deem complete avoidance of the historic property not feasible and prudent, the following efforts to mitigate effects within the Battlefield may include, but are not limited to: 1) design of a depressed roadway 2) public interpretative pull -offs The design of a depressed roadway through the historic property, as well as the locations of public interpretative pull -offs, will be coordinated by FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, with the VA SHPO and the County. Final design plans will be forwarded to the VA SHPO for comments within 30 calendar days of confirmed receipt. If no comments are received within the comment period, the FHWA and VDOT will assume concurrence. B. Milburn Rural ui5t„ric District - During final design plans, all attempts feasible and prudent will be made to shift the alignment to the south bank of the North Branch of Hiatt (Lick) Run. Should this alignment shift be feasible and prudent, final design plans will be forwarded to the VA SHPO for comments within 30 calendar days of confirmed receipt. If no comments are received within the comment period, the FHWA and VDOT will assume concurrence. Should FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, deem the alignment shift is not feasible and prudent, the following efforts to mitigate effects within the Rural Historic District may include, but are not limited to: 1) design of a depressed roadway 2) public interpretative pull -offs The design of a depressed roadway through the historic property, as well as the locations of public interpretative pull -offs, will be coordinated by FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, with the VA SHPO and the County. Final design plans will be forwarded to the VA SHPO for comments within 30 calendar days of confirmed receipt. If no comments are received within the comment period, the FHWA and VDOT will assume concurrence. C. Cama Russell Historic District - This district is comprised of Hilandale House (34-126), the Hilandale Earthworks (archaeological site 44FK63; 34-321), and the archaeological site of Camp Russell (44FK539). The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will develop landscape plans to reduce the visual effect of the undertaking on the Hilandale House. Specifically, the landscape will be installed between Hilandale House and the closest portion of the undertaking. The VA SHPO will be afforded an opportunity to comment on the final landscape plans prior to their implementation for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days. The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will develop and implement a treatment plan to mitigate the effects of the undertaking on the Hilandale Earthwork and the archaeological site of Camp Russell. These plans will be developed in consultation with the VA SHPO and will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Slandards and. uidelingg for Ar_ ch_eological Dentation (48 FR 44734-37) and will take into account the Councils publication Treatment of Archa olo al Properties (1980), subject to any pertinent revisions the Council may make in the publication prior to implementation of the treatment. The plans will specify, at a minimum: • the property or portions of the property where data recovery is to be carried out: • the research questions to be addressed through the data recovery, with an explanation of their relevance and importance; • the methods to be used, with an explanation of their relevance to the research questions; • the methods to be used in analysis, data management, and dissemination of data, including a schedule; • the proposed disposition of recovered materials and records; • proposed methods by which local government and other interested groups will be kept informed of the work and results of the data recovery; • a proposed schedule for the submission of progress reports to the VDOT, the FHWA, and the VA SHPO. The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will submit the treatment plans to the VA SHPO for comments within 30 calendar days of confirmed receipt. Unless the VA SHPO objects within that comment period, the FHWA, in conjunction with VDOT, will ensure they are implemented. D" Clevengerrn�rrronn Houma _ The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will develop a landscape plan that will mitigate the undertakings visual effects on this historic property. The VA SHPO will be afforded an opportunity to comment on the final landscape plans prior to their implementation for a period not to Part 800.6(c)(2) with reference only to the subject of the dispute; the responsibility of the FHWA to carry out all actions under this agreement that are not subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged 2) Amendment - Any party to this MOA may propose to the other parties that it be amended, whereupon the parries will consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5(e) to consider such an amendment. Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and implementation of its terms evidence that the FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the project and its effects on historic properties, and that the FHWA has considered the effect of the undertaking on historic properties. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Roberto Fonseca -Martinez, Division Administrator VIRGINIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER H. Alexander Wise, Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer Concur: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Earl T. Robb, Environmental Division Administrator COUNTY OF FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Accept: ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Executive Director Date Date Date Date Date exceed 30 calendar days. Unless the VA SHPO objects within the comment period, the FHWA, in. conjunction with VDOT, will ensure they are implemented. E. lenga - The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will develop a landscape plan that will mitigate the undertakings visual effects on this historic property. Specifically, the landscape plan will reestablish the existing tree line between the undertaking and Glengary by Redbud Run. The VA SHPO will be afforded an opportunity to comment on the final landscape plans prior to their implementation for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days. Unless the VA SHPO objects within the comment period, the FHWA, in conjunction with VDOT, will ensure they are implemented. F. Archaeolo ical site 44FK397 - The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will ensure that an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (48 FR 44738-9) monitors construction at this property. At a minimum, such monitoring will include recording and reporting of major features or artifact concentrations uncovered, and recovery/curation of a sample remains uncovered where practicable. The monitoring will be coordinated, not less than 10 working days prior to construction, with the VA SHPO. G. Archaeological site daFuggZ _The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will develop and implement a data recovery plan for this property. These plans will be developed in consultation with the VA SHPO and will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's StandaEds and Guideline5 for Archaeological DOcllmentatinn (48 FR 44734-37) and will take into account the Council's publication, Treatment of Archaeologal Properties (1980), subject to any pertinent revisions the Council may make in the publication prior to implementation of the treatment. The plans will specify, at a minimum: • the property or portions of the property where data recovery is to be carried out: • the research questions to be addressed through the data recovery, with an explanation of their relevance and importance; • the methods to be used, with an explanation of their relevance to the research questions; • the methods to be used in analysis, data management, and dissemination of data, including a schedule; • the proposed disposition of recovered materials and records; • proposed methods by which local government and other interested groups will be kept informed of the work and results of the data recovery; • a proposed schedule for the submission of progress reports to the VDOT, the FHWA, and the VA SHPO. The FHWA, in cooperation with VDOT, will submit the treatment plans to the VA SHPO for comments within 30 calendar days of confirmed receipt. Unless the VA SHPO objects within that comment period, the FHWA, in conjunction with VDOT, will ensure they are implemented. ML 1) Dispute Resolution - Should the VA SHPO object within specified comment periods to the final plans for this undertaking (Stipulations A-E above), the monitoring (Stipulation F above), or the archaeological data recovery plan (Stipulation G above), the FHWA will consult with the objecting party to resolve the objection. If the FHYY'A determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the FHWA will request the further comments of the Council pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6(b). Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into account by the FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR UL COMMONWEALTH of VIRC1T,TIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 87 DEACON ROAD ®AVID R. GEHA EDERICKSBURG, VA 22405 COMMISSIONER FRDAVID E. OGLE March 27, 1997 DISTRICT ADMINISTRATC Ms. Cara H. Metz Virginia Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Rt. 37, Winchester Bypass VDHR File: 91-0445 County: Frederick Funding: Frederick County Funding; Federal funding anticipated; Dear Ms. Metz: The above project was initiated with your office in 1991. Since that time, the undertaking has been assessed through an Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by Michael Baker, Inc. (formerly Maguire Associates, Inc.) for Frederick County and a build alternative selected. It is anticipated by Frederick County that the end result of the EIS will be a completed NEPA document that is acceptable to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDO and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Portions of the Section 106 review process have also been handled through Michael Baker, Inc.'s subconsultants, James Madison University and Gray & Pape, Inc. However, due to the atypical approach of this County -driven environmental documentation, the VDOT has offered to assist in the interpretation of Frederick County's cultural resource data and the Section 106 coordination. Therefore, because this is a complex project, we would like to discuss only eligibility at this time. Once the issue of eligibility has been agreed upon, then we can progress to determinations of effect. This letter will discuss only the architectural and archaeological resources identified along the area of potential effect for the Candidate Build Alternative (CBA) C, the alignment selected through the NEPA process. As the other alternatives are no longer under consideration, the resources identified along them will not be addressed. ARCHITECTURE The Phase I Ar .hi=ral Survey report written by Maral S. Kalbian (1992 & 1993) identified several properties on CBA C that warranted a Phase II evaluation or had previously been determined eligible; yn„r office commented or, October 1, 1992 arjul august 6, 1996. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Rt. 37, Winchester Bypass VDHR File: 91-0445 County: Frederick Funding: Frederick County Funding; Federal funding anticipated Page 2 In the accompanying report entitled Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations, Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia (1997) written by Gray & Pape, Inc. there are detailed investigations for Millbank (34-5), Glengary (34-1099), Milburn -McCann House (34-729), and the Byers House (34-1124). All four properties are recommended eligible for listing in National Register of Historic Places. The Clevenger -Cornwall House (34- 1120), previously determined potentially eligible, was demolished by the owner prior to the Phase II evaluation. Attached are maps illustrating the proposed National Register boundaries for each property. In addition, Gray & Pape survey also identified one potential rural historic district (Milburn Rural Historic District) and one historic district (Camp Russell Historic District). RESOURCE NAME Hilandale (34-126) Hilandale Earthwork (34-321) Clevenger-McKown House (34-1448) Millbank (34-5) Glengary (34-1099) Milburn -McCann House (34-729) Byers House (34-1124) Clevenger -Cornwall House (34-1120) Stephenson's Depot Battlefield (34-720) Milburn Rural Historic District Camp Russell Historic District ARCHAEOLOGY NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY Yes (individual and contrib. element to Camp Russell H.D.) Yes (individual and contrib. element to Camp RusseII H.D.) Yes Yes Yes Yes (individual and contrib. element to Milburn Rural H.D.) iia mnd contrib. element to Milburn Rural H.D.) Demolished by owner Yes Yes; includes Milburn (34-729), Byers (34-1124), Helm (34- 703), Milburn Chapel & Cemetery (34-950), Jordan White Sulphur Springs (34-110), Tenant House (34-728) Yes; includes Hilandale (34-126), Hilandale Earthworks (34- 321), Camp Russell (44FK539) The initial Phase I archaeological survey work for this project was conducted by JMU (Geier and Hofstra 1992) for all six CBA's. JMU identified I72 archaeological sites on the six alternatives, with 52 sites recommended for evaluation of National Register significance. Of the 52 sites, 40 are situated along the CBA C corridor. Of these 40 sites, only 11 were determined by Gray & Pape to lie within the proposed 250 ft. right-of-way (JMU had considered a 350 ft. wide corridor during their survey). Rt. 37, Winchester Bypass VDHR File: 91-0445 County: Frederick Funding: Frederick County Funding; Federal funding anticipated Page 3 The Phase I survey work conducted by Gray & Pape also included segments of CBA C that JMU could not survey due to landowner objections, as well as sections that appeared to have been inadequately surveyed by JMU_ Gray & Pape also conducted Phase II evaluations for the l l previously recommended sites; in addition, Gray & Pape identified one new archaeological site. Their work is discussed below: 44FK62: This site was first identified by JMU as an 18th or 19th century Pinpoint the exact location in the field, Gray & Pape had to targefairly elarge stic sarea in whiche.rtou coupon t addiattempttional testing. Despite extensive shovel testing and reconnaissance walkovers, no features or archaeological deposits could be clearly ascribed to 44FK62. Site 44FK62 may Iie outside the present ROW or may have Iost all integrity since its identification by JMU in 1992. Recommendation: No �rrher work, 44FKS 1: JMU interpreted this site as a Civil War Union Army camp related to Camp Russell (44FK539). This site was recommended by JMU as potentially eligible due to its apparent integrity. to relocate this site in the field, attempted despite testing a large area, no indication of 44FKHoweverSI was found withiwhen Gray n the ROW. Like 44FK62, 44FKS1 may lie. outside the current ROW or has lost its 1992 integrity. Recommendation: �1 farther work. 44FK82: JMU interpreted this site as a Civil War Union Army camp related to Camp Russell (44FK539). This site was not recommended by JMU for further work due to a "lack of archaeological significance" (Geier and Hofstra I992: Appendix D). However, Gray & Pape located and evaluated site 44FK82. The site contains two features that may have been hearth locations during the Union Army's encampment associated with Camp Russell. The hearths are characterized by diffuse scatters of fieldstone, which have lost their original configurations due to cultivation. No other features were identified. In addition, there is a paucity of artifacts, especially military materials, that detracts from the sites ability to convey additional information about the function of this military camp. Recommendation: Due to a loss of integrity and low research potential, this site is recommended not pjLajhk for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 44FK63: This site is a Civil War fortification constructed by the Union Army in 1864. It was also given an architecl inventory number (34-321). The site has been previously detem;ined eligible (August 6, 1996). Gray &Pape has tura provided additional information about this property, includin Recommendation: Site previously determined (e lei 1 g ma ppmg and limited archaeological investigations. Rt. 37, Winchester Bypass VDHR File: 91-0445 Page 4 County: Frederick Funding: Frederick County Funding; Federal funding anticipated 44FK72: This site is a circular feature identified by JMU as a fortified picket post related to Civil War activity in the area, possibly Camp Russell (Geier and Hofstra 1992: Appendix D). However, upon further study by Gray & Pape, it was rapidly concluded that the archaeological evidence pointed to a large animal burrow rather than a cultural feature. Recommendation: No ,rther work. 44FK396 & 44FK397: Both sites represent parts of a mill seat on Redbud Run. 44FK396 was related by JMU to "Montgomery Mill," built in the early 19th century and remaining in use until the early 20th century. The mill burned in the early 1900s but was rebuilt in 1904. The mill closed in the 1920s, its equipment was removed ca. 1926, and the building dismantled in the 1940s. The archaeological testing concluded that the head and tailraces were not intact and that the wheel pit had been filled after the mill was dismantled. The artifacts recovered are primarily associated with the abandonment of the mill rather than its use. JMU interpreted site 44FK397 as possibly containing deposits associated with the millers house, which had been replaced with a new house in 1908. Gray & Pape conducted mapping and surface inspections of this site to evaluate its potential for archaeological deposits. These inspections suggested a low potential for the site to contact intact subsurface features associated with the 19th century occupation due to 20th century changes in the landscape. 