FIGURES Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Topographic Map Figure 3: Site Plan Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Figure 5: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 6: National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 7: Geologic Map Figure 8: Soils Map Appendices Appendix A: Site Photographs Photograph 1. View facing north from Beef Tongue Road along existing earthen road towards proposed access extension. Photograph 2. View from existing earthen road facing west-northwest towards proposed access easement extension through undeveloped forested land uses. Photograph 3. View facing west towards proposed tower compound lease area. Photograph 4. View facing east towards proposed tower compound lease area. Appendix B: FCC NEPA Land Use Compliance Checklist NEPA COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST LETTER NOTIFICATION FROM ESA ENGINEERING TO IPER CONTROL PROJECT MANAGER December 21, 2011 Ms. Tanya Luter VIPER Project Manager North Carolina State Highway Patrol 3318 Garner Road Raleigh, NC 27610 Re: NEPA Checklist NC Highway Patrol Site # HP-1299 Warrenton Site 261 Beef Tongue Road Warrenton, Warren County, NC Dear Ms. Luter: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. (TEP) conducted a FCC Compliance NEPA Checklist (NEPA) for the proposed lease area associated with the proposed 480-ft AGL Guyed Communications Tower for the site designated as Warrenton (NC Highway Patrol Site # HP-1299), and is pleased to submit the findings to the North Carolina Highway Patrol. The proposed site is located on a parcel of real estate in Warren County, NC. The parent property and the adjacent properties were occupied by a mix of agricultural and undeveloped forested land uses at the time of the site inspection. The NEPA Checklist research conducted by TEP indicates that the site is not: located in an officially designated wilderness area; located in an officially designated wildlife preserve; located in a floodplain; located in a residential zoned area and required to be equipped with high intensity white lights; and will not: affect threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitats; affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; affect Indian religious sites; or involve significant changes to surface features. TEP, with the assistance of Archeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. conducted the Section 106 of the NHPA portion of the NEPA checklist and the Native American consultation. TEP filed the proposed Warrenton site with the FCC Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) on 10/21/11 and was assigned TCNS # 80486. TEP has received correspondence from all of the applicable tribes with known ancestral and/or aboriginal rights to Warren County, NC as identified by the FCC TCNS. The results of the NEPA Checklist conducted by TEP conclude that no further investigation (i.e. NEPA Environmental Assessment) is warranted or recommended for the Warrenton Site. Sincerely Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. George T. Swearingen, III Environmental Manager 3703 Junction Boulevard, Raleigh, NC 27603-5263 O: 919.661.6351 F: 919.661.6350 gswearingen@tepgroup.net Section I – NEPA Checklist WARRENTON SITE 480-FT GUYED TOWER NC HIGHWAY PATROL DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL WARRENTON, NC WARREN COUNTY FCC NEPA COMPLIANCE AUDIT CHECKLIST 1. Is the proposed facility located in an officially designated wilderness area? No 2. Is the proposed facility located in an officially designated wildlife preserve? No 3. Will the proposed facility likely affect threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats; or likely jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species; or likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats (as determined by the Endangered Species Act or 1973)? No 4. Will the proposed facility affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that are listed (or eligible for listing) in the National Register of Historic Places? No 5. Will the proposed facility affect Indian religious sites? No 6. Is the proposed facility located in a floodplain? No 7. Will construction of the proposed facility involve significant change in surface features (e.g., wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion)? No 8. Is the proposed facility located in a residential neighborhood and is required to be equipped with high intensity white lights (as defined by local zoning law)? No If any of the above questions result in an answer of “yes”, then construction may not start on any of these sites prior to receipt of a finding of no significant impact by FCC. RF Exposure Screening Under NEPA 9A. Will the proposed NON-ROOFTOP facility equal or exceed total power (of all channels) of 2000 watts ERP (3280 Watts EIRP) and have antennas located less than 10 meters above ground level? No 9B. Will the proposed ROOFTOP facility equal or exceed total power (of all channels) of 2000 watts ERP (3280 Watts EIRP)? N/A IF “yes” is the answer to either of the two RF exposure questions, an evaluation must be performed to determine if the North Carolina Highway Patrol exceeds the FCC’s exposure limits. TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS, INC. Date: December 21, 2011 Print Name: George T. Swearingen, III Signature: The following provides additional information concerning each item on the checklist. 1. Designated Wilderness Areas Based on a review of the National Wilderness Institute Map of Wilderness Areas, Wild & Scenic Rivers, National Natural Landmarks and UN Biosphere Reserves, dated 1995, and the Wilderness.net U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map, the proposed tower site is not located within an officially designated wilderness area. 2. Designated Wildlife Preserves Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wildlife Refuge System Map, dated September 30, 2004, the proposed tower site is not located within an officially designated wildlife preserve. 3A. Listed Threatened or Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitats Based on a review of the element occurrences of federally listed threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats within a 2-mile radius of the proposed tower site, as obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Natural Heritage Program Online Virtual Workroom, an on-site investigation, and correspondence with the USFWS-Raleigh Field Office, no listed threatened or endangered species occur at the proposed tower site. In addition, no critical habitats were identified on the proposed tower site. Therefore, it is not likely that the construction of the proposed tower will affect threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats. 3B. Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species or Proposed Critical Habitats Based on a review of the element occurrences of federally listed threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats within a 2-mile radius of the proposed tower site, as obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Natural Heritage Program Online Virtual Workroom, an on-site investigation, and correspondence with the USFWS-Raleigh Field Office, none of the proposed threatened or endangered species occur on the proposed tower site. The proposed tower site is not located within an area qualifying as proposed critical habitats. Further, the construction of the proposed tower is not likely to adversely impact proposed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats. 4. Historical Places Based on the results of our coordination with the Warren County Historical Association, Warren County – County Manager, Warren County Economic Development, and the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR-SHPO), the construction of the proposed tower will “Not Affect” properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places within the 1.5-mile Area of Potential Effect (APE). 5. Indian Religious Sites Based upon a review of available information obtained from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, the Native American Consultative Database, the Bureau of Indian AffairsIndian Reservations in the Continental United States, dated 5/96, and the responses to the FCC-Tower Construction Notification ID #80486, no known Indian religious sites will be affected by the proposed tower site. 6. Floodplains Based on a review of the floodplain map of the area (FIRM Community-Panel No. 3720294600J, dated April 16, 2007), the proposed tower site is not located within a special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. 7. Surface Features Based on our on-site investigation and a review of the National Wetland Inventory map of the area, the proposed tower is not anticipated to result in a significant change or modification to surface features such as fill in jurisdictional wetlands, deforestation, or water diversion. 8. Zoning/High Intensity White Lights The proposed tower is 480-feet AGL and the use of high intensity white lights should not be necessary. The proposed tower is anticipated to be equipped with a dual mode lighting system that utilizes medium intensity lights. 9A. Radio Frequency Emissions Based on the specified elevation of the proposed antennas (>10 meters) and because the site will be located within a restricted area, no further study concerning radio frequency emissions is required. Section II - FCC 620 Form FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet Archaeological Survey Report of the Warrenton Cell Tower Tract and Access Easement Warren County, North Carolina by Michael Keith O’Neal Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. November 2011 In October 2011, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an archaeological survey of the Warrenton Cell Tower in Warren County, North Carolina. This investigation was conducted on behalf of Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc., and was undertaken pursuant to relevant permitting regulations regarding the identification and treatment of significant cultural resources. The objectives of this survey were to identify all archaeological resources within the project tract, evaluate their significance based on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria, and determine the potential effects of the proposed construction on these resources. The Project Area The Warrenton cell tower tract is located along Beef Tongue Road approximately 4.0 miles east of Norlina, North Carolina. Figure 1 presents a map of the project area. This project tract measures approximately 180 by 220 meters. However, the cell tower footprint measures 15 by 15 meters. The tract is characterized by young pines and hardwoods and thick scrub brush (Figure 2). The access easement measures approximately 200 meters, of which approximately 60 meters are part of an existing dirt farm road. The remainder of the proposed road will extend through the young pines and hardwoods. Soils There are two soil types present in the project area, Appling sandy loam and Helena sandy loam. Appling soils are well-drained, and Helena soils are moderately well-drained. Both soil types form on interfluves (United States Department of Agriculture 2011). Well-drained soils are typically viewed as having high potential for archaeological remains. Figure 1. Map showing the Warrenton cell tower tract and access road and identified archaeological resources (1970 Macon, NC and 1970 Warrenton, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles). Figure 2. General view of the cell tower tract. Archaeological Survey The archaeological survey consisted of the excavation of shovel tests at 30 meter intervals along the proposed access road, and one shovel test each at the center point of the cell tower tract and at each of the guyed wire locations. Additional judgmental shovel tests were also excavated around the cell tower center point. In total 12 shovel tests were excavated in the project vicinity. Soil profiles consisted of 10 cm of grayish brown silty sand overlaying light brown silty sand to a depth of 20 to 25 cm. Reddish brown silty clay was present below 25 cm. All exposed surfaces in both the cell tower tract and access easement were carefully inspected for cultural remains. One historic archaeological site, 31WR247**, was identified during the survey and is discussed below. Site 31WR247** Site Type: Historic house site Soil Type: Appling sandy loam Component: Late 19 to Early 20 Century Elevation: 435 ft amsl UTMs: 4036155 N 757684 E NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Site 31WR247** is a historic site located in the northwestern corner of the project tract (see Figure 1). It is situated on a narrow ridge top that slopes down to the northwest. The site is characterized by secondary growth consisting of young pines and hardwoods and dense scrub brush. Shovel tests were excavated in the site vicinity according to the proposed construction activities in each area. One shovel test was excavated at the proposed location of a guyed wire. Five shovel tests were excavated in the vicinity of the proposed celltower. Two of the shovel tests yielded artifacts. Figure 3 presents a plan view of the project tract and shovel test locations. Site dimensions measure approximately 140 meters by 60 meters. Shovel test soil profiles at the cell tower location consisted of 10 cm of brown silty sand overlaying red silty clay. The shovel test adjacent to the guyed wire location exhibited 20 cm of brown silty sandy overlaying red clay subsoil. Table 1 presents a summary of the 35 artifacts recovered from 31WR247**. Artifacts classes include wire nails, bottle and flat glass, ceramics, a bottle cap, and miscellaneous metal. Whiteware was first manufactured in 1820 but continued to be produced throughout the twentieth century. Wire nails were first widely used after 1890. Based on the artifact assemblage this site likely dates to the late nineteenth through twentieth centuries. Table 1. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from 31WR247**. Artifact Count Comment clear lamp glass 1 clear flat glass 6 brown bottle glass 6 clear bottle glass 1 melted glass 1 milkglass canning insert fragment 3 all mend to form one complete insert clear glass candy jar lid fragment 3 all mend nail 4 2 wire, 1 possibly square, 1 unidentified metal bottle cap fragment 2 mend unidentified iron metal 7 undecorated whiteware 1 1820+ One structural feature is present at the site. A brick chimney is standing in close proximity to where the proposed guyed wire will be located (Figure 4). It is constructed of brick, stone, and mortar. No other structural elements or remnants of the house were identified at the site. It is not known when the structure was razed. Figure 3. View of the standing chimney in the vicinity of guyed wire location. Site 31WR247** is a late nineteenth to early twentieth century house site with a standing chimney. With the exception of the chimney, no intact structural remains (i.e., foundation elements) were identified. The site has been subjected to minor erosion, logging, razing of the house and removal of debris, and modern dumping. Due to the disturbance to the site deposits, this site is not likely to yield new or significant data pertaining to late nineteenth or early twentieth century settlement in the region. Therefore, 31WR247** is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Summary and Recommendations In October 2011, ACC, Inc., conducted anarchaeologicalsurveyofthe Warrenton cell tower tract and access easement in Warren County, North Carolina. Shovel tests were excavated at 30 meters along access easement and one shovel test was dug at each guyed wire location and the cell tower center point. Additional judgmental shovel tests were also excavated near the cell tower location. During the survey, one historic house site, 31WR247**, was identified. This site does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the NRHP and is recommended not eligible. As no significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed cell tower and access easement, clearance to proceed is recommended. References Cited United States Department of Agriculture 2011 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed 1 November 2011. Professional Resume of Report Author Michael Keith O’Neal Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. 121 East First Street Clayton, NC 27520 Voice (919) 553-9007; Fax (919) 553-9077 michaeloneal@archconsultants.org EDUCATION M.A. in Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2001. B.A. in Anthropology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 1999. