NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) SCREENING Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility “Jansen Lane” 28 Jansen Lane Berne, New York 12023Prepared for: November 11, 2015 IVI Project No.: TS50714170 IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE Company THIS REPORT IS THE PROPERTY OF IVI TELECOM SERVICES, A CBRE COMPANY & PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES, LLC C/O ALBANY COUNTY AND WAS PREPARED FOR A SPECIFIC USE, PURPOSE, AND RELIANCE AS DEFINED WITHIN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN IVI AND PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES, LLC C/O ALBANY COUNTY AND IN THIS REPORT. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE USED AND/OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IVI . THERE SHALL BE NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, INTENDED OR IMPLIED, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREIN.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
THIS REPORT IS THE PROPERTY OF IVI TELECOM SERVICES, A CBRE COMPANY &PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES, LLC C/O ALBANY COUNTY AND WAS PREPARED FOR ASPECIFIC USE, PURPOSE, AND RELIANCE AS DEFINED WITHIN THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN IVI AND PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES, LLC C/O ALBANY COUNTY AND INTHIS REPORT. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE USED AND/OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHERPARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IVI. THERE SHALL BE NOTHIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, INTENDED OR IMPLIED, UNLESS SPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIED HEREIN.
(47 CFR Chapter 1, Part 1, Subpart I, § 1.1306 & 1.1307)87 Kings Highway
“JANSEN LANE”
28 Jansen Lane
Berne, New York
Section Environmental Sensitivity Area Potential Impact
Yes No
1 Wilderness Areas
2 Wildlife Preserves
3 Endangered Species
4 Historic Sites
5 Native American Religious Sites
6 Flood Plains
7 Surface Features (including Wetlands)
8 High Intensity White Lights
9 Radiofrequency Emissions
10. National Scenic Trails
Conclusion: Pyramid Network Services, LLC c/o Albany County has satisfied the requirements set forth by the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC)’s implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, no
This report documents IVI Telecom Services’ Inc. (“IVI”)’s findings from our NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) Screening on Pyramid Network Services, LLC c/o
Albany County (“Pyramid c/o Albany County”)’s proposed telecommunications facilityknown as “JANSEN LANE,” located at 28 Jansen Lane in Berne, Albany County, New
York (the “Subject”). Pyramid c/o Albany County proposes the construction of a 185’ self-support tower along with the installation of ancillary equipment within a 50’ x 60’
equipment compound. Access will utilize an existing farm access drive that will connectthe telecommunications facility with Jansen Lane (refer to Appendix B for site drawings).
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility, including access thereto is hereafterreferred to as the “Undertaking.”
This assessment was conducted pursuant to implementation of NEPA requirements by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 47 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1, Subpart I -Procedures Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Specifically,
the assessment criteria are listed in § 1.1307(a) and (b) of Subpart I. This assessment has
been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts associated with theUndertaking and determine whether an Environmental Assessment (EA) or anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) was and/or is required.
Based on our review, the following conclusion has been made in connection with theUndertaking:
Site Qualifies for Categorical Exclusion (CATX)
The Undertaking described above is deemed individually and cumulatively to have no
significant effect on the quality of the human environment and will not have a significant
impact on the human environment based on the criteria listed in § 1.1307(a) and (b).Therefore, the Undertaking is categorically excluded from environmental processing andno further action is required at this time.
IVI was retained by Pyramid c/o Albany County to prepare an environmentalscreening pursuant to NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and NEPA procedures required
by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (47 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1,Subpart I, §§ 1.1301 to 1.1319). This review has been prepared to address the
potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed Undertaking.Environmental characteristics of the Undertaking were screened against the criteria
listed in 47 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1, Subpart I, §1.1306 & §1.1307(a) and (b) whichare as follows:
• Will the Undertaking be located in an officially designated wildernessarea?
• Will the Undertaking be located in an officially designated wildlife preserve?
•
Will the Undertaking be one that may affect listed, threatened orendangered species or designated critical habitats or is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered orthreatened species or is likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitats (as determined by the Sec ofInterior pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973) (47 CFR
§1.1307(a)(3)(i& ii))?
• Will the Undertaking be one that may affect districts, sites, buildings,structures or objects, significant in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible forlisting, in the NRHP (47 CFR §1.1307(a)(4)) ?
•
Will the Undertaking be one that may affect Native American religioussites?
• Will the Undertaking be located within a flood plain?
• Will the Undertaking be one that will involve significant change in
surface features (e.g., wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion)?