44FK396 and 44FK397 have both suffered substantial loss of integrity. Neither the milIer's house deposits nor the mill ruins themselves are able to yield important information about 19th century milling in Frederick County. In addition, there exist in Frederick County numerous examples of better preserved mills from this time period. Recommendation: Not eligible for listing in the -National RegiSfPr ofI�'istoric Places. 44FK452: This site was identified by JMU in 1992 as a 19th century domestic occupation and recommended for a Phase II evaluation. Gray & Pape conducted an evaluation in 1996 and based upon additional shovel testing and excavation of several test units, determined that there are intact features and deposits associated with the historic occupation. The historical record indicates that the occupants of the site were also fairly well documented. Recommendation: Eligible for lung in the National Regi r of Historic Places. 44FK458: Archaeological site 44FK459 is a prehistoric camp identified by JMU. JMU recommended no further work: however, Gray & Pape conducted a Phase I1 evaluation of the site. The site is located well outside the proposed ROW and as such is outside the area of potential effects. Nevertheless, Gray & Pape's evaluation con nned JMU's initial recommendation, that the site was not eligible. Recommendation: Not eligible. Rt. 37, Winchester Bypass VDHR File: 91-0445 County: Frederick Funding: Frederick County Funding; Federal funding anticipated Page 6 Should you have any questions related to the specific information presented above, please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, acqu ine Hernigle Keeney7"0' Cultural Resource Manager cc: Robert Pickett; Antony Opperman; Ken Wilkinson, VDOT Kris Tierney, Frederick County Chris Lloyd, Michael Baker, Inc. National Register Evaluation Team Minutes June 5, 1997 Page 4 305 Albemarle Avenue, S.W., Roanoke (carriage house) . Requested contributing, concur, despite loss of integrity due to fire. 91-0445, Winchester Bypass, Frederick County; Phase 1 surveys. 34-5, Millbank, recommended eligible- concur. (Deterrnined eligible in 1981.) 34-1099, Glengary, recommended eligible: concur. 34-729, Milburn (McCann House); recommended- eligible: concur. 34-1124, Byers House, recommended eligible: do not concur. (Note: property is within Milburn Rural Historic District.) 3r Milburn Rural Historic District, recommended eligible: concur. Camp Russell Historic District, recommended eligible: defer action- until- questions- on rel4tion t ,so g 6 of disparate elements in proposed district are resolved. 93-1227, Fredericksburg Outer Connector, Stafford and Spotsylvani-a counties Plras� 1 survey. Defer action on all elements proposed for consideration, pending resolution of questions about battlefield core areas and proposed- district boundaries. NEXT MEETING: 9:00 AK June 19, 1997 Reported: June 17, 1997 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER August 25, 1997 COMMONWEALTH of VIRC-jINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 87 DEACON ROAD FREDERICKSBURG, VA 22405 Mr. John E. Wells Project Review Division Virginia Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Rt. 37, Winchester Bypass VDHR File: 91-0445 County: Frederick Funding: Frederick County Funding; Federal funding anticipated Dear Mr. Wells: DAVID E. OGLE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR As a result of our August 20, 1997 trip to the project area, we have arrived at an effect determination for the following historic properties: Glengary - the Undertaking will have no adverse effect on this historic property. The treeline will be reestablished after construction between the property and the roadway adjacent to Redbud Run. 2. Clevenger-McKown House - the Undertaking will have a visual effect on this historic property. As mitigation, landscape plans will be developed. 3. Milburn Rural Historic District - the Undertaking, as currently proposed will adversely effect this historic property. The possible shifting of the alignment to the southbank of the North Branch of Hiatt (Lick) Run will be explored; this would minimize the effects to the historic district. Interpretative pull -offs will be designed, as well as the possibility of slightly depressing the roadway through district. 4. Stephenson's Depot Battlefield - the Undertaking, as currently proposed will adversely effect this historic property. The possible shifting of the alignment to the southbank of the North Branch of Hiatt (Lick) Run will be explored; if this is possible, it would shift the undertaking outside the boundaries of the battlefield. If this is not feasible or prudent, interpretative pull -offs will be designed; we will also explore the possibility of slightly depressing the roadway through the core of the district. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 5. Camp Russell Historic District (Hilandale; Hilandale Earthworks (44FK63; 34-321); Camp Russell (44FK539)) - the Undertaking will adversely effect this historic property. We will develop landscape plans in between Hilandale House and the nearest ramp to be constructed. In addition, treatment plans will be developed for the affects to the Hilandale Earthworks and Camp Russell archaeological site. 6. Millbank - the Undertaking will have no effect on this historic property. We understand that the eligibility of archaeological site 44FK540 will be determined through consultation between the County of Frederick, their consultants, and your office. There may be other archaeological sites whose eligibility needs to be determined as a result of additional archaeological survey to be conducted by the County. Despite these two outstanding issues, we have enclosed a copy of a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for your comments. Please provide me with any comments on it as soon as possible. In addition, the County would appreciate your comments regarding the determinations of effect as soon as possible. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (540) 899-4140. Cultural Resource Manager cc: Robert Pickett; Antony Oppennan; Ken Wilkinson, VDOT Kris Tiereny, County of Frederick Edward Sundra, FHWA Chris Lloyd, Michael Baker Ashley Neville, Gray & Pape Revisit Milburn Decision Several battles were fought on the site of the pro- posed Milburn Rural Historic District Area. The Second and Third Battles of Winch- ester saw significant troop movement and fighting in this entire area. Crucial to the interpretation of any bat- tlefield is the viewshed. When you run a rail line through the middle of it and destroy some of the sur- rounding. terrain, you, effec- tively destroy the battlefield. Even the most cursory re- view of Shockey's only nar- row access to Charles Town Road demonstrates that Mil- burn Road would be exten- sively used by the industrial park. Milburn Road would have to be significantly up- graded, which would conse- quently onsequently cause the demise of the battlefield. The proposed rezoning will eliminate the rural character of not only the battlefield but the entire area. The statements made by the Shockey Companies are simply inaccurate. The im- pression that the county Comprehensive Plan cannot be changed is wrong. We ad- vocate reconsidering this as it was updated less than 31/2 weeks ago. This update was based in part on the wrong informa- tion with the findings about the proposed Milburn Rural Historic District never enter- ing into the preliminary planning stage. The fact that this lovely, rural area was recommended for a historic district apparently was not considered by the supervi- sors. This project is moving way too fast. This decision, if left to stand, will destroy the pristine character of this area. A heavy industrial complex of this immense size would overwhelm this part of Frederick County. It will dramatically impair the qual- ity of life. The road system will need to be upgraded ata cost of millions. It is an extremely prema- ture plan with only one ingress and'egress, and -no water or sewer service avail- able at this time. In this wonderful, largely rural county, data shows that more than 1,000 acres of in- dustrially zoned land is presently available for devel- opment. It is clear this re- zoning is neither needed nor appropriate at this time. We again urge the county supervisors to slow this pro- ject down and re-examine all the information that pertains to their decision on the Com- prehensive Plan. The Sept. 27 decision should be revisited. TODD. KERN Citizen Representative "Defend the Depot" Winchester N W LA • —.� ` 'E �:J 9M / Park CBi �� i< 1 , :�06•/ BMHOt _�•,..., Y,hlir y Emmanuel 4h e,t„ ' 602 ( I ~� ; n ti \ n ,. i. tib. )'/ �•.�_ �.o ',' Legend _ -_:'c`I��• "`�'�w a •\�,�,,•<f)� e (34703) .Stephensor Helm HousQu rrTiailer Park ,i Proposed Rural .Historic District Milburn Chapel F le _ '' and Cemetery 34950) �► Stephenson's Depot Battlefield (34-720) railer N , `► c, __ _ • Park ' •'� : i• " ��-��'�... : �•. ., RM Architectural Resources / Milburn (34-729) N i939(� .t X S _ Byers Hcruse (34-1124) Ch 3M' I/�, 11r.e—• .�3 '\:a...; -1� h J s L / M i p1 91 Sinn,ll e ` , .962 I'' / „ �.`,Ch', I 4 10 ),. ) SM 63 ;;\ hurn J a' I ,, f ✓ 1 `/— 1y,\ f I\ all /,/ , 1 Jordon White Sulphur _ � \+� I Spring (34110) tiyt;; /� ,' % (� // �s''L: \\ '1, f, �• -` i .ig78 I i // l• -�' rn� '•� �1 / , I i... ` 6r .. .:F•, \ 'wC \ 1 „ 't .. 1,, �' \ ry'\ f "' �'\ `� Joh �.�''`Jj) —..��/ / ��� � \ \ ,'�`r J-ia916n 8emh ` 520 -_- � � '�. ;�_ � ,) •) � \� , Tena n .. '_:�` _ I �� 1 v.. rl ��, •� ' c'�.� _ – ntHouse (34-728) � �lo // .-.,,• ....•, �\ \ _ (62 _ n.. Carter -Hardesty h° S,I/ r I� ° / Shale Ho v 665 i t use (34112) —6 I C� �,�(I e u„B 660 -- °, o' „ ” ; { Stephenson, Virginia West Virginia 7.5' Quadrangle 1000 ft 0 1 mile 0 1 km 2 km Proposed National Register Boundaries for the Milburn Rural Historic District GRAY & PAPE INC! CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTANTS Figure 48 663 moo / 361 •• .. �. � ' • ., +, Ste. henson's Depot 1 4 Battlefield r% -- • . • . t . '� _�'�� , �� — 11 ,' • ' / /643 ' •II �— ,623 `�, j ,`•, '�, \ \ ... _ — �� � ' '� Helm House .6'62 34-703 � _�.,_ _ ° / 663 _ I `.. � ��` —_ i�C'. ;( •_ _ , ` l' �;, ; �'= auu -Villutur� �� rr - 5 �� �\�- •, i-�. - I (\ ; �� ��� `<: . 34-950 Byers House +, 10 34-1124 �,�: /' :1�.1. ��_ 4 - .�—,. .:� _��.- `�J `tel -• _' —\ "1 �t�� \".i• Tenan Ouse = Milburn Hous ",I << x S� w' e0��'J� Jordon White t H e / i \fit u : • O �`` `, :_�' 34-728 = 34-729 ��, 1tt , v \ Sulfur Spring ~,- _.\' 110 30A 66 p �� 600? ia� :1\.__ �1 Route 37 Shale _ �, 665 '�\ �/ _ � Pit / .., _ _ �----ALJ � ��. , •. � •, • _ _� Section 4 Property ��` � • - ..: \ it � �-�'-.���:.._ �. � , —=-��. `�� ssi '•• / 6' 66 i ; ;• = , .�,��,�, c M.ilburitRur ric District < n Not to caw Flg ure VI -13 ROUTE 37 SECTION 106 PROPERTIES 341448 FK RT. 76I MILBURN RURAL STORK DISTRICT RT. 761 U.S. 50 CITY OF VVINCBEs' cam: w~ �� llc 1� C CAMP RUSSEI.T N 4 6%� RT b42 J RT. 642 pm. N 34-5 I_ GRAPHIC SCALE 655 a4 0 I/2 1 1!