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Register of Professional Archaeologists Society for American Archaeology Southeastern Archaeological Conference Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Ground Stone Technology Lithic Technology Geographic Information Systems (GIS) EMPLOYMENT HISTORY April 2006-Present Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. August 2004-March 2006 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. June 2002-August 2004 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC. July 2001-May 2002 Archaeological Technician. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC. August 2000-May 2001 Archaeological Research Assistant, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. August2000-September 2000 Archaeological Technician, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. July 2000 Archaeological Field Technician, SPEARS Inc., West Fork, Arkansas. EXPERIENCE Project Manager -Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Aiken Combustion Turbine Plant Tract, Aiken County, South Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of an 80 acre tract. This project was conducted for Duke Engineering and Services. Project Manager - Cultural Resources Survey of Three Proposed Intersection Improvements, Spartanburg County, South Carolina. This was Phase I cultural resources survey of three proposed intersection improvements. This project was conducted for the TranSystems Corporation. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgetown Industrial Park Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of a 600 acre tract. This project was conducted for Davis and Floyd. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Grace Chapel Substation and 115 kV Transmission Line, Caldwell County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of 4 acre substation tract and an associated 4.5 mile transmission line corridor. The project was conducted for Framatome ANP. Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Heavenly Mountain Resort Golf Course, Watauga County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of 200 acres, divided between three tracts of land. This project was conducted for E’nV Environmental Consulting. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the Jones-Mainland Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of a 3,655 acre tract. The project was conducted for Palmetto Bluff, LLC. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Investigation of the Central Carolina Tire Disposal Tract, Harnett County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of a 200 acre tract. This project was conducted for Withers and Ravenel, Inc. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mill Branch Tract, Columbia County, Georgia. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of a 170 acre tract. This project was conducted for James G. Swift and Associates. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the Okatie Center Northern Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of a 120 acre tract. This project was conducted for Horne Properties, Inc. Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Bay Tree Golf Plantation Tracts, Horry County, South Carolina.. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of a golf plantation (3 golf courses and adjacent tracts). This project was conducted for DDC, Engineers. Principal Investigator-Testing and Data Recovery excavations at site 38BU1957, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Principal Investigator-Testing of site 38BU2081, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of Phases II and III o f the Mills River Sewer Line, Henderson County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of 4 mile sewer line. This project was conducted for Horne Properties, Inc. Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Hope Lodge Borrow Pit Tract, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of a 60 acre tract. The project was conducted for Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc. Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Southern Harnett County Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Line, Harnett County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of the a 50 acre water treatment plant tract and 5.8 miles of sewer line corridor, conducted fro Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey Wetland Impact Areas in the Riversbend East Tract, Chesterfield County, Virginia. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey conducted for Townes Site Engineering. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey Wetland Impact Areas in the Castleton Tract and Sewer Line, Henrico County, Virginia. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey conducted for Townes Site Engineering. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the NRWASA Water Distribution System Corridors and Aboveground Facility Tracts, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey conducted for the Wooten Company Principal Investigator- Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Stonegate Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey conducted for Facilities Planning and Siting. REPORTS AUTHORED Cornelius, Mackensie, Dawn Reid, and Michael Keith O’Neal 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of Undeveloped Portions of the Rolling Hills Golf Course Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. Jenkins, David, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Bobby Southerlin 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the Biltmore Technology Center Tract, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Kirkland, Alan and Michael Keith O’Neal 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Embarq Uwharrie National Forest Fiber Optics Line, Montgomery County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith 2001 Cultural Resources Survey of the CINCAP Martinsville Tracts, Henry County, Virginia. 2002 Phase II Testing of 44CA116, Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline, Carroll County, Virginia. 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the Aiken Combustion Turbine Plant Tract, Aiken County, South Carolina. 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgetown Industrial Park Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina. 2003 Archaeological SurveyoftheHeavenly Mountain Resort Golf Course Trace, Watauga County, North Carolina. 2003 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Grace Chapel Substation and 115kV Transmission Line, Caldwell County, North Carolina. 2004 Archaeological Survey of the Bay Tree Golf Plantation Tracts, Horry County, South Carolina. 2004 Archaeological Survey of the Hope Lodge Borrow Pit Tract, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. 2004 Cultural Resources Investigation of Phases II and III of the Proposed Mills River Sewer Line Corridor, Henderson County, North Carolina 2005 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Stonegate Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina. 2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the BREMCO Baldwin Substation Tract, Ashe County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith continued 2005 Relocation and Evaluation of 31SK214, Stokes County, North Carolina. 2005 Cultural Resources Siting Study of the Switzer 44kV Transmission Line, Spartanburg County, South Carolina. 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Villages at Waterside Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Catawba Waste Water Treatment Plant Tract, Catawba County, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Shine Landing Tract, Pamlico County, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Evaluation of the Fairgrounds Cell Tower, Henrico County, Virginia. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Watermark Landing Tract and Phase II Testing of Site 31NH133, New Hanover County, North Carolina. 2007 Cultural Resources Survey of the Stevens Park Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cusac Cell Tower Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Brookshire Park Tract, Watauga County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Rustburg Park Tract, Campbell County, Virginia. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cypress Bay Cell Tower Tract and Easement, Horry County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Harbor’s Edge Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Bay Landing Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Verizon Jackson Cell Tower, Halifax County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Creek and UT to Zack’s Fork Creek Stream Restoration Areas, Caldwell County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the South Muddy and South Fork Hoppers Creek Stream Restoration Areas, McDowell County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Fletchor-Meritor Stream and Wetland Restoration Area, Henderson County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Area, Henderson County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the BREMCO Blowing Rock Substation, Watauga County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Crossnore Cell Tower Tract, Avery County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Ripshin Branch Stream Restoration Area, Ashe County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith continued 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Newfound Creek Stream Restoration Area, Buncombe County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Surveyof the North Dickerson Cell Tower Tract, Granville County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Paris Road Cell Tower Tract, Greene County, North Carolina. 2007 Cultural Resources survey of the Old Highway 90 Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological survey of the Waterway Hills Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Linville Dam ESSI Tracts, Burke County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse Rebuild Tract, Burke County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Evaluation of the Old Folkstone Road Cell Tower Tract and Access Easement, Onslow County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the UT to Crab Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Area, Alleghany County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Eckard Cell Tower, Burke County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Holden Beach Road Cell Tower Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the UNC-W East Cell Tower Tract, New Hanover County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the East BuffaloCreekRestoration Area, Graham County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Ponderosa Campground Cell Tower Tract, Halifax County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Denton Tract, Wilson County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Smyrna Cell Tower, Carteret County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Twelvemile Creek Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Proposed Redwood Cell Tower Tract, Wake County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Proposed Wilkins Cell Tower Tract, Durham County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Proposed Booth Mountain Cell Tower, Stokes County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Boones Neck Cell Tower Tract and Access Easement, Brunswick County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith continued 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Anirav Swim Club Cell Tower Tract, Henrico County, Virgnia. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Deer Park Cell Tower Tract, Charleston County, South Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Reid Cell Tower, Hertford County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Privott Cell Tower, Wayne County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed West Summerville Cell Tower Tract, Dorchester County, South Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Rocky Knoll Cell Tower Tract, Durham County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Wynnwood Cell Tower Tract, Wake County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Glade Creek Stream and WetlandRestorationArea, Alleghany County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Little Pine Creek Stream Restoration Area, Alleghany County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Verona Cell Tower Tract and Access Easement, Onslow County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the City of Marion Catawba River Greenway Project, McDowell County North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Carrie E. Collins 2003 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Central Carolina Tire Disposal Tract, Harnett County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith, Carrie Collins, and Sharon Penton 2002 Cultural Resources Evaluation of Hickory Regional Airport Improvements, Burke County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith, Carrie E. Collins, Rachel Tibbets, and Pat Hendrix 2004 Cultural Resources Survey of the Jones-Mainland Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and MacKensie Cornelius 2005 Archaeological Survey of Wetland Impact Areas in the Rivers Bend East Tract, Chesterfield County, Virginia. Corps Project # 04-R1771. 2005 Archaeological Survey of Wetland Impact Areas in the Castleton Tract and Sewer Line, Henrico County, Virginia. Corps Project # 05-0872. 2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the NRWASA Water Distribution System Corridors and Aboveground Facility Tracts, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Duke-Catawba ESSI Tract, Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Lee Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith, MacKensie Cornelius, and Dawn Reid 2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the NRWASA Water Distribution System Corridors and Aboveground Facility Tracts, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, North Carolina 2005 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Testing at the Heritage Downs Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the White Oak Apartments Tract, Chesterfield County, Virginia. O’Neal, Michael Keith and April Montgomery 2007 Archaeological Survey of the UT to Uwharrie Stream Restoration Area, Randolph County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Sharon Penton 2002 38HA214 Mitigation for the Yemassee Transmission Line, Hampton County, South Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Dawn Reid 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Reroutes, Access Roads, and Work Areas, Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia. Addendum I to Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia (Reid et al. 2002). 2005 Site Delineation in the Pawley’s Pavilion Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina. 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Macedonia Transmission Line and Substation Tract, Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina. 2006 The History of Fort Huger. 2007 Limited Excavation of 44IW0204: The Fort Huger Encampment Site, Isle of Wight County, Virginia. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Sink Hole Creek Stream Restoration, Mitchell County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the River Wynde Tract, Horry County, South Carolina 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Catawba Forcemain Alignment Corridor and Associated Pump StationTracts, Catawba County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith, Dawn Reid, Rachel Tibbetts, Kim Villemez, and Gordon Watts 2006 Archaeological Survey and Testing at the Pennyroyal Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith, Joseph Sanders, and Dawn Reid 2005 Archaeological Survey of Four Tracts in the Lawnes Point Development Area, Isle of Wight County, Virginia. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Bobby Southerlin 2005 Archaeological Evaluation of the Riverbend-Enterprise Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2005 Archaeological Survey of the 230 kV Steelberry Transmission Line Relocation Corridor, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Fentress Farm Tract, Currituck County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Bobby Southerlin continued 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of Selected Areas at the Water’s Edge Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Pinnacle Point Tract, Carteret County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Key Farm Tract, Chester County, South Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Cedar Point Tract, Carteret County, North Carolina, O’Neal, Michael Keith, Bobby Southerlin, and MacKensie Cornelius 2005 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Testing at the South Island Plantation Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Rachel Tibbets 2003 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mill Branch Tract, Columbia County, Georgia. 2004 Archaeological Survey of the Southern Harnett County Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Line, Harnett County, North Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Kim Villemez 2006 Archaeological Investigation of the Good Luck Road Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith and Julie Wilburn Peeler 2002 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Lake Townsend Substation Tract, Guilford County, North Carolina. 2002 Archaeological Evaluation of Stanly County Regional Airport Improvements, Stanly County, North Carolina. 2003 Archaeological Mitigation at 38HA214, Hampton County, South Carolina. O’Neal, Michael Keith, Julie Wilburn Peeler, and Dawn Reid 2003 Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Reroutes, Access Roads, and Work Areas, Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia. Addendum II to Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia (Reid et al. 2002). Reid, Dawn, Pat Hendrix, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Eric Poplin 2003 Archaeological Survey of the Palmetto Bluff Construction Road and Wastewater Effluent Plant Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Reid, Dawn and Michael Keith O’Neal 2002 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Concord Regional Airport Improvements, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. 2005 Archaeological Survey of the Belle Park Tract, Horry County, South Carolina. 2005 Cultural Resources Siting Study of the South Sylva Tract, Jackson County, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Aberdeen golf Course Conversion Areas, Horry County, South Carolina. Reid, Dawn and Michael Keith O’Neal continued 2006 Archaeological Survey of 61 Acres at Kershaw Creek, Pamlico County, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Main Street Connector, Horry County, South Carolina. 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the New Stonegate Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Investigation of the Sherwood Plantation Tract, Jasper County, South Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Southport Crossing Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina. 2007 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Sawmill Creek Tract, Forsythe County, North Carolina. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Creedmoor Lake Rogers Sedimentation Disposal Tract, Granville County, North Carolina. Reid, Dawn, Michael Keith O’Neal, and David Jenkins 2001 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Chickahominy Tract, Charles City County, Virginia. Reid, Dawn, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Rachel Tibbetts 2005 Life on the Waccamaw River Bluff: Data Recovery at Site 38HR496, Cypress River Plantation, Horry County, South Carolina. Reid, Dawn, Rachel Tibbetts, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Gordon Watts 2006 Archaeological Investigation of the Select Areas in the Black Banks Plantation Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Southerlin, Bobby and Michael Keith O’Neal 2008 Archaeological Survey of the Cedar Point Tract, Carteret County, North Carolina. Southerlin, Bobby, Michael Keith O’Neal, and MacKensie Cornelius 2004 Archaeological Assessment of the Victory Trail Tract, Cherokee County, South Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Dugger Creek Tract, Watauga and Wilkes Counties, North Carolina. Southerlin, Bobby, Michael Keith O’Neal, Sharon Penton, Joe Sanders, David Jenkins 2002 Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Duplin County AgriculturalBusinessCenter, Duplin County, North Carolina. Southerlin, Bobby, Rachel Tibbetts, Michael Keith O’Neal, Dawn Reid, Leslie E. Raymer, and MacKensie Cornelius 2005 Woodland Adaptations in the Grand Strand: Native American Settlement along the Little River Estuary, Horry County, South Carolina: Excavations at Glen Dornoch Golf Course. Southerlin, Bobby, Joseph L. Tippett, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Bruce Harvey 2002 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Brownfield Tract, Wake County, North Carolina. Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Joseph Sanders, Michael Keith O’Neal, and David Jenkins 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the 230 kV Portion of the Columbia Energy Center Project, Calhoun and Richland Counties, South Carolina. Southerlin, Bobby, Joe Sanders, Michael Keith O’Neal, and David Jenkins 2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the 115 kV Portion of the Columbia Energy Center Project, Calhoun and Lexington Counties, South Carolina. Tibbetts, Rachel and Michael Keith O’Neal 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Dawson Creek Tract, Pamlico County, North Carolina. 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Fulshire Plantation Tract, Craven County, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Evaluation of the Semora Cell Tower Tract and Access Easement, Person County, North Carolina Tibbetts, Rachel, Michael Keith O’Neal, MacKensie Cornelius, Bobby Southerlin, April Montgomery, and C. Margaret Scarry 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Mingo Analysis Area (Portions of Compartments 257, 259, 351, 343, and 355), Sumter National Forest, Long Cane Ranger District, Saluda and Greenwood Counties, South Carolina. Tibbetts, Rachel, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Kim Villemez 2006 Archaeological Survey of Three Stream Restoration Areas, Jackson, Polk, and Rutherford Counties, North Carolina. Tibbetts, Rachel, Bobby Southerlin, and Michael Keith O’Neal 2006 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Site for an Expansion of the Central Johnston County Regional Wastewater Treatmnt Facility, Johnston County, North Carolina. Tibbetts, Rachel, Bobby Southerlin, Dawn Reid, Kim Villemez, Michael O’Neal, and Kimberly Schaeffer 2008 Data Recovery at 31ON1582: Early American Life on a Coastal Plantation, Onslow County, North Carolina. Wilburn Peeler, Julie, Michael Keith O’Neal, and Dawn Reid 2002 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Three Proposed Intersection Improvements, Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Transportation. PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED 2008 Michael Keith O’Neal Putting the Tar in Tar Heels: The Naval Stores Industry and Plantations in North Carolina. Paper presented at the 65th annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. 2005 Michael Keith O’Neal and Dawn Reid Who Says There Aren’t Rocks in the Coastal Plain: Local Lithic Resources and Bipolar Reduction Strategies in Horry County, South Carolina. Paper presented at the 62nd annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina. 1999 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O’Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983 through 1995 and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 18(2): 85-97. 1998 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O’Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983 through 1995 and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Paper presented at the 56th annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Greenville, South Carolina. Site and Engineering Plan for the Proposed Warrenton Telecommunications Facility Photograph 1. View facing north from Beef Tongue Road along existing earthen road towards proposed access extension. Photograph 2. View from existing earthen road facing west-northwest towards proposed access easement extension through undeveloped forested land uses. Photograph 3. View facing west towards proposed tower compound lease area. Photograph 4. View facing east towards proposed tower compound lease area. Tower Construction Notification Page Your Notification has been successfully submitted to the FCC. The date for this Notification is 10/21/2011. Your Notification ID number is 80486. Please make a note of this Notification ID — print out this page for your records. A confirmation of this submitted notification will also be emailed to the email address specified in your notification. This system is intended to facilitate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by providing early notification of proposed construction to Tribes and State Historic Preservation officers. This system is not to be used in place of Section 106 consultation, and use of this notification system in itself does not satisfy parties' obligations with respect to historic preservation review under the Commission's rules. Please note: the submission of this notification is NOT to be considered a submission for Antenna Structure Registration. Tower Structures that require antenna structure registration based on FCC Rules 47 C.F.R. Part 17 must complete FCC Form 854 after FAA clearance is obtained. Notification Email of Proposed Tower Construction Kyle Crawford From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:37 PM To: Kyle Crawford Subject: Proposed Tower Structure Info - Email ID #2903190 Dear Kyle W Crawford, Thank you for submitting a notification regarding your proposed construction via the Tower Construction Notification System. Note that the system has assigned a unique Notification ID number for this proposed construction. You will need to reference this Notification ID number when you update your project's Status with us. Below are the details you provided for the construction you have proposed: Notification Received: 10/21/2011 Notification ID: 80486 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: TEP for the North Carolina Highway Patrol Consultant Name: Kyle W Crawford Street Address: 3703 Junction Blvd. City: Raleigh State: NORTH CAROLINA Zip Code: 27603-5263 Phone: 919-661-6351 Email: kcrawford@tepgroup.net Structure Type: GTOWER -Guyed Tower Latitude: 36 degrees 26 minutes 13.0 seconds N Longitude: 78 degrees 07 minutes 28.5 seconds W Location Description: 261 Beef Tongue Road City: Warrenton State: NORTH CAROLINA County: WARREN Ground Elevation: 132.6 meters Support Structure: 146.3 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 150.9 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 283.5 meters above mean sea level Kyle Crawford From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:01 AM To: Kyle Crawford Cc: kim.pristello@fcc.gov; diane.dupert@fcc.gov Subject: NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #2904230 Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for using the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). The purpose of this electronic mail message is to inform you that the following authorized persons were sent the information you provided through TCNS, which relates to your proposed antenna structure. The information was forwarded by the FCC to authorized TCNS users by electronic mail and/or regular mail (letter). Persons who have received the information that you provided include leaders or their designees of federally-recognized American Indian Tribes, including Alaska Native Villages (collectively "Tribes"), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). For your convenience in identifying the referenced Tribes and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribe and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the listing below. We note that Tribes may have Section 106 cultural interests in ancestral homelands or other locations that are far removed from their current Seat of Government. Pursuant to the Commission's rules as set forth in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission (NPA), all Tribes and NHOs listed below must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this notification, consistent with the procedures set forth below, unless the proposed construction falls within an exclusion designated by the Tribe or NHO. (NPA, Section IV.F.4). The information you provided was forwarded to the following Tribes and NHOs who have set their geographic preferences on TCNS. If the information you provided relates to a proposed antenna structure in the State of Alaska, the following list also includes Tribes located in the State of Alaska that have not specified their geographic preferences. For these Tribes and NHOs, if the Tribe or NHO does not respond within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort at follow-up contact, unless the Tribe or NHO has agreed to different procedures (NPA, Section IV.F.5). In the event such a Tribe or NHO does not respond to a follow-up inquiry, or if a substantive or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribe or NHO, you must seek guidance from the Commission (NPA, Section IV.G). These procedures are further set forth in the FCC's Declaratory Ruling released on October 6, 2005 (FCC 05-176). 1. Chief Leo R Henry Tuscarora Nation Via: Lewiston, NY regular mail Details: If the Applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Tuscarora Nation within 30 days after notification through TCNS, the Tuscarora Nation has no interest in participating in pre-construction review for the site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must IMMEDIATLY notify the Tuscarora Nation in the event archaeological properties or human remains are discovered during construction. 2. Policy Analyst Richard L Allen Cherokee Nation Tahlequah, OK Via: electronic mail Details: The TCNS Details do not provide me enough information to conduct a proper assessment of the projects on behalf of the Cherokee Nation. Therefore, I request that I be sent a brief summary of the Phase I findings [please try to limit the summary to between 1-10 pages], a topo of the area, and relevant photos. Please send these by email to rallen@cherokee.org. Please treat this request for additional material as a routine supplement to the TCNS Details Notification for each of your projects that fall within our Tribe's areas of geographic interest. Consequently, if you do not receive a response from me within 30 days from the date on which you e-mailed the supplemental items to me, you may move forward with the 20-Day Letter procedures pursuant to the FCC's guidelines. Thank you. Dr. Richard L. Allen 3. Administrative Assistant Jo Ann Beckham Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Seneca, MO Via: electronic mail Details: If you, the Applicant and/or tower constructor, do not receive a response from us, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, within 30 days from the date of the TCNS notification, then you may conclude that we do not have an interest in the site. However, if archeological resources or remains are found during construction, you must immediately stop construction and notify us of your findings in accordance with the FCC's rules. (See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312(d)) 4. THPO Kim Jumper Shawnee Tribe Miami, OK Via: regular mail Details: THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT THE SHAWNEE TRIBE IS INTERESTED IN CONSULTING ON ALL PROJECTS BUILT IN OUR AREAS OF GEOGRAPHIC INTEREST. ATTENTION, NEW INFORMATION: Our procedures were updated on 14 January 2008. Please call Kim Jumper, THPO, at 918-542-2441, so that she can send you a copy. If your tower is a co-location, please fax us this information to let us know. We cannot always tell from the TCNS web site that a tower is a co-location. We require a written response from you to let us know that it is a co-location. If a co-location project includes some new ground disturbance (such as from an expanded compound or access road, or construction of an ancillary structure), the Shawnee Tribe treats such a project the same as any other non co-location project. Our correct mailing/physical address is: 29 South Highway 69A. Our correct phone number is (918-542-2441) and our historic preservation fax line is (918-542-9915). THPO Kim Jumper manages all cell tower consultation. As of 26 June 2006, all of the faxed responses of our final comments on a tower site will contain an original Shawnee Tribe signature. Each final comment fax is signed individually. Copies may be compared, for authentication, against the original in our files.If a final comment fax does not contain a signature, it is not valid. ALL FINAL COMMENTS FROM THE SHAWNEE TRIBE ARE WRITTEN; FINAL COMMENTS ARE NEVER PROVIDED VERBALLY. IF THE SHAWNEE TRIBE IS CREDITED WITH HAVING GIVEN A VERBAL RESPONSE, THAT RESPONSE IS NOT VALID. If you receive notification through the TCNS listing the Shawnee Tribe, that is an indication that the Shawnee Tribe is interested in consulting on the tower for which that notification was received. Please consider that our official indication of interest to you. The Shawnee Tribe considers the Tower Construction Notification System's weekly e-mail to be the first notification that we receive that a tower will be constructed in an area of our concern. We do not view the TCNS notificationas completion of 106 consultationobligations. The Shawnee Tribe has developed streamlined consultation procedures for cell tower developers and their subcontractors. If you do not have a copy of the procedures most recently updated on 14 January 2008, please contact us, as you must follow these procedures to consult with us on cell tower projects. Call us at 918-542-2441 or fax us at 918-542-9915. It is the tower builder's responsibility to make sure that you have our most recent consultation procedures. PLEASE DO NOT SEND US INFORMATION, QUERIES, OR COMMENTS ELECTRONICALLY. SINCE 1 DECEMBER 2005, WE HAVE NOT HANDLED ANY CELL TOWER CONSULTATION, INQUIRIES, OR CORRESPONDENCE VIA EMAIL. 