• Will the Undertaking be one that will include antenna towers and/orsupporting structures that are to be equipped with high intensity white
lights which are to be located in residential neighborhoods, as defined by the applicable zoning law? (47 CFR § 1.1307 (a) (8))
In addition, even though a potentially significant effect on migratory birds is not
one of the categories of proposed actions identified in 47 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1,Subpart I Section 1.1307(a) of the rules as requiring an EA, in accordance with the
FCC’s Order FCC11-181, as part of IVI’s endangered species review, IVIdetermined the following:
• Will the Undertaking involve an Antenna Registration System
application for a new tower (or substantial increase in size) greater than
450’ in height that may affect migratory birds?
• Will the Undertaking involve an Antenna Registration Systemapplication for a new tower (or substantial increase in size) of 351’ to
450’ in height involving a change of lighting system from a more preferred to a less preferred FAA Lighting Style (medium intensity
white strobe lights preferred system over red obstruction lightingsystems) where public notice is required?
In addition, although not listed as a criteria in 47 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1, Subpart
I, §1.1306 & §1.1307(a) and (b), due to previous actions to slow or stop wirelesstelecommunications development taken by Managing and Supporting Trail
Organizations (“MSTO”) and in order to avoid similar occurrences, IVIadditionally determined the following:
•
Will the Undertaking be one that is located within one mile of thecenterline of a National Scenic (or Historic) Trail and has the MSTO
indicated that the proposed construction will have a significant effect?
It should be noted that IVI did not independently determine whether theUndertaking will be one that would cause human exposure to levels of
radiofrequency radiation in excess of the limits in 47 CFR § 1.1310 and § 2? (47CFR § 1.1307 (a) (8)). It is the understanding of IVI that the client or one of its
representatives will evaluate the undertaking to ensure compliance with applicableRF standards as per 47 CFR 1.1307 (b)
This Screening was used to make one of the following determinations:
• Whether the Undertaking is categorically excluded from further NEPAanalysis,
• Whether an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) is required.
2.2 Scope
The scope of this assessment included the following as applicable:
2.2.1 Performing a site reconnaissance to characterize on-site and nearby
conditions and assess whether the Undertaking will have an effect on anyof the listed categories.
The site visit was conducted by Taylor R. Weber representing IVI. The site
was not represented at the time of the site visit. It was sunny and thetemperature was approximately 79°F at the time of the site survey.
2.2.2 Review of the most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 and/or 15 Minute
Series topographic map(s) and aerial photographs of the Subject area toassist in the identification of surface features and structures in the immediate
vicinity of the Subject and to determine the Area of Potential Effect.
2.2.3
Reviewing readily available historical documents, such as topographicmaps, aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and
atlases, to identify previous activities on and in the vicinity of the Subject.
2.2.4 Consulting with applicable federal, state and/or local government agenciesand private organizations or associations, reviewing their data available
online and/or reviewing their previous correspondence concerning status of projects similar to the Undertaking with respect to NEPA compliance.
2.2.5 If applicable, interviewing persons familiar with the property to obtain
information on present and previous conditions at the Subject and/or
adjoining properties.
2.2.6 If provided and applicable, reviewing of information such as surveys,
permits, construction/zoning plans and specifications, consultation lettersand environmental reports.
2.2.7 If applicable based on preliminary review, submitting consultation requests
or determination of effect letters to various federal, state and localgovernment agencies and tribal governments, to determine whether or notthe Undertaking would have an adverse impact on the applicable NEPA
criteria.
2.2.8
Making a determination of whether the Undertaking is likely to fall into anyof the above listed criteria necessitating further review. This determination
is made based on a review of the above information by IVI’s team ofengineers, cultural resources specialists, biologists, regulatory analysts and
In 1964, Congress established the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), under the Wilderness
Act. The legislation set aside certain federal lands as wilderness areas. These areas, generally 5,000 acres or
larger, are wild lands largely in their natural state. The Wilderness Act reads that these are areas "...where the
earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
Four federal agencies manage designated wilderness areas in the United States: the United States Forest
Service (USFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Bureau of Land
Management (USBLM), and the National Park Service (NPS).
Is the Undertaking to be located in an officially designated wilderness area? (47 CFR
§1.1307(a)(1))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building or
antenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or
objects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that arelisted, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)
The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure
in an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether ornot such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above e xclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequencyexposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b
National Wildlife Refuge System lands include all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the
USFWS as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, andother areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife including those threatened with extinction,
as determined in writing by the Director or so directed by Presidential or Secretarial Order.
Is the Undertaking to be located in an officially designated wildlife preserve? (47 CFR
§1.1307(a)(2))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building or
antenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or
objects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are
listed, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure
in an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether or
not such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above e xclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequency
exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b Resources:
Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires the FCC to "seek to conserve" endangered species and
threatened species, including their critical habitats. "Endangered Species" means any native speciesdocumented by biological research and inventory to be in danger of extirpation throughout all or a significant
portion of its range within the state and to have no more than five occurrences in the state, and any speciesdetermined to be an "endangered species" pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. "Threatened
Species" means any native species documented by biological research and inventory to be likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range within
the state and to have no more than nine occurrences in the state, and any species determined to be a "threatened
species" pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act.