�� MITES LEGEND EXIST. ROADS PROPOSED ROUTE 37 ALTERNATIVE r OPROPOSED INTERCHANGES • ARCHRECTUAL RESOURCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ® SITE Figure VI -17 The Winchester Star Wednesuay, October I o, 400 stephenson's Depot Rezoning..A�ppears L �ely,� Frederick Planning Director Says Board of Supervisors Will Probably Adhere to Development Plans �_ By DANIEL FRIEND The Winchester Star STEPHENSON — Protesters of a proposed industrial park say Frederick County's comprehensive plan should be modified to steer growth away from an important historic district. But county leaders say a change in the plan is unlikely, un- less they get new information re- garding historically significant ar- eas that could be affected by in- dustrial growth. The proposed industrial rezon- ing of a 447 -acre plot owned by Winchester -based Shockey Cos. has been met with opposition from preservationists and Stephenson residents. Petitioners opposing a zoning' change have said the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' Sept. 27 adoption of the Northeast Fred- erick County Land Use Plan -didn't take into account the entire scope of historically significant land and buildings in Stephenson. But Frederick County Planning Department officials say their plan for northern growth used as a template the 1995 Battlefield Net. work Plan, which was developed by history experts. "The Planning Department and, I think, the Planning Commission have made a real effort to identify those areas we feel should be pro- tected," said Frederick County Di- rector of Planning and Develop- ment Kris C. Tierney. "We took the exact limits of the area that plan set aside and in- cluded them in the U.S. 11 plan We relied on those experts to tell us what should be set aside," he said. The Northeast Frederick Coun- ty Land Use Plan did not change the 1996 designated industrial use for the 447 -acre property Shockey Cos. wants to dev ....... by xia -- slop into an in- This is a portion of the site in Stephenson that could be developed into an See Depot Page Be industrial park. Stephenson's Depot Battlefield is seen in the distance. 136 THE WINCHESTER STAR Wednesday October 18 2000 Depot from Page Bl dustnal park, 'Barney said, done by Richmond engineering The land is still zoned rural. firm Gray & Pape Inc. — deter- Shockey Cos. Treasurer John Good mined the Milburn Rural Historic Jr. said the company plans to sub- District and Stephenson's Depot mit a zoning change application Battlefield should be considered. "before the end of the month. individually for the National Reg - Tierney said it's unlikely the ister of Historic Places. ' Frederick County Board of Super- "The state wants to encourage visors will change the comprehen- the preservation of these histori- sive plan and designate more of tally significant places," said the Stephenson area as "develop- David Edwards, director of the mentally sensitive." Winchester Regional Office of the 'Based on what we know to be Virginia Department of Historic true right now, I would not antic- . Resources. ipate that the Board of Supervi- "And one way of doing that is sors would reconsider," Tierney to determine them eligible for list - said. "The Board had the opportu- ing on the state and national his- nity to do that (Sept. 27) and they toric registers," Edwards said. But chose not to." he emphasized property owners The Board, however, can legally aren't obligated to preserve any - modify its comprehensive plan thing listed on the register — its based on public opinion, according only an encouragement. imize the adverse effect through the proposed park would have to project redesign wherein all efforts include such access information. -are made to avoid the proposed "Given the public scrutiny, district altogether or substantially Shockey is going to have to re- teduce the visual effect of the spond (to questions about the rail highway by using. landscaping or spur)," Tierney said. available terrain." He said if the zoning change is Preservationists say the study's granted, careful planning will pro - findings should be enough for the tett the battlefield. county to protect the area and de- "It becomes a process of negoti- ny the Shockey Cos, zoning ation. Until we get the applica- change application. tion, it's difficult to say what the But Tierney said the Depart- end result might be." ment of Planning is prepared to Further details of the proposed respect the study's conclusion that rezoning may be offered this viewsheds be preserved and im- morning during a 10 a.m. press pact be minimized, conference called by the Shockey Historians fear a possible rail Cos. spur extension from the Shockey According to a press release is - Cos. proposed industrial park to sued Tuesday evening by company the CSX rail line could cut through the battlefield CEO J. Donald Shockey Jr., Me -1 to Tierney. County Administrator John R. s The study's proposed Milburn y p p historic district is a 268 -acre tract star t ePnae 1—Y 5..d,. This ma shows the proximity of the proposed industrial P P Y P P park (center) to Good has said there are no im- mediate plans for a spur. "It may purpose the news conference is to provide information about our rezoning application, related to Riley maintains that with careful of land which includes the battle- the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield (left). Preservationists say the de- never happen," he said at an Oct. our industrial and tech center de - planning, industrial development field, velopment threatens the battlefield.The Shockey Cos., the firm thatwants 9 rally where 100 protesters op- velopment, with the Frederick can happen near developmentally In 1997, further study of Va. to build the industrial park, says its project will not infringe upon the area's posed the industrial. park. County Department of Planning sensitive land without harming it. A 1992 Va: 37 study commis- 37's impact determined: "That the view'sheds in the historic nature.' Good said' if there were ever a and Development" sioned by Frederick County exam- ined the feasibility of a bypass area be protected- particularly along Milburn Road " 'The