5. THPO and Executive Director Dr. Wenonah G Haire Catawba Indian Nation Cultural Preservation Project Rock Hill, SC Via: electronic mail and regular mail Details: The Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office requests that you send us by regular mail the following information needed to complete our research for your proposed project: Project Name Project Number 1. The name, complete address, phone number, fax number and e-mail address of the project manager. 2. The project location plotted on a topo map. 3. The project name, address and location; street or highway, city, county, state. 4. A brief description of the proposed project. Please include the size of the proposed project site and the size of the area where ground-disturbing activities will be taking place and the type of disturbance anticipated. 5. A brief description of current and former land use. We are primarily interested in ground disturbance and do not need detailed information or photographs of historic structures in the projectarea. 6. A list of all recorded archaeological sites within one half (1/2) mile of the project area. 7. A list of all eligible and potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places sites within one half (1/2) mile of the proposed project area. 8. If there has been an archaeological survey done in the area, a copy of that report. 9. It is not necessary to send original color photos if you can provide high-resolution color copies. 10. A letter of concurrence from the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. If you use the FCC Form 620, please do not send Attachments 1 through 6. They are not necessary for our determination. We do not have an interest in projects that require no ground disturbance. Please note: Our research/processing fee is currently $150. This fee will be changing effective January 1, 2011 to $250. Please send these requested materials in hard copy format. Send to:CIN-THPO 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, S.C. 29730 The information you provided was also forwarded to the additional Tribes and NHOs listed below. These Tribes and NHOs have NOT set their geographic preferences on TCNS, and therefore they are currently receiving tower notifications for the entire United States. For these Tribes and NHOs, you are required to use reasonable and good faith efforts to determine if the Tribe or NHO may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by its proposed undertaking. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, seeking information from the relevant SHPO or THPO, Indian Tribes, state agencies, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, or, where applicable, any federal agency with land holdings within the state (NPA, Section IV.B). If after such reasonable and good faith efforts, you determine that a Tribe or NHO may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties in the area and the Tribe or NHO does not respond to TCNS notification within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort to follow up, and must seek guidance from the Commission in the event of continued non-response or in the event of a procedural or substantive disagreement. If you determine that the Tribe or NHO is unlikely to attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the area, you do not need to take further action unless the Tribe or NHO indicates an interest in the proposed construction or other evidence of potential interest comes to your attention. The information you provided was also forwarded to the following SHPOs in the State in which you propose to construct and neighboring States. The information was provided to these SHPOs as a courtesy for their information and planning. You need make no effort at this time to follow up with any SHPO that does not respond to this notification. Prior to construction, you must provide the SHPO of the State in which you propose to construct (or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, if the project will be located on certain Tribal lands), with a Submission Packet pursuant to Section VII.A of the NPA. 6. Environmental Review Coordinator Renee GledhillEarley NC State Historic Preservation Office Raleigh, NC Via: electronic mail 7. Deputy SHPO David Brook Historic Preservation Office Raleigh, NC Via: electronic mail If you are proposing to construct a facility in the State of Alaska, you should contact Commission staff for guidance regarding your obligations in the event that Tribes do not respond to this notification within a reasonable time. Please be advised that the FCC cannot guarantee that the contact(s) listed above opened and reviewed an electronic or regular mail notification. The following information relating to the proposed tower was forwarded to the person(s) listed above: Notification Received: 10/21/2011 Notification ID: 80486 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: TEP for the North Carolina Highway Patrol Consultant Name: Kyle W Crawford Street Address: 3703 Junction Blvd. 4 City: Raleigh State: NORTH CAROLINA Zip Code: 27603-5263 Phone: 919-661-6351 Email: kcrawford@tepgroup.net Structure Type: GTOWER -Guyed Tower Latitude: 36 degrees 26 minutes 13.0 seconds N Longitude: 78 degrees 7 minutes 28.5 seconds W Location Description: 261 Beef Tongue Road City: Warrenton State: NORTH CAROLINA County: WARREN Ground Elevation: 132.6 meters Support Structure: 146.3 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 150.9 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 283.5 meters above mean sea level If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice, please contact the FCC using the electronic mail form located on the FCC's website at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/notification/contact-fcc.html. You may also call the FCC Support Center at (877) 480-3201 (TTY 717-338-2824). Hours are from 8 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). To provide quality service and ensure security, all telephone calls are recorded. Thank you, Federal Communications Commission TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF PROJECT LOCATION AERIAL PROJECT MAP OF PROJECT LOCATION Section III – Informal Biological Assessment COMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITE EVALUATION FORM 1. Location (Provide maps if possible): State: NC County: Warren Latitude/Longitude/GPS Grid: N 36 26 13, W 78 7 28.48 City and Highway Direction (2 miles W on Hwy 20, etc.): 261 Beef Tongue Road, Warrenton, NC 2. Elevation above mean sea level: ~435.2-ft 3. Will the equipment be co-located on an existing FCC licensed tower or other existing structure (building, water tank, etc)? Y/N NO If yes, type of structure: 4. If yes, will the compound be expanded: NO If yes, will the tower be extended: NO 5. If No, provide proposed specifications for the new tower: Height: 480-ft Guyed Structure, 495-ft. with top of lightning rod. Construction Type (lattice, monopole, etc.): Guyed Guyed-Wire? YES No. Bands: 3 Total No. Wires:Unknown - assume ~9 Lightning (Security and Aviation): Anticipated to be equipped with a dual mode lighting system that utilizes medium intensity lights. 6. Area of tower footprint in acres or square feet: Compound = 1,281.7 sq. ft. Guyed Anchors = 480 sq. ft. 7. Length and width of access road in feet: Length: ~405-ft Width: ~12-ft. Area of proposed access drive: ~5,422 sq. ft. 8. General description of terrain (mountains, rolling hills, flat, flat in undulating, etc.). Photographs of the site and surrounding area are beneficial: flat to gently sloping to the west 9. Meteorological conditions (incidence of fog, low ceilings, rain, etc.): sunny, warm 10. Soil Type(s): Appling sandy loam, 2-6% slopes and Helena sandy loam, 2-6% slopes. 11. Habitat types and land use on and adjacent to the site: Habitat Type: Acreage: Percentage of Total: Cutover ~ 10 acres 100 Adjacent land use: Agricultural and forested 12. Dominant vegetative species in each habitat type: Loblolly Pine, Blackberry, Privet sp. 13. Average diameter breast height of dominant tree species in forested areas: Tree species: Diameter (inches): All species were less than 20-ft in height with a diameter not exceeding 4-in. DBH. According to historical aerial photographs, the property appeared to have been cleared of timber between the years of 2003 and 2005. 14. Will construction at this site cause fragmentation of a larger block of habitat into two or more smaller blocks? Y/N NO If yes, describe: No, the proposed tower will be adjacent to an existing earthen access road, and approximately 378-ft north of Beef Tongue Road. Additionally, the site is bordered on the east and west by an actively cultivated agricultural field. 15. Is evidence of bird roosts or rookeries present? Y/N NO If yes, describe: 16. Distance to nearest wetland area (forested swamp, marsh, riparian, marine, etc.), and coastline, if applicable: According to the NWI map, a freshwater emergent wetland is located on the proposed purchase tract, approximately 175-ft west of the proposed tower compound lease area. 17. Distance to nearest telecommunications tower: unknown, none observed at the time of inspection. 18. Potential for co-location of antennas on existing towers or other structures: NO 19. Have measures been incorporated for minimizing impacts to migratory birds? Y/N NO If yes, describe: 20. Has an evaluation been made to determine if the proposed facility may affect listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their habitats as required by FCC regulations at 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(3)? Y/N YES If yes, present findings: No listed threatened or endangered species were observed during the time of inspection. 21. Additional information required: Warren County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Warren County, North Carolina Common Name Scientific name Federal Record Status Vertebrate: American eel, Anguilla rostrata, FSC, Current Bachman's sparrow, Aimophila aestivalis, FSC, Current Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, BGPA, Current Pinewoods shiner, Lythrurus matutinus, FSC, Obscure Roanoke bass, Ambloplites cavifrons, FSC, Current Invertebrate: Atlantic pigtoe, Fusconaia masoni, FSC, Current Dwarf wedgemussel, Alasmidonta heterodon, E, Current Tar River spinymussel, Elliptio steinstansana, E, Current Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata, FSC, Current Vascular Plant: Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus, unifoliolatus var. helleri, FSC, Historic Definitions of Federal Status Codes: E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.) BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below. FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species. T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below. EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land. P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT", respectively. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA): In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For mor information, visit http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(S/A)): In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss. Definitions of Record Status: Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years. Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain. Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat. Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both. http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/warren.html TOPOGRPAHPIC MAP WITH PROJECT SITE LOCATION WITH NO RECORDS FOUND Section IV - NEPA Supporting Documentation Communications Tower Review Form SHPO Results Surveyed Point: 1. Site ID: WR0200 County: Warren Site Name: Powell House LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE WARRENTON AGL GUYED EMERGENCY SERVICES TOWER NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS MAP NATIONAL REGISTRY OF NATURAL LANDMARKS JUNE 2009 Wayne County ZURICH BOG Zurich Bog is a good example of northern sphagnum bog and bog forest vegetation, both of which are uncommon in north-central New York. Designated: 1973. Ownership: Private. Westchester County MIANUS RIVER GORGE The Mianus River Gorge contains an excellent climax hemlock forest and presents an exceptional illustration of piedmont physiography and geomorphology. Designated: 1964. Ownership: Private. NORTH CAROLINA (13) Alleghany County STONE MOUNTAIN (extends into Wilkes County) Stone Mountain, located within Stone Mountain State Park, is the best example of a monadnock in massive granite in North Carolina. Unique, endemic plants persist on the granite outcrops. Designated: 1974. Ownership: State. Ashe County LONG HOPE CREEK (extends into Watauga County) Long Hope Creek Spruce Bog is SPRUCE BOG one of the rarest plant communities in North Carolina and the Southeast, including plant species such as American yew and buckbean. Designated: 1974. Ownership: Private. MOUNT JEFFERSON Mount Jefferson State Natural Area contains virtually undisturbed STATE NATURAL AREA northern red oak forests, and represents one of the best remaining examples of oak-chestnut forest in the Southeast. Designated: 1974. Ownership: State. Beaufort County GOOSE CREEK STATE Goose Creek State Park Natural Area is an excellent example of a PARK NATURAL AREA gently sloping mainland undergoing rapid ocean transgression. The site contains several diverse ecological communities including: brackish creeks and marshes, marsh transition areas, river swamp forest, and pine forest. Designated: 1980. Ownership: State. NEW YORK – NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL REGISTRY Page69 OF NATURAL LANDMARKS JUNE 2009 Brunswick County GREEN SWAMP SMITH ISLAND Dare County NAGS HEAD WOODS AND JOCKEY’S RIDGE Davie County ORBICULAR DIORITE Hyde County SALYER’S RIDGE NATURAL AREA New Hanover County SMITH ISLAND Onslow County BEAR ISLAND Green Swamp is the largest and most unique mosaic of wetland communities in the Carolinas and is a refuge for rare plant and animal species. Designated: 1974. Ownership: Private. (extends into New Hanover County) Smith Island, located within Fort Fisher State Recreation Area, is a barrier island complex representing one of the least disturbed areas remaining on the Atlantic Coast. The site contains one of the best unaltered examples of sand strand forest in existence, and a system of sand dunes. Salt marshes, tidal creeks, bays, and mudflats are used extensively by aquatic birds, and island beaches provide breeding habitat for loggerhead turtles. Designated: 1967. Ownership: State. Nags Head Woods and Jockey’s Ridge illustrates the entire series of dune development and plant succession, from shifting open dunes to forested stabilized dunes. Designated: 1974. Ownership: State, county, municipal, private. The Orbicular Diorite site contains an unusual plutonic