The United States Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the applicable stateregulatory agency identify the Country’s and state's most significant natural areas through a comprehensive
inventory of rare plant and animal species and representative natural communities.
Is the Undertaking one that may affect listed, threatened or endangered species or
designated critical habitats or is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
proposed endangered or threatened species or is likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitats (as determined by the Sec of
Interior pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973)? (47 CFR §1.1307(a)(3))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building or
antenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures orobjects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are
listed, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)
The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure
in an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether ornot such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above e xclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequency
exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b
Resources:
www.usfws.govwww.crithab.fws.gov
IVI also reviewed applicable state specific resources as applicable
Exemption Review
IVI reviewed the Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool on the USFWSwebsite to determine what listed or endangered species, if any, were located at or within
the immediate vicinity of the proposed tower site. According to this review, the followingspecies was identified;
Northern Long-eared Bat (Threatened) – Spend winters hibernating in caves and mines.During the summer the bats roost in cavities or crevices of both live and dead trees, or incaves and mines.
IVI compared the habitat requirements for the above species to observations made during
the site visit to determine if any suitable habitat exists at the proposed tower site. Based onthese observations, IVI determined that the tower site will be located in a cleared are within
forested land, and that no suitable habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat exists. As such,
the proposed tower will have No Effect on the Northern Long-eared Bat.
Based on correspondence received from the New York Field Office of the FWS on June16, 2014, “If an action agency determined a project will result in “no effect” to any listed
species, they do not have to coordinate with the USFWS. No Effect determinations areappropriate when there is no suitable habitat for a species and no likelihood of their
occurrence in an action area.” However, IVI consulted with USFWS to determine that thereis no suitable habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat. IVI received the Section 7 response
from the USFWS that stated that they concur with our determination and that no furtherconsultation with the USFWS was warranted.
IVI additionally reviewed the Undertaking as compared to New York agency
correspondence. Specifically IVI reviewed the 2012 letter from the NYS Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, titled “Guidelines for Consultation with NY Natural
Heritage regarding Proposed Collocations of Telecommunication Facilities on Existing
Towers and Buildings” which states that the NYSDEC has “no records of rare or listedspecies which would be of concern, and therefore does not require a consultation with NY Natural Heritage (NYSDEC), for any communication facilities projects that meet one of
three criteria below:
• New antennae or panels on existing towers, or new communications equipmentinstalled within existing fenced equipment areas, provided that all new work isconfined within existing equipment areas, no previously undisturbed land is
disturbed, and no new access roads or expansion of existing access roads isinvolved.
• New or existing towers, antennae, and associated equipment installed at a locationcurrently wholly occupied by lawn, pavement and/or gravel
• New or existing towers, antennae, and associated equipment installed on or in
existing buildings, rooftops, billboards, or bridges, with the exception of the buildings and bridges with peregrine falcon nests listed in the attached letter
referenced above.
According to this review, the Undertaking does not meet the criteria exempting it fromfurther State review as the Undertaking will be located in a cleared area. As such IVI sent
a species request to the NY Natural Heritage Program for a list of threatened andendangered species on the Undertaking. IVI received a response listing the Northern Long-
eared Bat on the property. IVI sent the NYSDEC a Section 7 consultation letter statingthat no suitable habitat exists on the Undertaking for the Northern Long-eared Bat. The
NYSDEC response stated that they concur with our determination, and as such no furtherconsultation with them is required at this time.
IVI additionally consulted the USFWS online Critical Habitat Mapper to determine
whether there were any critical habitats on or near the Undertaking. According to thisreview, there are no critical habitats in the vicinity of the Undertaking.
Migratory Bird Review
On September 27, 2013, the USFWS revised the “Guidelines for Communication Tower
Design, Siting, Construction, Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning. Theseguidelines outline voluntary federal recommendations designed to minimize the impacts of
tower facilities on migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)and the Endangered Species Act. Based upon the Undertaking design (i.e. non guyed) and
height (i.e. less than 200 feet above ground level), the Undertaking meets many if not allof the recommendations set forth in the USFW’s Revised Guidelines. As such, it is unlikely
that the Undertaking would adversely impact migratory bird species protected under theMBTA and the Endangered Species Act.