proposed highway (Va. 37) district:. This effect is, conaidered spur, it would be the'most well- . thought-out and well-planned rail . Donald Shockey,Good, and Mark Smith of Greenway Engi- near Stephenson. That study — , :.. The study also concluded: will have a direct impact on the adverse. setting of the proposed (historic) "It may only he possible to min- access ever. Tierney said any site , Ian for nesting are expected to attend the conference. APPENDIX 7 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ,:?I TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. Rivanna 410 E. Water St., Suite 1100 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Archaeological Tel: 434-293-3108 Fax: 434-293-3183 Services, LLC Email: info@rivarch.com Phase I Archaeological Survey Shentel Shenandoah Mobile Company Proposed Redbud (Site 046A) Cellular Communications Tower Site, Frederick County, Virginia Archaeological Resources Statement of No Finding On April 9, 2008 Rivanna Archaeological Services conducted a Phase I archaeological survey of Shentel Shenadoah Mobile Company's Redbud site (#046A), the location of a proposed 195 -ft self-supporting cellular communications tower in Frederick County, Virginia. The Redbud site is located in Frederick County Tax Map Parcel 55 -A -129A at 1203 Redbud Road approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the Winchester city limits and the intersection of Interstate 81 and U. S. Route 7/Berryville Pike (Figure 1). The proposed Redbud tower site is located just west of the crest of a low, broad, southwest -northeast trending ridge known as Devil's Backbone The nearest water source is an intermittent tributary stream of Lick Run which flows north some 180 ft northwest of the proposed tower lease area. Approximately 1,500 ft north of the lease area, this unnamed tributary joins Lick Run, which flows north and east for two miles before joining Opequan Creek. The project area for the Phase I archaeological survey consists of a total area of approximately 58,000 sq ft (1.33 acre) comprised of a 100 ft x 100 ft lease area located approximately 0.36 mile northeast of Redbud Road at an elevation of 640 ft amsl, a 20 -ft -wide and approximately 2300 - ft -long ingress/egress easement that connects the tower site to Redbud Road, and a 6 -ft -wide and 164 -ft -long utility easement that joins the ingress/egress easement approximately 365 ft southwest of the tower lease area. Approximately 85% (ca. 1930 ft) of the ingress/egress easement follows the existing graded and graveled drive that leads to the late 20th -century residence at 1203 Redbud Road. Because of extensive disturbances associated with construction of the drive this portion of the project area was not examined and the Phase I survey was limited to the tower lease area, the connecting utility easement and the roughly 375 linear feet of ingress/egress easement not located along the existing drive. Centerlines of the ingress/egress and utility easements as well as the corners of the tower lease area were clearly staked at the time of the Phase I survey. All portions of the project area subjected to Phase I archaeological survey support mature woodland. Approximately 0.3 mile northeast of Redbud Road the proposed ingress/egress easement leaves the existing gravel drive and proceeds northwest across roughly level terrain for a distance of 375 ft to the proposed cellular communications tower site. The 100 ft x 100 ft tower lease area occupies gently to moderately sloping (7% - 13%) terrain just north of the crest of Devil's Backbone. The 164 -ft -long connecting utility easement runs north from an existing electrical transformer box along the west side of the drive leading to the residence (Figure 2). Archaeological field crew walked all parts of the project area except that portion of the ingress/egress easement that follows the existing drive. Exposed surface soils were common within the sloping tower lease area and these were visually examined for cultural materials. The general vicinity was also inspected for potential, pre -modern cultural features. A total of 19 shovel tests were excavated within the project area during the Phase I archaeological survey, including 8 shovel tests along the ingress/egress easement, 3 tests along the connecting utility easement, and 8 tests within the tower lease area. No shovel tests were placed along the existing graded and graveled drive that constitutes the southernmost 1,930 ft of the ingress/egress easement. Shovel tests were placed at intervals of no greater than 50 ft along the centerlines of the utility and ingress/egress easements and within the lease area. Four shovel tests placed at 25 - ft intervals were also excavated with the tower lease area. Shovel tests measured 1.0 — 1.5 ft in diameter and were excavated to subsoil or bedrock with all removed soil screened through '/4 - inch hardware cloth to ensure consistent artifact recognition and recovery. Soil stratigraphy was recorded on standardized forms for each excavated shovel test and the location of each test was plotted on a scaled map of the project area. Shovel testing within the project area consistently documented very rocky, shallow surface soils overlying clayey subsoil or, more frequently, yellowish -brown saprolitic shale or siltstone bedrock. A single, small, cortical fragment of reddish -brown jasper was recovered from shovel test #2 in the northern corner of the tower lease area. This probable prehistoric lithic artifact shows no elements of classic flake morphology but may be a piece of shatter or spall. Surface exposure was relatively good (ca. 25%) within the lease area and immediate vicinity and these areas were examined for surface artifacts. Radial shovel testing at 25 -ft intervals was also conducted outwards from shovel test #2, however no additional cultural materials were recovered here or elsewhere within