igneous rock consisting of hornblende, pyroxene, and feldspars. Designated: 1980. Ownership: Private. Salyer’s Ridge Natural Area, located within the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, contains a rare example of mature loblolly pine forest in process of succession towards a deciduous forest. Designated: 1983. Ownership: Federal. (see Brunswick County) Bear Island, located within Hammocks Beach State Park, contains one of the largest and best examples of coastal eolian landforms in the Atlantic Coastal Plain biophysiographic province. Dune movement has created a dynamic landscape of outstanding scenic beauty. Designated: 1980. Ownership: State. NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL REGISTRY OF NATURAL LANDMARKS JUNE 2009 Surry County PILOT MOUNTAIN Wake County PIEDMONT BEECH NATURAL AREA Watauga County LONG HOPE CREEK SPRUCE BOG Wilkes County STONE MOUNTAIN Yancey County MOUNT MITCHELL STATE PARK NORTH DAKOTA (4) Billings County TWO-TOP MESA AND BIG TOP MESA Cavalier County RUSH LAKE Pilot Mountain, located within Pilot Mountain State Park, is a classic monadnock that harbors disjunct vegetation from the Blue Ridge region. Designated: 1974. Ownership: State. Piedmont Beech Natural Area, located within William B. Umstead State Park, is one of the best examples of mixed mesophytic forest in the eastern Piedmont of North Carolina. Portions of the site contain unusual examples of good, maturing stands of beech. Designated: 1974. Ownership: State. (see Ashe County) (see Alleghany County) Mount Mitchell, located within Mount Mitchell State Park, is the highest mountain in the eastern half of the United States at 6,684 feet. The site supports the most extensive stand of Fraser fir remaining in the country. Designated: 1974. Ownership: State. Located one mile apart, Two-Top Mesa and Big Top Mesa are in a badlands terrain of sandstones, siltstones and clay. The mesas are characterized by an unbroken cover of grass on flat relief. Designated: 1965. Ownership: Federal. A large shallow, essentially undisturbed prairie pothole lake, Rush Lake is an important staging area for waterfowl. Designated: 1975. Ownership: Private. NORTH CAROLINA – NORTH DAKOTA Tower Construction Notification New Notification Your Notification has been successfully submitted to the FCC. The date for this Notification is 10/21/2011. Your Notification ID number is 80486. Please make a note of this Notification ID — print out this page for your records. A confirmation of this submitted notification will also be emailed to the email address specified in your notification. This system is intended to facilitate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by providing early notification of proposed construction to Tribes and State Historic Preservation officers. This system is not to be used in place of Section 106 consultation, and use of this notification system in itself does not satisfy parties' obligations with respect to historic preservation review under the Commission's rules. Please note: the submission of this notification is NOT to be considered a submission for Antenna Structure Registration. Tower Structures that require antenna structure registration based on FCC Rules 47 C.F.R. Part 17 must complete FCC Form 854 after FAA clearance is obtained. Tower Construction Notification email From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:37 PM To: Kyle Crawford Subject: Proposed Tower Structure Info - Email ID #2903190 Dear Kyle W Crawford, Thank you for submitting a notification regarding your proposed construction via the Tower Construction Notification System. Note that the system has assigned a unique Notification ID number for this proposed construction. You will need to reference this Notification ID number when you update your project's Status with us. Below are the details you provided for the construction you have proposed: Notification Received: 10/21/2011 Notification ID: 80486 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: TEP for the North Carolina Highway Patrol Consultant Name: Kyle W Crawford Street Address: 3703 Junction Blvd. City: Raleigh State: NORTH CAROLINA Zip Code: 27603-5263 Phone: 919-661-6351 Email: kcrawford@tepgroup.net Structure Type: GTOWER -Guyed Tower Latitude: 36 degrees 26 minutes 13.0 seconds N Longitude: 78 degrees 07 minutes 28.5 seconds W Location Description: 261 Beef Tongue Road City: Warrenton State: NORTH CAROLINA County: WARREN Ground Elevation: 132.6 meters Support Structure: 146.3 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 150.9 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 283.5 meters above mean sea level EMAIL NOTIFICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:01 AM To: Kyle Crawford Cc: kim.pristello@fcc.gov; diane.dupert@fcc.gov Subject: NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #2904230 Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for using the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). The purpose of this electronic mail message is to inform you that the following authorized persons were sent the information you provided through TCNS, which relates to your proposed antenna structure. The information was forwarded by the FCC to authorized TCNS users by electronic mail and/or regular mail (letter).Persons who have received the information that you provided include leaders or their designees of federally-recognized American Indian Tribes, including Alaska Native Villages (collectively "Tribes"), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). For your convenience in identifying the referenced Tribes and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribe and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the listing below. We note that Tribes may have Section 106 cultural interests in ancestral homelands or other locations that are far removed from their current Seat of Government. Pursuant to the Commission's rules as set forth in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission (NPA), all Tribes and NHOs listed below must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this notification, consistent with the procedures set forth below, unless the proposed construction falls within an exclusion designated by the Tribe or NHO. (NPA, Section IV.F.4). The information you provided was forwarded to the following Tribes and NHOs who have set their geographic preferences on TCNS. If the information you provided relates to a proposed antenna structure in the State of Alaska, the following list also includes Tribes located in the State of Alaska that have not specified their geographic preferences. For these Tribes and NHOs, if the Tribe or NHO does not respond within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort at follow-up contact, unless the Tribe or NHO has agreed to different procedures (NPA, Section IV.F.5). In the event such a Tribe or NHO does not respond to a follow-up inquiry, or if a substantive or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribe or NHO, you must seek guidance from the Commission (NPA, Section IV.G). These procedures are further set forth in the FCC's Declaratory Ruling released on October 6, 2005 (FCC 05-176). 1. Chief Leo R. Henry Tuscarora Nation Lewiston, NY Via:regular mail Details: If the Applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Tuscarora Nation within 30 days after notification through TCNS, the Tuscarora Nation has no interest in participating in pre-construction review for the site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must IMMEDIATLY notify the Tuscarora Nation in the event archaeological properties or human remains are discovered during construction. 2. Policy Analyst Richard L. Allen Cherokee Nation -Tahlequah, OK Via: electronic mail Details: The TCNS Details do not provide me enough information toconduct a proper assessment of the projects on behalf of the Cherokee Nation. Therefore, I request that I be sent a brief summary of the Phase I findings [please try to limit the summary to between 1--10 pages], a topo of the area, and relevant photos. Please send these by email to rallen@cherokee.org. Please treat this request for additional material as a routine supplement to the TCNS Details Notification for each of your projects that fall within our Tribe's areas of geographic interest. Consequently, if you do not receive a response from me within 30 days from the date on which you e-mailed the supplemental items to me, you may move forward with the 20-Day Letter procedures pursuant to the FCC's guidelines. Thank you. Dr. Richard L. Allen 3. Administrative Assistant Jo Ann Beckham Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma -Seneca, MO Via: electronic mail Details: If you, the Applicant and/or tower constructor, do not receive a response from us, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, within 30 days from the date of the TCNS notification, then you may conclude that we do not have an interest in the site. However, if archeological resources or remains are found during construction, you must immediately stop construction and notify us of your findings in accordance with the FCC's rules. (See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312(d)) 4. THPO Kim Jumper -Shawnee Tribe -Miami, OK Via: regular mail Details: THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT THE SHAWNEE TRIBE IS INTERESTED IN CONSULTING ON ALL PROJECTS BUILT IN OUR AREAS OF GEOGRAPHIC INTEREST. ATTENTION, NEW INFORMATION: Our procedures were updated on 14 January 2008. Please call Kim Jumper, THPO, at 918-542-2441, so that she can send you a copy. If your tower is a co-location, please fax us this information to let us know. We cannot always tell from the TCNS web site that a tower is a co-location. We require a written response from you to let us know that it is a co-location. If a co-location project includes some new ground disturbance (such as from an expanded compound or access road, or construction of an ancillary structure), the Shawnee Tribe treats such a project the same as any other non co-location project. Our correct mailing/physical address is: 29 South Highway 69A. Our correct phone number is (918-542-2441) and our historic preservation fax line is (918-542-9915). THPO Kim Jumper manages all cell tower consultation. As of 26 June 2006, all of the faxed responses of our final comments on a tower site will contain an original Shawnee Tribe signature. Each final comment fax is signed individually. Copies may be compared, for authentication, against the original in our files. If a final comment fax does not contain a signature, it is not valid. ALL FINAL COMMENTS FROM THE SHAWNEE TRIBE ARE WRITTEN; FINAL COMMENTS ARE NEVER PROVIDED VERBALLY. IF THE SHAWNEE TRIBE IS CREDITED WITH HAVING GIVEN A VERBAL RESPONSE, THAT RESPONSE IS NOT VALID.If you receive notification through the TCNS listing the Shawnee Tribe, that is an indication that the Shawnee Tribe is interested in consulting on the tower for which that notificationwas received. Please consider that our official indication of interest to you. The Shawnee Tribe considers the Tower Construction Notification System's weekly e-mail to be the first notification that we receive that a towerwill be constructed in an area of our concern. We do not view the TCNS notification as completion of 106 consultation obligations. The Shawnee Tribe has developed streamlined consultation procedures for cell tower developers and their subcontractors. If you do not have a copy of the procedures -most recently updated on 14 January 2008 -please contact us, as you must follow these procedures to consult with us on cell tower projects. Call us at 918-542-2441 or fax us at 918-542-9915. It is the tower builder's responsibility to make sure that you have our most recent consultation procedures. PLEASE DO NOT SEND US INFORMATION, QUERIES, OR COMMENTS ELECTRONICALLY. SINCE 1 DECEMBER 2005, WE HAVE NOT HANDLED ANY CELL TOWER CONSULTATION, INQUIRIES, OR CORRESPONDENCE VIA EMAIL. 5. THPO and Executive Director Dr. Wenonah G Haire Catawba Indian Nation Cultural Preservation Project -Rock Hill, SC Via: electronic mail and regular mail Details: The Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office requests that you send us by regular mail the following information needed to complete our research for the your proposed project: Project Name____________________________________________ Project Number__________________________________________ 1. The name, complete address, phone number, fax number and e-mail address of the project manager. 2. The project location plotted on a topo map. 3. The project name, address and location; street or highway, city, county, state. 4. A brief description of the proposed project. Please include the size of the proposed project site and the size of the area where ground-disturbing activities will be taking place and the type of disturbance anticipated. 5. A brief description of current and former land use. We are primarily interested in ground disturbance and do not need detailed information or photographs of historic structures in the project area. 6. A list of all recorded archaeological sites within one half (1/2) mile of the project area. 7. A list of all eligible and potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places sites within one half (1/2) mile of the proposed project area. 8. If there has been an archaeological survey done in the area, a copy of that report. 9. It is not necessary to send original color photos if you can provide high-resolution color copies. 10. A letter of concurrence from the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. If you use the FCC Form 620, please do not send Attachments 1 through 6. They are not necessary for our determination. We do not have an interest in projects that require no ground disturbance. Please note: Our research/processing fee is currently $150. This fee will be changing effective January 1, 2011 to $250. Please send these requested materials in hard copy format. Send to: CIN-THPO 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, S.C. 29730 The information you provided was also forwarded to the additional Tribes and NHOs listed below. These Tribes and NHOs have NOT set their geographic preferences on TCNS, and therefore they are currently receiving tower notifications for the entire United States. For these Tribes and NHOs, you are required to use reasonable and good faith efforts to determine if the Tribe or NHO may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by its proposed undertaking. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, seeking information from the relevant SHPO or THPO, Indian Tribes, state agencies, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, or, where applicable, any federal agency with land holdings within the state (NPA, Section IV.B). If after such reasonable and good faith efforts, you determine that a Tribe or NHO may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties in the area and the Tribe or NHO does not respond to TCNS notification within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort to follow up, and must seek guidance from the Commission in the event of continued non-response or in the event of a procedural or substantive disagreement. If you determine that the Tribe or NHO is unlikely to attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the area, you do not need to take further action unless the Tribe or NHO indicates an interest in the proposed construction or other evidence of potential interest comes to your attention. The information you provided was also forwarded to the following SHPOs in the State in which you propose to construct and neighboring States. The information was provided to these SHPOs as a courtesy for their information and planning. You need make no effort at this time to follow up with any SHPO that does not respond to this notification. Prior to construction, you must provide the SHPO of the State in which you propose to construct (or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, if the project will be located on certain Tribal lands), with a Submission Packet pursuant to Section VII.A of the NPA. 6. Environmental Review Coordinator Renee GledhillEarley NC State Historic Preservation Office -Raleigh, NC Via:electronic mail 7. Deputy SHPO David Brook Historic Preservation Office Raleigh, NC Via: electronic mail If you are proposing to construct a facility in the State of Alaska, you should contact Commission staff for guidance regarding your obligations in the event that Tribes do not respond to this notification within a reasonable time. Please be advised that the FCC cannot guarantee that the contact(s) listed above opened and reviewed an electronic or regular mail notification. The following information relating to the proposed tower was forwarded to the person(s) listed above: Notification Received: 10/21/2011 Notification ID: 80486 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: TEP for the North Carolina Highway Patrol Consultant Name: Kyle W. Crawford Street Address: 3703 Junction Blvd. City: Raleigh State: NORTH CAROLINA Zip Code: 27603-5263 Phone: 919-661-6351 Email: kcrawford@tepgroup.net Structure Type: GTOWER -Guyed Tower Latitude: 36 degrees 26 minutes 13.0 seconds N Longitude: 78 degrees 7 minutes 28.5 seconds W Location Description: 261 Beef Tongue Road City: Warrenton State: NORTH CAROLINA County: WARREN Ground Elevation: 132.6 meters Support Structure: 146.3 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 150.9 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 283.5 meters above mean sea level If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice, please contact the FCC using the electronic mail form located on the FCC's website at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/notification/contact-fcc.html. You may also call the FCC Support Center at (877) 480-3201 (TTY 717-338-2824). Hours are from 8 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). To provide quality service and ensure security, all telephone calls are recorded. Thank you, Federal Communications Commission EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE From: Richard Allen [Richard-Allen@cherokee.