Summary
As such, the Undertaking is not one that may affect listed, threatened or endangered species
or designated critical habitats or is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species or is likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitats. (as determined by the Sec of Interior pursuantto the Endangered Species Act of 1973) (47 CFR §1.1307(a)(3))
The National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”) is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of
preservation. Properties listed in the NRHP include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are
significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP is
administered by the National Park Service (“NPS”), which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires that every federal agency "take into account" how each of its undertakings
could affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. This is in order to balance the federal
undertaking and mission of the agency against the historic properties to best represent the public interest andto prevent arbitrary destruction of historic resources with federal funds.
Is the Undertaking one that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects,
significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture,
that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the NRHP? (47 CFR §1.1307(a)(4))
Yes No
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement &
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Collocation of Wireless Antennas Criteria The Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (“NPA”) to improve and streamline the Section 106 review
process for tower constructions and other Commission undertakings entered into by FCC, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers NCSHPO took effect on March 7, 2005. The NPA excludes certain categories of undertakings from review
that have been determined as not likely to adversely affect historic properties provided that the additional
criteria listed below are met. These undertakings include: (a) Enhancements to towers; (b) Temporary Towers;
(c) Replacement Towers; (d) Certain Towers Constructed in Industrial and Commercial Areas; (e) Certain
towers constructed in Utility Corridor rights-of-way and (f) Towers constructed in SHPO/THPO designated
areas.
The Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Collocation of Wireless Antennas Criteria (“CNPA”) to reduce
new tower construction and encourage the collocation of antennas took effect on March 16, 2001. The CNPAexcludes certain categories of undertakings from review that have been determined as not likely to adversely
affect historic properties provided that the additional criteria listed below are met. These undertakings include:(1) Collocation of antennas on tower constructed on or before March 16, 2001; (2) Collocation of antennas
on tower constructed after March 16, 2001; (3) Collocation of antennas on buildings/non-tower structures.
A - Enhancement of a Tower
Will the proposed action consist of a collocation as defined by the CNPA?
Source:
Yes No
Will the proposed action create a “substantial increase” in the size to the tower?Source:
Yes No
B - Construction of a Replacement Tower
Could the proposed replacement tower be considered a “substantial increase” in
height, mass, or size in relation to the existing tower located at the site?
Source:
Yes No
Could the proposed replacement tower increase the boundaries of the owned orleased area surrounding the existing tower by more than thirty feet?
Will construction of the proposed replacement tower involve excavation outsideof a thirty-foot radius from the edge of owned or leased area or outside existing
access or utility easements?
Source:
Yes No
If the existing tower was constructed after March 16, 2001, has the existing
tower failed to undergo Section 106 review?Source:
Yes No
C - Construction of temporary communications tower or facility
Will the temporary installation involve excavation of soils?
Source:
Yes
No
Will the temporary installation be in operation for more than twenty-fourmonths?
Source:
Yes
No
D - Construction of Facility within strip mall, shopping center, or industrial park
Will the proposed facility be over 200 feet in height?
Source: Yes No
Is the locally designated industrial park, strip mall, or shopping center less than100,000 square feet?
Source:
Yes No
Is the locally designated industrial park, strip mall, or shopping center locatedwithin the boundaries of or within five hundred feet of a historic property?
Source:
Yes
No
E - Construction of a Facility at or near utility transmission corridors
Will the proposed facility be located outside of or beyond fifty feet of a right-of-way designated by Federal, State, local, or Tribal governments as a locationfor communications towers or utility transmission and distribution lines?
Source:
Yes No
Could the proposed facility be considered a “substantial increase” in height,
mass, or size in relation to existing towers or utility transmission and distributionlines located that the site?
Source:
Yes No
Will the proposed facility be located within the boundaries of a historic
property?
Source:
Yes
No
F - Construction of a Tower in a SHPO/THPO permitted zone
Is there inadequate documentation that the construction of the tower occurred
inside of an area designated by the SHPO and/or THPO for the construction of
communications towers and associated facilities?Source:
Yes
No
1 - Collocation of antennas on a tower constructed on or before March 16, 2001Will the collocation result in a substantial increase in the size of the tower?
Source:
Yes
No
Has the FCC determined that the tower has, or potentially has, an “adverseeffect” on historic properties?
Is the tower pending environmental review before the FCC involving Section106 compliance?
Source:
Yes No
Has the licensee or tower owner received notification of complaint from the public, SHPO, or Council that the collocation will have an adverse effect on
historic properties?Source:
Yes
No
2 - Collocation of antennas on a tower constructed after March 16, 2001
Has the tower failed to undergo Section 106 review?
Source: Yes No
Will the collocation result in a substantial increase in the size of the tower?
Source: Yes No
Has the FCC determined that the tower has or will have, or potentially has or
will have, an “adverse effect” on historic properties?
Source:
Yes No
Has the licensee or tower owner received notification of complaint from the
public, SHPO, or Council that the collocation will have an adverse effect on
historic properties?Source:
Yes
No
3 - Collocation of antennas on buildings/non-tower structures
Is the building/structure over 45 years old?