the project area. The single recovered object likely is the result of highly ephemeral activity at some point during prehistory, however alone it is not sufficient evidence upon which to define an archaeological site The extreme paucity of cultural materials and the absence of non -modern landscape features observed during the Phase I archaeological survey of the Shentel Redbud project area indicates that the proposed project will not directly impact potentially significant archaeological or other historical/cultural resources. Consequently, no further archaeological research is recommended. Rivanna Archaeological Services LLC 410 E. Water Street, Suite 1100, Charlottesville VA 22902 Tel: 434-293-3108; Fax: 434-293-3183; Email: info@rivarch.com x zqF' ITh, "e 0 . t ' Ja66 O \. c• I c v Shentell Site 046A �I "Red Bud" 1203 Redbud Road Frederick County, VA ,10 ` ��, 1 a }1 i �'� (lrf q� _•-/ if }� J 7 - / i-)] f _..`7' ID Ce i _i / • \ f } - - - r 1» rfurt"Ie series 13repnenson, Virginia quadrangle showing the location of the Shentel Redbud site (#046A) project arem APPENDIX 8 ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS AND RF SITE APPROVAL FORM ':VIA TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. Shentel PCS: RF Site Approval Form TRANSMIT/RECEIVE ANTENNA INFORMATION Explain Recent Changes, Site Rejection and any other RF related revisions. 8 -Jan -08 SITE NO.: 046 Sector Antenna Manufacturer - Total ERP in Watts (EIRP) CELL SITE NAME: Redbud Radiation Center in ft, Azimuth in CELL SITE ID: WAIOSH046 LATITUDE: 39* 12'14.5" N 3920403 CANDIDATE: A LONGITUDE: 78° 6'10" W -78.10278 GROUND ELEVATION: 644 feet 0 (+ OEDT) 196 meters STRUCTURE TYPE: Rawland 1 CONFIGURATION: 3 -Sectored STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 195 feet 1 65 195 (59) 59 meters SURVEY METHOD: 2C CELL SITE EQUIPMENT.- F3 Modcell 4.0. 65 MAP DATUM: NAD 83 RFCANDIDATERANK: 2 RF CHECKLIST Format C - REVISION No.: 4 RF NEPA - E911 - Quiet Zone - TRANSMIT/RECEIVE ANTENNA INFORMATION RF COMMENTS Date Explain Recent Changes, Site Rejection and any other RF related revisions. Comment By 01/08/08 Sector Antenna Manufacturer - Total ERP in Watts (EIRP) Number of Horizontal Beamwidth in Radiation Center in ft, Azimuth in ech. DT in [degrees Model Antennas degrees AGL (mtrs) degrees (Elect. DT) aoa 0 (+ OEDT) 1 RFS - APXV18-206516L-C 925 (1518) 1 65 195 (59) 140 2 -22206516L-C LRFSAPX1Vfl8'-206516L-C 925 (1518) 1 65 195 (59) 220 0 (+ OEDT) 3J 925 (1518) 1 65 195 (59) 300 0 (+ 4EDT) RF COMMENTS Date Explain Recent Changes, Site Rejection and any other RF related revisions. Comment By 01/08/08 updated coordinates,GE based on 2C survey (Jan 2, 2008) asp 01/07/08 Changed RC from 150 to 195 feet. aoa 11/05/07 Corrected the latitude info. aoa Questions? Please Contact: Anthony Peralta - RF Engineer Desk: 540.984.5426 / PCS: 540.335.5460 Anthony. Peralta@emp.shentel.com Optimizer® Panel Dual Polarized Antenna ^r This variable tilt antenna provides exceptional suppression of all upper sidelobes at all downtilt angles. It also features null fill and a wide downtilt range with optional remote tilt. • Variable electrical downtilt - provides enhanced precision in controlling intercell interference. The tilt is infield adjustable 0-10 deg. • High Suppression of all Upper Sidelobes (Typically <-20dB). • Includes Null fill of the 1st and 2nd lower Nulls. • Optional remote tilt - can be retrofitted. • Broadband design. • Dual polarization. • Low profile for low visual impact. Frequency Band 3G/UMTS (Single, Broad, Dual and Triple -Band) Horizontal Pattern Directional Antenna Type Panel Dual Polarized Electrical Down Tilt Option Variable 1 RFS The Clear Choice TM I APXV18-206516L-C I Print Date: 27.01.2008 Please visit us on the internet at http://www.rfsworld.com Radio Frequency Systems All Information contained in the present datasheet is subject to confirmation at time of ordering. Optimizer® Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain, dBi (dBd) 17.6 (15.5) , 18.0 (16.0) Frequency Range, MHz 1710-1900 , 1900-2170 Connector Type (2) 7-16 DIN Female Connector Location Bottom Mount Type Downtilt Electrical Downtilt, deg 0-10 Horizontal Beamwidth, deg 68,63 Mounting Hardware APM40-2 Rated Wind Speed, km/h (mph) 160 (100) VSWR < 1.4:1 Vertical Beamwidth, deg 7,6.4 1st Null Fill, dB <25 (Typ) Upper Sidelobe Suppression, dB >17 , >18 allT ( ypically >20) Polarization Dual pol +/-450 Front -To -Back Ratio, dB >28 , >30 Maximum Power Input, W 300 Isolation between Ports, dB > 30 Lightning Protection Direct Ground 3rd Order IMP @ 2 x 43 dBm, dBc > 150 7th Order IMP @ 2x46 dBm, dBc > 170 Overall Length, m (ft) 1.34 (4.39) Dimensions - HxWxD, mm (in) 1349 x 175 x 80 (53.0 x 6.8 x 3.15) Weight w/o Mtg Hardware, kg (lb) 8.5 (18.7) Weight w/ Mtg Hardware, kg (lb) 11.3 (24.9) Radiating Element Material Brass Radome Material Fiberglass Reflector Material Aluminum Max Wind Loading Area, m2 (ft2) 0.31 (3.3) Survival Wind Speed, km/h (mph) 200 (125) Maximum Thrust @ Rated Wind, N (Ibf) 380 (185) Front Thrust @ Rated Wind, N (Ibf) 380 (185) Shipping Weight, kg (lb) 14.3 (31.3) Packing Dimensions, HxWxD, mm (in) 1520 x 260 x 200 (59.8 x 10.2 x 7.8) Packing Dimensions - HxWxD, m (ft) 1.5 x .26 x .20 (4.9 x 0.85 x 0.65) For additional mounting information please click "External Document Link" below. I RFS The Clear Choice TM APXV18-206516L-C Print Date: 27.01.2008 Please visit us on the internet at http://www.rfsworld.com Radio Frequency Systems All Information contained in the present datasheet is subject to confirmation at time of ordering. Optimizer@ Panel Dual Polarized Antenna 12 ,12{ •94 go 12 9@ AN _90 RFS The Clear Choice TM I APXV18-206516L-C I Print Date. 27 01.2008 Please visit us on the internet at http://www.rfsworld.com Radio Frequency Systems All Information contained in the present datasheet is subject to confirmation at time of ordering.