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:38 PM To: Kyle Crawford Subject: RE: TEP Concurrence - Warrenton - TCNS# 80486 The Cherokee Nation has no knowledge of any historic, cultural or sacred sites within the affected area. Should any ground disturbance reveal an archaeological site or human remains, we ask that the all activity cease immediately and the Cherokee Nation and other appropriate agencies be contacted immediately. Thank you, EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE Dr. Richard L. Allen Policy Analyst Cherokee Nation P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74465 (918) 453-5466 (office) (918) 822-2707 (cell) (918) 458-5898 (fax) From: Kyle Crawford [mailto:kcrawford@tepgroup.net] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 8:05 AM To: Richard Allen; Richard Allen Subject: TEP Concurrence - Warrenton - TCNS# 80486 Dr. Allen, I have attached information concerning the proposed NC Highway Patrol facility identified as Warrenton (TCNS# 80486) for your review and concurrence. If you have any questions or need any further information please do not hesitate to call. Thank you, Kyle W. Crawford Environmental Scientist Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. (www.tepgroup.net) 3703 Junction Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27603-5263 Office: (919) 661-6351 Fax: (919) 661-6350 Mobile: (919) 880-3446 Natioanl NAGPRA Indian Reservations in the Continental United States MAP INDEX 1. ABSENTEE SHAWNEE * 2. ACOMA 3. AGUA CALIENTE 4. ALABAMA-COUSHATTA 5. ALABAMA-QUASSARTE CREEKS * 6. ALLEGANY 7. APACHE * 8. BAD RIVER 9. BARONA RANCH 10. BATTLE MOUNTAIN 11. BAY MILLS 12. BENTON PAIUTE 13. BERRY CREEK 14. BIG BEND 15. BIG CYPRESS 16. BIG LAGOON 17. BIG PINE 18. BIG VALLEY 19. BISHOP 20. BLACKFEET 21. BRIDGEPORT 22. BRIGHTON 23. BURNS PAIUTE COLONY 24. CABEZON 25. CADDO * 26. CAHUILLA 27. CAMPO 28. CAMP VERDE 29. CANONCITO 30. CAPITAN GRANDE 31. CARSON 32. CATAWBA 33. CATTARAUGUS 34. CAYUGA * 35. CEDARVILLE 36. CHEHALIS 37. CHEMEHUEVI 38. CHEROKEE * # 39. CHEYENNE-ARAPAHOE* 40. CHEYENNE RIVER 41. CHICKASAW * 42. CHITIMACHA 43. CHOCTAW * # 44. CITIZEN BAND OF POTAWATOMI * 45. COCHITI 46. COEUR D'ALENE 47. COLD SPRINGS 48. COLORADO RIVER 49. COLVILLE 50. COMANCHE * 51. COOS, LOWER UMPQUA & SIUSLAW 52. COQUILLE * 53. CORTINA 54. COUSHATTA 55. COW CREEK 56. CREEK * 57. CROW 58. CROW CREEK 59. CUYAPAIPE 60. DEER CREEK 61. DELAWARE * 62. DEVILS LAKE 63. DRESSLERVILLE COLONY 64. DRY CREEK 65. DUCKWATER 66. DUCK VALLEY 67. EASTERN SHAWNEE * 68. EAST COCOPAH 69. ELY COLONY 70. ENTERPRISE 71. FALLON 72. FLANDREAU INDIAN SCHOOL 73. FLATHEAD 74. FOND DU LAC 75. FORT APACHE 76. FORT BELKNAP 77. FORT BERTHOLD 78. FORT BIDWELL 79. FORT HALL 80. FORT INDEPENDENCE 81. FORT MCDERMITT 82. FORT MCDOWELL 83. FORT MOHAVE 84. FORT PECK 85. FORT YUMA 86. FT. SILL APACHE * 87. GILA BEND 88. GILA RIVER 89. GOSHUTE 90. GRANDE RONDE 91. GRAND PORTAGE 92. GRAND TRAVERSE 93. GREATER LEECH LAKE 94. GRINDSTONE 95. HANNAHVILLE 96. HAVASUPAI 97. HOH 98. HOLLYWOOD 99. HOOPA VALLEY 100. HOPI 101. HOULTON MALISEETS 102. HUALAPAI 103. INAJA 104. IOWA * 105. ISABELLA 106. ISLETA 107. JACKSON 108. JEMEZ 109. JICARILLA 110. KAIBAB 111. KALISPEL 112. KAW * 113. KIALEGEE CREEK * 114. KICKAPOO * 115. KIOWA * 116. KLAMATH * 117. KOOTENAI 118. L'ANSE 119. LAC COURTE OREILLES 120. LAC DU FLAMBEAU 121. LAC VIEUX DESERT 122. LAGUNA 123. LAS VEGAS 124. LAYTONVILLE 125. LA JOLLA 126. LA POSTA 127. LIKELY 128. LONE PINE 129. LOOKOUT 130. LOS COYOTES 131. LOVELOCK COLONY 132. LOWER BRULE 133. LOWER ELWAH 134. LOWER SIOUX 135. LUMMI 136. MAKAH 137. MANCHESTER 138. MANZANITA 139. MARICOPA 140. MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT 141. MATTAPONI + 142. MENOMINEE 143. MESCALERO 144. MIAMI * 145. MICCOSUKEE 146. MIDDLETOWN 147. MILLE LACS 148. MISSION 149. MOAPA 150. MODOC * 151. MOLE LAKE 152. MONTGOMERY CREEK 153. MORONGO 154. MUCKLESHOOT 155. NAMBE 156. NARRAGANSETT 157. NAVAJO 158. NETT LAKE 159. NEZ PERCE 160. NIPMOCHASSANAMISCO + 161. NISQUALLY 162. NOOKSACK 163. NORTHERN CHEYENNE 164. NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE 165. OIL SPRINGS 166. OMAHA 167. ONEIDA # 168. ONONDAGA 169. ONTONAGON 170. OSAGE 171. OTOE-MISSOURI * 172. OTTAWA * 173. OUT 174. OZETTE 175. PAIUTE 176. PALA 177. PAMUNKEY + 178. PASCUA YAQUI 179. PASSAMAQUODDY 180. PAUCATAUK PEQUOT + 181. PAUGUSETT + 182. PAWNEE * 183. PECHANGA 184. PENOBSCOT 185. PEORIA * 186. PICURIS 187. PINE RIDGE 188. POARCH CREEK 189. POJOAQUE 190. PONCA * 191. POOSEPATUCK + 192. PORT GAMBLE 193. PORT MADISON 194. POTAWATOMI # 195. PRAIRIE ISLE 196. PUERTOCITO 197. PUYALLUP 198. PYRAMID LAKE 199. QUAPAW * 200. QUILLAYUTE 201. QUINAULT 202. RAMAH 203. RAMONA 204. RED CLIFF 205. RED LAKE 206. RENO-SPARKS 207. RINCON 208. ROARING CREEK 209. ROCKY BOYS 210. ROSEBUD 211. ROUND VALLEY 212. RUMSEY 213. SAC AND FOX # 214. SALT RIVER 215. SANDIA 216. SANDY LAKE 217. SANTA ANA 218. SANTA CLARA 219. SANTA DOMINGO 220. SANTA ROSA 221. SANTA ROSA (NORTH) 222. SANTA YNEZ 223. SANTA YSABEL 224. SANTEE 225. SAN CARLOS 226. SAN FELIPE 227. SAN ILDEFONSO 228. SAN JUAN 229. SAN MANUAL 230. SAN PASQUAL 231. SAN XAVIER 232. SAUK SUIATTLE 233. SEMINOLE * 234. SENECA-CAYUGA * 235. SEQUAN 236. SHAGTICOKE + 237. SHAKOPEE 238. SHEEP RANCH 239. SHERWOOD VALLEY 240. SHINGLE SPRING 241. SHINNECOCK + 242. SHOALWATER 243. SHOSHONE 244. SILETZ 245. SISSETON 246. SKOKOMISH 247. SKULL VALLEY 248. SOBOBA 249. SOUTHERN UTE 250. SPOKANE 251. SQUAXON ISLAND 252. ST. CROIX 253. ST. REGIS 254. STANDING ROCK 255. STEWARTS POINT 256. STOCKBRIDGE MUNSEE 257. SUMMIT LAKE 258. SUSANVILLE 259. SWINOMISH 260. TAOS 261. TE-MOAK 262. TESUQUE 263. TEXAS KICKAPOO 264. TOHONO O'ODHAM 265. TONAWANDA 266. TONIKAWA * 267. TORRES MARTINEZ 268. TOULUMNE 269. TRINDAD 270. TULALIP 271. TULE RIVER 272. TUNICA-BILOXI 273. TURTLE MOUNTAINS 274. TUSCARORA 275. TWENTYNINE PALMS 276. UMATILLA 277. UNITAH AND OURAY 278. UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE * 279. UPPER SIOUX 280. UPPER SKAGIT 281. UTE MOUNTAIN 282. VERMILION LAKE 283. VIEJAS 284. WALKER RIVER 285. WARM SPRINGS 286. WASHOE 287. WEST COCOPAH 288. WHITE EARTH 289. WICHITA * 290. WIND RIVER 291. WINNEBAGO # 292. WINNEMUCCA 293. WOODFORD INDIAN COMMUNITY 294. WYANDOTTE * 295. XL RANCH 296. YAKAMA 297. YANKTON 298. YAVAPAI 299. YERINGTON 300. YOMBA 301. YSLETA DEL SUR 302. YUROK 303. ZIA 304. ZUNI PMM FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Rate Map of Project Location National Wetland Inventory Map of project Location Appendix C: NC DENR Air Pollution Response Appendix D: Unique & Prime Farmland Impact Rating Form U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 3/21/12 Name Of Project NC Highway Patrol Site: Warrenton Federal Agency Involved NC Dept. of Crime Control and Public Safety Proposed Land Use 480-ft. Guyed Communications Tower County And State Warren County, North Carolina PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 3/20/12 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). Yes No Acres Irrigated None Average Farm Size 254 Major Crop(s) Soybeans Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Acres: %267485 94 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA %Acres: 241916 87 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Warren CALES Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS 3/21/12 Alternative Site Rating Site A Site B Site C Site D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0.2 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0.0 C. Total Acres In Site 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 0.2 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0001 D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 32.5 PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) 90 0 0 0 PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 0 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 0 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 10 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 10 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 0 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 10 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 10. On-Farm Investments 0 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 0 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 1 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 61 0 0 0 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 90 0 0 0 Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a localsite assessment) 160 61 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 151 0 0 0 Site Selected: Warrenton Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes No ¦ Reason For Selection: Site will provide suitable radio frequency coverage for the statewide public safety (VIPER) communications network. (See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83) This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM Step 1 -Federal agencies involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland ProtectionPolicy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. Step 2 -Originator will send copies A, B and C together with maps indicating locations of site(s), to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local field office and retain copy D for their files. (Note: NRCS has a field office in most counties in the U.S. The field office is usually located in the county seat. A list of field office locations are available from the NRCS State Conservationist in each state). Step 3 -NRCS will, within 45 calendar days after receipt of form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland. Step 4 -In cases where farmland covered by theFPPA will be convertedby the proposed project, NRCS field offices will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form. Step 5 -NRCS will return copy A and B of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project. (Copy C will be retained forNRCS records). Step 6 -The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form. Step 7 -The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the FPPA and the agency’s internal policies. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM Part I: In completing the "County And State" questions list all the local governments that are responsiblefor local land controls where site(s) are to be evaluated. Part III: In completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following: 1 . Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the conversion would restrict access to them. 2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways, utilities) that will cause a direct conversion. Part VI: Do not complete Part VI if a local site assessment is used. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5 (b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type projects such as transportation, powerline and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply : and will, be weighed zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points, and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points. Individual Federal agencies at the national level, may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown in the FPPA rule. In all cases where other weights are assigned relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total weight points at l60. In rating alternative sites, Federal agencies shall consider each of the criteria and assign points within the limits established in the FPPA rule. Sites most suitable for protection under these criteria will receive the highest total scores, and sites least suitable, the lowest scores. Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total maximum number ofpoints is other than160, adjust thesite assessment points to a base of160. Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:Total points assigned Site A = 180 x 160 = 144 points for Site “A.” Maximum points possible 200 Site Assessment Scoring for the Twelve Factors Used in FPPA The Site Assessment criteria used in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) rule are designed to assess important factors other than the agricultural value of the land when determining which alternative sites should receive the highest level of protection from conversion to non agricultural uses. Twelve factors are used for Site Assessment and ten factors for corridor-type sites. Each factor is listed in an outline form, without detailed definitions or guidelines to follow in the rating process. The purpose of this document is to expand the definitions of use of each of the twelve Site Assessment factors so that all persons can have a clear understanding as to what each factor is intended to evaluate and how points are assigned for given conditions. In each of the 12 factors a number rating system is used to determine which sites deserve the most protection from conversion to non-farm uses. The higher the number value given to a proposed site, the more protection it will receive. The maximum scores are 10, 15 and 20 points, depending upon the relative importance of each particular question. If a question significantly relates to why a parcel of land should not be converted, the question has a maximum possible protection value of 20, whereas a question which does not have such a significant impact upon whether a site would be converted, would have fewer maximum points possible, for example 10. The following guidelines should be used in rating the twelve Site Assessment criteria: 1. How much land is in non-urban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent: 15 points 90-20 percent: 14 to 1 points Less than 20 percent: 0 points This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the area within one mile of the proposed site is non-urban area. For purposes of this rule, "non-urban" should include: Agricultural land (crop-fruit trees, nuts, oilseed) Range land Forest land Golf Courses Non paved parks and recreational areas Mining sites Farm Storage Lakes, ponds and other water bodies Rural roads, and through roads without houses or buildings Open space Wetlands . Fish production . Pasture or hayland Urban uses include: Houses (other than farm houses) Apartment buildings Commercial buildings Industrial buildings Paved recreational areas (i.e. tennis courts) Streets in areas with 30 structures per 40 acres Gas stations Equipment, supply stores . Off-farm storage . Processing plants . Shopping malls . Utilities/Services . Medical buildings In rating this factor, an area one-mile from the outer edge of the proposed site should be outlined on a current photo; the areas that are urban should be outlined. For rural houses and other buildings with unknown sizes, use 1 and 1/3 acres per structure. For roads with houses on only one side, use one half of road for urban and one half for non-urban. The purpose of this rating process is to insure that the most valuable and viable