Source:
Yes No
Is the building/structure located inside the boundary of a historic district, or if
the antenna is visible from the ground level of the historic district, the buildingor structure is within 250 feet of the boundary of the historic district?
Source:
Yes No
Is the building/structure a National Historic Landmark, or listed or eligible forlisting on the NRHP?
Source:
Yes No
Has the licensee received notification of complaint from the public, SHPO, orCouncil that the collocation will have an adverse effect on historic properties?
Source:
Yes
No
NPA / NCPA Criteria Results
If any questions within the designated category above are answered “Yes” or if theUndertaking does not fall into any of the above mentioned categories: The Undertakingdoes not meet the criteria and stipulations set forth for that section of the NPA. Therefore,
Section 106 consultation is required in accordance with 47 CFR Part 1.1301-1.1319 of the FCCregulations.
If all questions within the designated category above are answered “No”: The
telecommunications installation meets the criteria and stipulations set forth in the NPA.Therefore the Undertaking is recognized to have minimal or no adverse effect on historic
properties, and Section 106 Review is not required.*
*However, for projects meeting D or E criteria, Section 106 consultation with any Indian Tribeor NHO that attaches significance to the site or area must be completed.
IVI reviewed documentation provided by Pyramid in order to determine whether the
Undertaking fell within any criteria exemptions from Section 106 Review set forth in the NPA or CNPA.
According to this review, the Undertaking does not meet any of the exemptions in so far
as the Undertaking is the construction of a new self-support tower.
It was IVI’s professional opinion that the proposed undertaking is not exempt from theconsultation process set forth under Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800 and under the provisions
of the NPA and/or CNPA and that further Section 106 consultation is required.
Section 106 Consultation Overview
IVI initiated Section 106 Review of the proposed Undertaking which included defining thearea of potential effects (“APE”), identifying historic properties within the APE, evaluatingthe historic significance of identified properties as appropriate, assessing the effects of the
Undertaking on these historic properties and consulting with the requisite State HistoricPreservation Office(s) (“SHPO”), interested tribes and the public.
IVI determined the APE for direct effects to be limited to the area of potential ground
disturbance and any property, or portion thereof that will be physically altered or destroyed by the Undertaking. IVI determined the APE for visual effects to be ½ mile from the tower
site in so far as the proposed Undertaking will be 200’ or less in overall height.
IVI reviewed documentation available online, through public participation and/or at theSHPO office and conducted an independent assessment to determine what historic
properties, if any were located within the APE along with their historic significance. IVIadditionally conducted a reconnaissance of the Subject and properties within the APE on
August 3, 2015 in order to identify any additional historic properties not identified above.
IVI then evaluated whether any historic properties would be affected by the Undertaking.Based on this review, IVI determined that No Historic Properties are located within the
APE for Direct Effects and the Undertaking would have No Adverse Effect on historic
IVI submitted the above review and determination of effect using FCC Form 621 via the
FCC’s on-line Electronic Section 106 (“E-106”) submission process. The New YorkSHPO issued concurrence with our findings via the FCC’s E-106 system on August 28,
2015.
Public Participation
With regards to the public participation, IVI posted a public notice on August 7, 2015 inthe Post-Standard, a local newspaper of general circulation. IVI additionally reached out
to other individuals or organizations with a demonstrated legal or economic interest in theUndertaking, or demonstrated expertise or standing as a representative of local or public
interest in historic or cultural resources preservation by sending out invitation to consultletters.
As of this date, there has been no other response to IVI’s public participation efforts andthe appropriate waiting period has expired.
Summary
Consequently, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), no further Section 106 consultation isrequired unless additional resources are discovered during project implementation pursuant
to 36 CFR 800.13.
As such, the Undertaking is not one that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures orobjects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture
that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the NRHP and the project is exempt from furtherreview.
Native American Religious Sites Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part
800), require consultation with Native American tribal groups regarding proposed projects and potentialimpacts to Native American religious sites. In order to determine which Native American tribal groups may
potentially have areas of cultural interest within the area of the Undertaking, the FCC has established theTribal Consultation Notification System. TCNS works to increase communication with Indian Tribes and
Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) in the context of the review required by the NHPA. It also provides
Tribes/NHOs and State Historic Preservation Office with early notification of proposed towers and
collocations in order to facilitate compliance with the Commission's rules, and to streamline the review
process.
Is the Undertaking one that may affect Native American religious sites? (47 CFR
§1.1307(a)(5))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building or
antenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures orobjects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are
listed, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)
The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure
in an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether ornot such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above exclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequency
exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b
Resources:
“Indian Lands in the United States” prepared by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Geographic Data
Service Center, dated December 1998
http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/
http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/index.htm?job=tower_notificationIndividual Tribal Correspondence as per TCNS Responses
Conclusion
As part of the Undertaking’s Section 106 Review, information pertaining to the
Undertaking was posted through the FCC’s online Tower Construction NotificationSystem (“TCNS”) and the following tribes expressed interest in the Undertaking’s
geographical area.
