Environmental Corporation of America’s (ECA) client, Southern Communications Services, d/b/a SouthernLINC Wireless c/o Value Concepts, Inc., is proposing to construct a telecommunications facility as described in the following FCC Form 620, New Tower (NT) Submission Packet. The facility would consist of a 100-foot by 100-foot (30-meter by 30-meter) fenced compound surrounding a 420-foot tall (overall height) guyed telecommunications structure and associated ground-level support equipment. The facility would be accessible by an approximate 1,140-foot long by 40-foot wide (347-meter by 12-meter) access/utility easement, and include a 158-foot long by 10-foot wide (48-meter by 3-meter) utility easement, and three guy wire easements measuring between 222 feet long by 50 feet wide (68 meters by 15 meters) and 230 feet long by 50 feet wide (70 meters by 15 meters).
ECA has identified and evaluated Historic Properties, if any, within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for visual and direct effects as directed in Section VI.D.1 and 2 of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, effective on March 7, 2005. We have found no properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the APE for either APE.
Based on our review of the files at the Georgia Historic Preservation Office (GA HPD), we identified 31 historic resources inside the 1½ -mile APE for visual effects but outside the APE for direct effects in the ID Site Files and County Survey Files. No additional resources were identified in the Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographic Information System (GNAHRGIS) online database, the Environmental Review Files, or in the Centennial Farm Files. Jaime Destefano, Principal Architectural Historian, of ECA reviewed these resources for determination of eligibility. On January 15, 2016, Dina Bazzill spoke with Katie Twomey at the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office regarding this Section 106 Review and determined that two charts should be created within this document to reflect the eligible and ineligible properties within the project’s APE for visual effects. Ineligible properties are described in Table 1 and identified in a topographic map in Attachment B-2a-i. Eligible properties are described in Table 2 and identified in a topographic map in Attachment B-2a-ii.
ECA believes Resources #19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are eligible for listing on the NRHP (see Table 2). We believe the proposed undertaking would have no effect on Resources #19, 25, 26, and 27. We believe the proposed undertaking would be minimally visible from Resources #19 and #27; however, due to intervening vegetation, buildings, or utility lines, we believe the proposed undertaking would not substantially compromise the existing view shed from these resources. Due to distance and intervening vegetation, we believe the proposed undertaking would not be visible from Resources #25 and #26 and therefore, would have no effect on Resources #25 and #26.
We believe the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on Resources #28, 29, and 30. We believe the proposed undertaking would be minimally visible from Resources #28. However, due to an existing utility easement and lattice tower, we believe the historic setting of Resource #28 has been compromised and, therefore, the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on Resource #28. We believe that the proposed undertaking would be minimally visible from Resources #29; however, due to the intervening water tower and building, we believe the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on Resource #29. We believe the proposed undertaking would be minimally, if at all, visible from Resource #30. Due to intervening vegetation and utility lines, we believe the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect Resource #30.
ECA believes Resources #3-5, 8, 13, 15-20, and 23 are not eligible for listing on the NRHP (see Table 1). Therefore, we believe the proposed undertaking would have no effect on Resource #3- 5, 8, 13, 15-20, and 23.
Resources #1, 2, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 21, 22, 24, and 31 have been destroyed (see Table 1). Therefore, we believe the proposed undertaking would have no effect on Resources #1, 2, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 21, 22, 24, and 31.
An Archaeological Assessment was conducted within the APE for direct effects. During our database research, we found four previously recorded archaeological site (9CQ39, 9CQ40, 9CQ41, and 9CQ42) and three survey reports (3207, 7382, and 8233) within our standard 1-mile background research radius, but outside the APE for direct effects. During our fieldwork, we uncovered no archaeological sites (see Attachment E-1c). Based on our findings, we recommend no further consultation under Section 106 Review of the National Historic Preservation Act for this proposed undertaking.
Based on this documentation, prepared in accordance with the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement effective March 7, 2005, ECA believes that this proposed facility would have no adverse effect for visual effects and no effect for direct effects on any Historic Properties identified in accordance with the NPA. Therefore, we recommend a finding of "No Adverse Effect" for visual effects and “No Effect” for direct effects for the proposed undertaking.
Help us to continue to make advances in research, stewardship, and bringing the past to life. No matter the size of the gift, your contribution will directly support groundbreaking archaeological research through sustaining student and outreach programs, and technological innovations. To make a secure gift online to the Archaeology Lab Fund, CLICK HERE.