farmlands are protected from development projects sponsored by the Federal Government. With this goal in mind, factor S1 suggests that the more agricultural lands surrounding the parcel boundary in question, the more protection from development this site should receive. Accordingly, a site with a large quantity of non-urban land surrounding it will receive a greater number of points for protection from development. Thus, where more than 90 percent of the area around the proposed site (do not include the proposed site in this assessment) is non-urban, assign 15 points. Where 20 percent or less is non-urban, assign 0 points. Where the area lies between 20 and 90 percent non-urban, assign appropriate points from 14 to 1, as noted below. Percent Non-Urban Land Points within 1 mile 90 percent or greater 15 85 to 89 percent 14 80 to 84 percent 13 75 to 79 percent 12 70 to 74 percent 11 65 to 69 percent 10 60 to 64 percent 9 55 to 59 percent 8 50 to 54 percent 7 45 to 49 percent 6 40 to 44 percent 5 35 to 39 percent 4 30 to 24 percent 3 25 to 29 percent 2 21 to 24 percent 1 20 percent or less 0 2. How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in non-urban use? More than 90 percent: l0 points 90 to 20 percent: 9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent: 0 points This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the land adjacent to the proposed site is non-urban use. Where factor #1 evaluates the general location of the proposed site, this factor evaluates the immediate perimeter of the site. The definition of urban and non-urban uses in factor #1 should be used for this factor. In rating the second factor, measure the perimeter of the site that is in non-urban and urban use. Where more than 90 percent of the perimeter is in non-urban use, score this factor 10 points. Where less than 20 percent, assign 0 points. If a road is next to the perimeter, class the area according to the use on the other side of the road for that area. Use 1 and 1/3 acre per structure if not otherwise known. Where 20 to 90 percent of the perimeter is non-urban, assign points as noted below: Percentage of Perimeter Points Bordering Land 90 percent or greater 10 82 to 89 percent 9 74 to 81 percent 8 65 to 73 percent 7 58 to 65 percent 6 50 to 57 percent 5 42 to 49 percent 4 34 to 41 percent 3 27 to 33 percent 2 21 to 26 percent 1 20 percent or Less 0 3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last ten years? More than 90 percent: 20 points 90 to 20 percent: 19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent: 0 points This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the proposed conversion site has been used or managed for agricultural purposes in the past 10 years. Land is being farmed when it is used or managed for food or fiber, to include timber products, fruit, nuts, grapes, grain, forage, oil seed, fish and meat, poultry and dairy products. Land that has been left to grow up to native vegetation without management or harvest will be considered as abandoned and therefore not farmed. The proposed conversion site should be evaluated and rated according to the percent, of the site farmed. If more than 90 percent of the site has been farmed 5 of the last 10 years score the site as follows: Percentage of Site Farmed Points 90 percent or greater 20 86 to 89 percent 19 82 to 85 percent 18 78 to 81 percent 17 74 to 77 percent 16 70 to 73 percent 15 66 to 69 percent 14 62 to 65 percent 13 58 to 61 percent 12 54 to 57 percent 11 50 to 53 percent 10 46 to 49 percent 9 42 to 45 percent 8 38 to 41 percent 7 35 to 37 percent 6 32 to 34 percent 5 29 to 31 percent 4 26 to 28 percent 3 23 to 25 percent 2 20 to 22 percent percent or Less 1 Less than 20 percent 0 4. Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protectfarmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected: 20 points Site is not protected: 0 points This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which state and local government and private programs have made efforts to protect this site from conversion. State and local policies and programs to protect farmland include: State Policies and Programs to Protect Farmland 1. Tax Relief: A. Differential Assessment: Agricultural lands are taxed on their agricultural use value, rather than at market value. As a result, farmers pay fewer taxes on their land, which helps keep them in business, and therefore helps to insure that the farmland will not be converted to nonagricultural uses. 1. Preferential Assessment for Property Tax: Landowners with parcels of land used for agriculture are given the privilege of differential assessment. 2. Deferred Taxation for Property Tax: Landowners are deterred from converting their land to nonfarm uses, because if they do so, they must pay back taxes at market value. 3. Restrictive Agreement for Property Tax: Landowners who want to receive Differential Assessment must agree to keep their land in eligible use. B. Income Tax Credits Circuit Breaker Tax Credits: Authorize an eligible owner of farmland to apply some or all of the property taxes on his or her farmland and farm structures as a tax credit against the owner's state income tax. C. Estate and Inheritance Tax Benefits Farm Use Valuation for Death Tax: Exemption of state tax liability to eligible farm estates. 2. "Right to farm" laws: Prohibits local governments from enacting laws which will place restrictions upon normally accepted farming practices, for example, the generation of noise, odor or dust. 3. Agricultural Districting: Wherein farmers voluntarily organize districts of agricultural land to be legally recognized geographic areas. These farmers receive benefits, such as protection from annexation, in exchange for keeping land within the district for a given number of years. 4. Land Use Controls: Agricultural Zoning. Types of Agricultural Zoning Ordinances include: A. Exclusive: In which the agricultural zone is restricted to only farm-related dwellings, with, for example, a minimum of 40 acres per dwelling unit. B. Non-Exclusive: In which non-farm dwellings are allowed, but the density remains low, such as 20 acres per dwelling unit. Additional Zoning techniques include: A. Slidinq Scale: This method looks at zoning according to the total size of the parcel owned. For example, the number of dwelling units per a given number of acres may change from county to county according to the existing land acreage to dwelling unit ratio of surrounding parcels of land within the specific area. B. Point System or Numerical Approach: Approaches land use permits on a case by case basis. LESA: The LESA system (Land Evaluation-Site Assessment) is used as a tool to help assess options for land use on an evaluation of productivity weighed against commitment to urban development. C. Conditional Use: Based upon the evaluation on a case by case basis by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Also may include the method of using special land use permits. 5. Development Rights: A. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR): Where development rights are purchased by Government action. Buffer Zoning Districts: Buffer Zoning Districts are an example of land purchased by Government action. This land is included in zoning ordinances in order to preserve and protect agricultural lands from non-farm land uses encroaching upon them. B. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): Development rights are transferable for use in other locations designated as receiving areas. TDR is considered a locally based action (not state), because it requires a voluntary decision on the part of the individual landowners. 6. Governor’s Executive Order: Policy made by the Governor, stating the importance of agriculture, and the preservation of agricultural lands. The Governor orders the state agencies to avoid the unnecessary conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses. 7. Voluntary State Programs: A. California's Program of Restrictive Agreements and Differential Assessments: The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, allows cities, counties and individual landowners to form agricultural preserves and enter into contracts for 10 or more years to insure that these parcels of land remain strictly for agricultural use. Since 1972 the Act has extended eligibility to recreational and open space lands such as scenic highway corridors, salt ponds and wildlife preserves. These contractually restricted lands may be taxed differentially for their real value. One hundred-acre districts constitute the minimum land size eligible. Suggestion: An improved version of the Act would state that if the land is converted after the contract expires, the landowner must pay the difference in the taxes between market value for the land and the agricultural tax value which he or she had beenpaying under the Act. This measure would help to insure that farmland would not be converted after the 10 year period ends. B. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program: Agricultural landowners within agricultural districts have the opportunity to sell their development rights to the Maryland Land Preservation Foundation under the agreement that these landowners will not subdivide or develop their land for an initial period of five years. After five years the landowner may terminate the agreement with one year notice. As is stated above under the California Williamson Act, the landowner should pay the back taxes on the property if he or she decides to convert the land after the contract expires, in order to discourage such conversions. C. Wisconsin Income Tax Incentive Program: The Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program of December 1977 encourages local jurisdictions in Wisconsin to adopt agricultural preservation plans or exclusive agricultural district zoning ordinances in exchange for credit against state income tax and exemption from special utility assessment. Eligible candidates include local governments and landowners with at least 35 acres of land per dwelling unit in agricultural use and gross farm profits of at least $6.000 per year, or $18,000 over three years. 8. Mandatory State Programs: A. The Environmental Control Act in the state of Vermont was adopted in 1970 by the Vermont State Legislature. The Act established an environmental board with 9 members (appointed by the Governor) to implement a planning process and a permit system to screen most subdivisions and development proposals according to specific criteria stated in the law. The planning process consists of an interim and a final Land Capability and Development Plan, the latter of which acts as a policy plan to control development. The policies are written in order to: prevent air and water pollution; protect scenic or natural beauty, historic sites and rare and irreplaceable natural areas; and consider the impacts of growth and reduction of development on areas of primary agricultural soils. B. The California State Coastal Commission: In 1976 the Coastal Act was passed to establish a permanent Coastal Commission with permit and planning authority The purpose of the Coastal Commission was and is to protect the sensitive coastal zone environment and its resources, while accommodating the social and economic needs of the state. The Commission has the power to regulate development in the coastal zones by issuing permits on a case by case basis until local agencies can develop their own coastal plans, which must be certified by the Coastal Commission. C. Hawaii's Program of State Zoning: In 1961, the Hawaii State Legislature established Act 187, the Land Use Law, to protect the farmland and the welfare of the local people of Hawaii by planning to avoid “unnecessary urbanization”. The Law made all state lands into four districts: agricultural, conservation, rural and urban. The Governor appointed members to a State Land Use Commission, whose duties were to uphold the Law and form the boundaries of the four districts. In addition to state zoning, the Land Use Law introduced a program of Differential Assessment, wherein agricultural landowners paid taxes on their land for its agricultural use value, rather than its market value. D. The Oregon Land Use Act of 1973: This act established the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to provide statewide planning goals and guidelines. Under this Act, Oregon cities and counties are each required to draw up a comprehensive plan, consistent with statewide planning goals. Agricultural land preservation is high on the list of state goals to be followed locally. If the proposed site is subject to or has used one or more of the above farmland protection programs or policies, score the site 20 points. If none of the above policies or programs apply to this site, score 0 points. 5. How close is the site to an urban built-up area? The site is 2 miles or more from an urban built-up area The site is more than 1 mile but less than 2 miles from an urban built-up area The site is less than 1 mile from, but is not adjacent to an urban built-up area The site is adjacent to an urban built-up area 15 points 10 points 5 points 0 points This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the proposed site is located next to an existing urban area. The urban built-up area must be 2500 population. The measurement from the built-up area should be made from the point at which the density is 30 structures per 40 acres and with no open or non-urban land existing between the major built-up areas and this point. Suburbs adjacent to cities or urban built-up areas should be considered as part of that urban area. For greater accuracy, use the following chart to determine how much protection the site should receive according to its distance from an urban area. See chart below: Distance From Perimeter Points of Site to Urban Area More than 10,560 feet 15 9,860 to 10,559 feet 14 9,160 to 9,859 feet 13 8,460 to 9,159 feet 12 7,760 to 8,459 feet 11 7,060 to 7,759 feet 10 6,360 to 7,059 feet 9 5,660 to 6,359 feet 8 4,960 to 5,659 feet 7 4,260 to 4,959 feet 6 3,560 to 4,259 feet 5 2,860 to 3,559 feet 4 2,160 to 2,859 feet 3 1,460 to 2,159 feet 2 760 to 1,459 feet 1 Less than 760 feet (adjacent) 0 6. How close is the site to water lines, sewer lines and/or other local facilities and services whose capacities and design would promote nonagricultural use? None of the services exist nearer than 15 points 3 miles from the site Some of the services exist more than 10 points one but less than 3 miles from the site All of the services exist within 1/2 mile 0 points of the site This question determines how much infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) is in place which could facilitate nonagricultural development. The fewer facilities in place, the more difficult it is to develop an area. Thus, if a proposed site is further away from these services (more than 3 miles distance away), the site should be awarded the highest number of points (15). As the distance of the parcel of land to services decreases, the number of points awarded declines as well. So, when the site is equal to or further than 1 mile but less than 3 miles away from services, it should be given 10 points. Accordingly, if this distance is 1/2 mile to less than 1 mile, award 5 points; and if the distance from land to services is less than 1/2 mile, award 0 points. Distance to public facilities should be measured from the perimeter of the parcel in question to the nearest site(s) where necessary facilities are located. If there is more than one distance (i.e. from site to water and from site to sewer), use the average distance (add all distances and then divide by the number of different distances to get the average). Facilities which could promote nonagricultural use include: Water lines Sewer lines Power lines Gas lines Circulation (roads) Fire and police protection Schools 7. Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size farming unit in the county? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage of Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger: 10 points Below average: Deduct 1 point for 9 to 0 points each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more is below average This factor is designed to determine how much protection the site should receive, according to its size in relation to the average size of farming units within the county. The larger the parcel of land, the more agricultural use value the land possesses, and vice versa. Thus, if the farm unit is as large or larger than the county average, it receives the maximum number of points (10). The smaller the parcel of land compared to the county average, the fewer number of points given. Please see below: Parcel Size in Relation to Average County Points Size Same size or larger than average (l00 percent) 10 95 percent of average 9 90 percent of average 8 85 percent of average 7 80 percent of average 6 75 percent of average 5 70 percent of average 4 65 percent of average 3 60 percent of average 2 55 percent of average 1 50 percent or below county average 0 State and local Natural Resources Conservation Service offices will have the average farm size information, provided by the latest available Census of Agriculture data 8. If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will becomenon-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly 10 points converted by the project Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres 9 to 1 point(s) directly converted by the project Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres 0 points directly converted by the project This factor tackles the question of how the proposed development will affect the rest of the land on the farm The site which deserves the most protection from conversion will receive the greatest number of points, and vice versa. For example, if the project is small, such as an extension on a house, the rest of the agricultural land would remain farmable, and thus a lower number of points is given to the site. Whereas if a large-scale highway is planned, a greater portion of the land (not including the site) will become non-farmable, since access to the farmland will be blocked; and thus, the site should receive the highest number of points (10) as protection from conversion Conversion uses of the Site Which Would Make the Rest of the Land Non-Farmable by Interfering with Land Patterns Conversions which make the rest of the property nonfarmable include any development which blocks accessibility to the rest of the site Examples are highways, railroads, dams or development along the front of a site restricting access to the rest of the property. The point scoring is as follows: Amount of Land Not Including the Points Site Which Will Become Non-Farmable 25 percent or greater 10 23 - 24 percent 9 21 - 22 percent 8 19 - 20 percent 7 17 - 18 percent 6 15 - 16 percent 5 13 - 14 percent 4 11 - 12 percent 3 9 - 11 percent 2 6 - 8 percent 1 5 percent or less 0 9. Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farmsuppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available 5 points Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available 0 points This factor is used to assess whether there are adequate support facilities, activities and industry to keep the farming business in business. The more support facilities available to the agricultural landowner, the more feasible it is for him or her to stay in production. In addition, agricultural support facilities are compatible with farmland. This fact is important, because some land uses are not compatible; for example, development next to farmland cam be dangerous to the welfare of the agricultural land, as a result of pressure from the neighbors who often do not appreciate the noise, smells and dust intrinsic to farmland. Thus, when all required agricultural support services are available, the maximum number of points (5) are awarded. When some services are available, 4 to 1 point(s) are awarded; and consequently, when no services are available, no points are given. See below: Percent of Points Services Available 100 percent 5 75 to 99 percent 4 50 to 74 percent 3 25 to 49 percent 2 1 to 24 percent 1 No services 0 10. Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on farm investments such as barns, other storage buildings, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment 20 points Moderate amount of non-farm 19 to 1 point(s) investment No on-farm investments 0 points This factor assesses the quantity of agricultural facilities in place on the proposed site. If a significant agricultural infrastructure exists, the site should continue to be used for farming, and thus the parcel will receive the highest amount of points towards protection from conversion or development. If there is little on farm investment, the site will receive comparatively less protection. See-below: Amount of On-farm Investment Points As much or more than necessary to 20 maintain production (100 percent) 95 to 99 percent 19 90 to 94 percent 18 85 to 89 percent 17 80 to 84 percent 16 75 to 79 percent 15 70 to 74 percent 14 65 to 69 percent 13 60 to 64 percent 12 55 to 59 percent 11 50 to 54 percent 10 45 to 49 percent 9 40 to 44 percent 8 35 to 39 percent 7 30 to 34 percent 6 25 to 29 percent 5 20 to 24 percent 4 15 to 19 percent 3 10 to 14 percent 2 5 to 9 percent 1 0 to 4 percent 0 11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the support for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support 10 points services if the site is converted Some reduction in demand for support 9 to 1 point(s) services if the site is converted No significant reduction in demand for 0 points support services if the site is converted This factor determines whether there are other agriculturally related activities, businesses or jobs dependent upon the working of the pre-converted site in order for the others to remain in production. The more people and farming activities relying upon this land, the more protection it should receive from conversion. Thus, if a substantial reduction in demand for support services were to occur as a result of conversions, the proposed site would receive a high score of 10; some reduction in demand would receive 9 to 1 point(s), and no significant reduction in demand would receive no points. Specific points are outlined as follows: Amount of Reduction in Support Points Services if Site is Converted to Nonagricultural Use Substantial reduction (100 percent) 10 90 to 99 percent 9 80 to 89 percent 8 70 to 79 percent 7 60 to 69 percent 6 50 to 59 percent 5 40 to 49 percent 4 30 to 39 percent 3 20 to 29 percent 2 10 to 19 percent 1 No significant reduction (0 to 9 percent) 0 12. Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of the surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? Proposed project is incompatible with existing 10 points agricultural use of surrounding farmlandProposed project is tolerable of existing 9 to 1 point(s) agricultural use of surrounding farmlandProposed project is fully compatible with existing 0 points agricultural use of surrounding farmland Factor 12 determines whether conversion of the proposed agricultural site will eventually cause the conversion of neighboring farmland as a result of incompatibility of use of the first with the latter. The more incompatible the proposed conversion is with agriculture, the more protection this site receives from conversion. Therefor-, if the proposed conversion is incompatible with agriculture, the site receives 10 points. If the project is tolerable with agriculture, it receives 9 to 1 points; and if the proposed conversion is compatible with agriculture, it receives 0 points. CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. For Water and Waste Programs, corridor analyses are not applicable for distribution or collection networks. Analyses are applicable for transmission or trunk lines where placement of the lines are flexible. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile form where the project is intended? (2) More than 90 percent (3) 15 points (4) 90 to 20 percent (5) 14 to 1 point(s). (6) Less than 20 percent (7) 0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? (3) More than 90 percent (4) 10 point(s) (5) 90 to 20 percent (6) 9 to 1 points (7) less than 20 percent (8) 0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last 10 years? (4) More than 90 percent (5) 20 points (6) 90 to 20 percent (7) 19 to 1 point(s) (8) Less than 20 percent (9) 0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected 20 points Site is not protected 0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage of Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger 10 points Below average deduct 1 point for each 5 9 to 0 points percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of 25 pointsacres directly converted by the project Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of 1 to 24 point(s) the acres directly convened by the project Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the 0 points acres directly converted by the project (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available 5 points Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available 0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment 20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment 19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment 0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support 25 points services if the site is convened Some reduction in demand for support 1 to 24 point(s) services if the site is convened No significant reduction in demand for support 0 points services if the site is converted (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? Proposed project is incompatible to existing 10 points agricultural use of surrounding farmland Proposed project is tolerable to existing 9 to 1 point(s) agricultural use of surrounding farmland Proposed project is fully compatible with 0 points existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland Appendix E: DHS Proof of Public Notice APPENDIX F: Preparer’s Resume Andrew B. Blake Environmental Division – Environmental Scientist II EDUCATION___________________________________________________________ North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC – College of Natural Resources Degree: Bachelor of Science (2011) Major: Environmental Technology and Management OSHA 40-hr HAZWOPER Certification WORK_SUMMARY_____________________________________________________ Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. Raleigh, NC (December 2010 – present) -Environmental Scientist II Assisted with the completion of Phase I - Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for proposed Telecommunication tower projects throughout the southeastern United States (NC, SC, VA, GA, WV, TX IL, OH, FL, MD, UT, NV, AZ, WY, NM, CO and Canada). Assisted with the completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Checklist (FCC Compliance Checklists) documents for proposed and existing Telecommunications tower projects. Assisted with the completion of NEPA Environmental Assessments (NEPA – EA) due to issues discovered during the initial NEPA Checklist screening process Completed Biological Assessments for Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Assisted with Section 106 Compliance Surveys Completed Native American Consultation for proposed Telecommunication tower structures as per FCCTCNS guidelines. Conducted the completion of perennial stream restoration and/or stabilizations for the City of Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC (June 2010 – November 2010) -Progress Energy/Environmental Technology Intern Assisted two graduate students in the Natural Resources - Ecological Restoration program at North Carolina State University evaluate and assess stream restoration projects throughout the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. Collected and assessed 1,000+ soil samples for chemical analysis and Bulk Density analysis Assessed the condition and installation of in-stream structures in previous stream restoration projects. Presented results of soil chemical analysis and bulk density testing at the North Carolina undergraduate research symposium at Meredith College in the November of 2010. Ryan A. Malek Environmental Division – Environmental Scientist II EDUCATION___________________________________________________________ North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC – College of Natural Resources Degree: Bachelor of Science (2008) Major: Environmental Technology OSHA 40-hr HAZWOPER Certification WORK_SUMMARY_____________________________________________________ Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. Raleigh, NC (January 2009 – present) -Environmental Scientist II Assisted with the completion of Phase I - Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for proposed Telecommunication tower projects throughout the southeastern United States (NC, SC, VA). Assisted with the completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Checklist (FCC Compliance Checklists) documents for proposed and existing Telecommunication tower projects. Assisted with the completion of NEPA Environmental Assessments (NEPA – EA) due to issues discovered during the initial NEPA Checklist screening process Assisted in Phase II Environmental Site Assessment soil sampling and temporary groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling Completed Biological Assessments for Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Assisted with Section 106 Compliance Surveys Completed Native American Consultation for proposed Telecommunication tower structures as per FCC TCNS guidelines. Conducted the completion of perennial stream restoration and/or stabilizations for the City of Raleigh, NC Assisted with the completion of Civil and Structural Engineering Construction and Zoning Drawings using AutoCAD The Nature Conservancy Wilmington, NC (May 2008-August 2008) -Environmental Intern Conducted Pine and Hardwood Forest inventory with geospatial technologies (GPS, ArcGIS) Assisted with Endangered and Federally Concerned species habitat management (Red Cockaded Woodpecker, Pitcher Plant, Venus Flytrap) George T. Swearingen, III Environmental Division Manager EDUCATION___________________________________________________________ North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Degree: Bachelor of Science (1996) Major: School of Forest Resources - Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment WORK_SUMMARY_____________________________________________________ Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. Raleigh, NC (December 1, 1999 – present) -Environmental Division Manager Managed the completion of ~1000+/- Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) throughout the United States (NC, SC, GA, FL, VA, TN, KY, NJ, MA, OH, IL, TX, NM, CO, WY, MT, AZ, UT, NV). Managed the completion of ~1000+/- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (FCC Compliance Checklists). Wetland Delineations, Federal & State Wetland Impact Permits, Endangered Species surveys, Section 106 Compliance surveys, Native American Consultation, etc. Supervised the completion of ~100+/- Phases II ESA’s for Communications towers in the United States. Managed the completion of ~50 NEPA Environmental Assessments (NEPA – EA) due to issues discovered during the initial NEPA Checklist screening process. Restored and/or stabilized ~3+/- miles of perennial streams in North Carolina as a Licensed North Carolina General Contractor with the City of Raleigh, NC, and as a contractor for the NC Dept. Environment & Natural Resources – Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly the NCDENR – Wetlands Restoration Program). KCI Associates of NC, Raleigh, NC (May 30, 1996 – November 30, 1999), Environmental Scientist I & II Conducted and supervised the completion of Phase I - Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for proposed Telecommunication tower projects and various commercial real-estate transactions for numerous banks. Conducted and supervised the completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Checklist documents for proposed and existing Telecommunication tower projects and stream restoration projects. Assisted in the completion of Phase II – ESA sampling for various proposed Communications tower facilities in North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. Project Manager for NCDOT Stream & Wetland Mitigation watershed searches for the Catawba, Neuse, and Yadkin River Watersheds. Completed the field work, research, and GIS analysis necessary to provided suitable properties for the restoration of former wetland sites for the purpose of mitigation. Assisted in the design and construction of numerous stream restoration and stabilization sites in North Carolina and Maryland. Supervised and assisted in the completion of on-site wastewater disposal soil analysis for residential and commercial development. Supervised and assisted in the completion of wetland boundary surveys for various types commercial development