• St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
• Cayuga Nation
• Narragansett Indian Tribe
• Tuscarora Nation
• Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
•
Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians
• Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
• Wyandotte Nation
• Shawnee Tribe
• Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
According to the attached TCNS Notice of Organizations email and subsequentconsultation, the above tribe’s have either requested a 30-day review period in which they
will contact the applicant if they wish to participate in the consultation process, IVI’sconsultation with each tribe with respect to the project scope and location has revealed they
do not wish to consult further on the project or communication was referred to the FCCthrough the TCNS system and the appropriate waiting period has expired. As of this writing
it can be concluded that the above tribes do not wish to participate further in theconsultation process, provided work is stopped and they are contacted in the event of
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources.
As such, the Undertaking is not one that may affect Native American religious sites.
Flood Plains According to Executive Order 11988 referred to in section 1.1307(a)(6), a floodplain is defined as the
"lowland and relatively flat area adjoining inland and coastal waters . . . including at a minimum, that areasubject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." This definition is often referred to
as a "100-year floodplain."
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), and the federal agency having lead responsibility for flood hazard assessment and mitigation.
FEMA has adopted the 100-year floodplain as the base flood standard for NFIP as that agency is mainly
concerned with construction which could potentially harm a 100-year floodplain. Relying upon FEMA's
guidelines, the term "floodplain" as used in 47 CFR §1.1307(a)(6) refers to a 100-year floodplain.
Is the Undertaking one that is located within a flood plain? (47 CFR §1.1307(a)(6))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building orantenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or
objects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that arelisted, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)
The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure
in an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether ornot such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above e xclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequency
exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b
Resources:
FEMA Flood Insurance Maps- http://www.fema.gov
Further Advice on Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management - http://www.fema.gov
Client Provided Exhibits
Conclusion
IVI reviewed the applicable FEMA flood plain map(s) for the Undertaking.
According to this review, the Undertaking is not located within a mapped 100 year FEMA
Flood Zone.
As such, the Undertaking is not located within a floodplain.
Under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR § 230.3), wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” Potential wetlands under the
jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) include waterways, lakes, streams, andnatural springs.
Is the Undertaking one that will involve significant change in surface features (e.g.,
wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion)? (47 CFR §1.1307(a)(7))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building or
antenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures orobjects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are
listed, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)
The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structurein an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether or
not such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above e xclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequencyexposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b
Resources:
US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Mapper
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html
Client Provided Lease Exhibits
Conclusion
IVI also determined that the proposed Undertaking would not involve deforestation (to be
differentiated from sporadic tree clearing) or water diversion.
As such, the Undertaking is not one that will involve significant change in surface features(e.g., wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion).
Generally, towers exceeding an overall height of 200 ft above ground level require markings and/or lighting.
In some cases, an FAA aeronautical study will demonstrate the need for markings and/or lighting for towers
shorter than 200 ft or the lack of such need for towers over 200 ft high. The FAA analysis and guidelines will
also direct the applicant to the types of markings and/or lighting that are acceptable. High intensity lighting
is only one of several lighting options. Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5345-43 (“FAA Specifications forObstruction Lighting Equipment”) provides details.
Is the Undertaking one that will include antenna towers and/or supporting structures
that are to be equipped with high intensity white lights which are to be located in
residential neighborhoods, as defined by the applicable zoning law? (47 CFR § 1.1307
(a) (8))
Exempt from Review*
Yes No
*The preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s) on an existing building or
antenna tower unless § 1.1307(a)(4) (Facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures orobjects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are
listed, or are eligible for li sting, in the NRHP of this part is applicable. (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 1)
The preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of an antenna tower or supporting structurein an established “antenna farm”: (i.e. an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered whether ornot such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm). (47 CFR §1.1307 Note 3)
Neither of the above e xclusions apply to Undertakings which could cause human radiofrequency
exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in 47 CFR §1.1307b
According to this review the Undertaking will not be equipped with high intensity whitelights and/or is not located in a residential neighborhood.
As such, the Undertaking is not one that will include antenna towers and/or supporting
structures that are to be equipped with high intensity white lights which are to be locatedin residential neighborhoods, as defined by the applicable zoning law and the project is
Radiofrequency Emissions Antenna sites must be evaluated for compliance with limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE).
Preparation of an EA and a determination of compliance with exposure limits established in §§ 1.1310 and2.1093 of 47 CFR Chapter I is required for facilities, operations and transmitters that meet the criteria based
on operating power, location, or height above ground set forth in Table 1 in §1.1307.
A facility is categorically excluded from routine evaluation for compliance with the RF guidelines if:
1. For non-building-mounted antennas: The lowest point on the transmitter antenna is at least 10 m (33
ft) above the ground or the total power of all channels is 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP)
or less.
2. For building-mounted antennas: If the total power of all channels is 1000 watts ERP or less.
Where a categorical exclusion does not apply, an evaluation of the RF emissions must be performed.
Is the Undertaking one that may cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency
radiation in excess of FCC-adopted guidelines? (47 CFR § 1.1307 (a) (9))
Yes No
Resources:
Client Provided Information
Conclusion
An evaluation to determine whether radio frequency (RF) emission standards will be met
is not included in this report. It is the understanding of IVI that Pyramid c/o Albany Countyor one of its representatives will evaluate the undertaking to ensure compliance with
National Scenic Trails National Scenic Trails are a designation for protected areas in the United States that consist of trails of
particular natural beauty. National Scenic Trails were authorized under the National Trails System Act of1968 (Public Law 90-543) along with National Historic Trails and National Recreation Trails. National Scenic
Trails and National Historic Trails may only be designated by an act of Congress.
In October of 1999, CTIA – The Wireless Association, PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association and
representatives from the National Scenic Trails, known as Managing and Supporting Trail Organizations
(“MSTO”) adopted a resolution and voluntary guidelines pertaining to sites within one mile of designated
National Scenic Trails. Although consideration of the interests of MSTO is not required under FCC rules, the
MSTO have previously taken action to slow or stop facilities sites, and the guidelines are designed to avoid
those situations.
Is the Undertaking one that is located within one mile of the centerline of a National
Scenic (or Historic) Trail and has the MSTO indicated that the proposed construction
4.1 This report has been prepared in compliance with generally accepted practices for conducting
NEPA screenings in general compliance with FCC procedures found at 47 CFR, SubchapterA, Chapter 1, Part 1, Subpart I, §§ 1.1301 to 1.1319.
4.2 The observations described in this report were made under the conditions stated herein. Theconclusions presented in this report were based solely upon the services described herein.
4.3 In preparing this report, IVI has relied on certain information provided by federal, state, and
local officials and other parties referenced therein, and on information contained in the files
of governmental agencies, that were readily available to IVI at the time of this assessment.Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by thesevarious sources, IVI did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of
all information reviewed or received during the course of this site assessment. Observationswere made of the site and of the structures on the site as indicated in this report. Where
access to portions of the site or to structures on the site was unavailable or limited, IVI rendersno opinion as to the effect of the Undertaking on same.
4.4 No subsurface testing was conducted to determine the presence or absence of cultural
resources in the project area unless specifically delineated within this report.
4.5 No wetlands delineation was conducted to determine the presence or absence of wetlands in
the project area unless specifically delineated within this report.
4.6 No formal biological assessment was conducted to determine the presence or absence ofendangered species in the project area unless specifically delineated within this report.
4.7 This report is not to be relied upon by any party nor used for any purpose other than that
specifically stated within this Report’s Introduction Section 2.1 without IVI’s advance andexpress written consent.
Latitude N 42° 37’ 14.5”, Longitude W 74° 08’ 40.4”IVI Project No.: TS50714170
To whom it may concern:
IVI Telecom Services, Inc. (IVI) has been retained to conduct a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review on
the following property for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility pursuant to 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart 1, RuleSection 1.1307(a) of the NEPA. The proposed facility will be located in a rural area consisting of wooded land andexisting roadway.
IVI is inquiring whether or not threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats are present in the area ofthe above-referenced project. Specifically, does your office have records of known occurrences of rare or state listed
animals or plants, significant natural communities, or other significant habitats, on or in the immediate vicinity of the project area and, if it does, we request a list of these occurrences.
Please fax or mail your response to the address/number provided above or email to [email protected] (preferred
method). Thank you very much for your assistance and please do not hesitate to contact IVI for any additionalinformation or questions you may have.
In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program
database with respect to the above project.
Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural communities
that our database indicates occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site.
For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed report only
includes records from our database. We cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or
absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. Depending on the nature ofthe project and the conditions at the project site, further information from on-site surveys or other
sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources.
Our database is continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is
still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may
update this response with the most current information.
The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in this project
requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for information regarding
other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated
wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of EnvironmentalPermits, as listed at www.dec.ny.gov/about/39381.html.
The following state-listed animals have been documented
in the vicinity of your project site.
The following list includes animals that are listed by NYS as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern;and/or that are federally listed or are candidates for federal listing. The list may also include other rare animalsand rare plants found with listed animals.
Report on State-listed Animals
For information about any permit considerations for your project, contact the Permits staff at the
NYSDEC Region 4 Office. For information about potential impacts of your project on these species, and
how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts, contact the Wildlife Manager.
A listing of Regional Offices is at http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/558.html.
The following species have been documented with in 5 mi of the project site. Individual animals may travel 5 mifrom documented locations. The main impact of concern for bats is the removal of potential roost trees.
SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL LISTING NY STATE LISTINGCOMMON NAME
Mammals
Myotis septentrionalis Threatened ThreatenedNorthern Long-eared Bat
Two hibernacula have been documented within 5 mi of the project site.
142
This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage database. For most sites, comprehensive field
surveys have not been conducted, and we cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence ofall rare or state-listed species. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, furtheinformation from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resource
If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that information on the observations be provided to the New
York Natural Heritage Program so that we may update our database.
Information about many of the listed animals in New York, including habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and management, areavailable online in Natural Heritage’s Conservation Guides at www.guides.nynhp.org, and from NYSDEC at
55 West Red Oak LaneWhite Plains, New York 10604(914) 694-9600 (tel)(914) 694-5870 (fax)
www.ivi-intl.com
NEW YORK ATLANTA AUSTIN CHICAGO LAS VEGASLOS ANGELES MIAMI WASHINGTON, D.C.
BARCELONA · LONDON · PARIS ·NICE · STOCKHOLM
Member of SOCOTEC Group with 140 offices worldwide
October 22, 2015
Peter Innes
NYSDEC Region 4 Office 1130 N. Westcott RoadSchenectady, NY 12306
Re: “Jansen Lane” – Proposed Wireless Telecommunications FacilityJansen Lane RoadBerne, Albany County, New York 12023
Latitude 42°37’ 14.5”N, Longitude 74°08’ 40.4”WTower Type/Height: Self-Support – 180 ft.
IVI Project No.: TS50714170
To whom it may concern:
IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE Company (IVI) has been retained to conduct a National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review for Pyramid Network Services, LLC of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility known as
“Jansen Lane,” located near 28 Jansen Lane, in Berne, Albany County, New York (the “Subject”) pursuant to 47CFR, Part 1, Subpart 1, Rule Section 1.1307(a) of the NEPA. As part of this review, IVI must adhere to Section 7of the Endangered Species Act to determine whether the proposed wireless telecommunications facility will
jeopardize any threatened or endangered (“T/E”) species.
Project Description
Pyramid proposes the construction of a 180 ft. self-support tower (all appurtenances) along with the installation ofancillary equipment at ground level within an approximately 50’ x 60’ lease parcel. Access will be provided by an
existing farm road extending from Jansen Lane. A 1,000 gallon propane tank is also proposed within the 50’ x
60’ lease area.
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility described above including all areas of potential disturbance is
hereby referred to as the “Undertaking.”
Subject & Surrounding Area Description
Currently the Subject area is comprised of cleared area within forested land. The existing farm road will beutilized as the access road to the Subject, which may be improved as needed. The farm road begins off Jansen
Lane, with the new portion running northwest towards the proposed compound. The 50’ x 60’ fenced incompound will be located in an area that is currently cleared. Limited tree clearing may be needed (see attached
photos and site plans for more details). There are currently no wetlands mapped in the area of, or adjacent to, theaccess road or compound.
The below species was listed in a response from the New York Natural Heritage Program, which provided a listof species documented within 1 miles of the Undertaking:
Species Habitat Suitable Habitat at Subject?
Northern Long-
eared Bat
Found in crevices and cavities in live and dead trees. Prefer
exfoliating bark for roosting.
No suitable habitat
No Effect
Based on the above information, IVI has determined that the Undertaking does not possess suitable habitat for the
Northern Long-eared Bat. As such, the Undertaking will not effect this species.
IVI requests a reply concurring with the above determination or with any additional information necessary in
order to complete your review.
Migratory Bird Review
On September 27, 2013, the USFWS revised the “Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting,Construction, Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning. These guidelines outline voluntary federal
recommendations designed to minimize the impacts of tower facilities on migratory birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Endangered Species Act. Based upon the Undertaking design (i.e.non guyed) and height (i.e. less than 200 feet above ground level), the Undertaking meets many of therecommendations set forth in the USFWS’s Revised Guidelines. As such, it is unlikely that the Undertaking
would adversely impact migratory bird species protected under the MBTA and the Endangered Species Act.
Please fax or mail your response to the address/number provided above or email to [email protected]
(preferred method). Thank you very much for your assistance and please do not hesitate to contact IVI for anyadditional information or questions you may have.
In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program
database with respect to the above project.
Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural communities
that our database indicates occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site.
For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed report only
includes records from our database. We cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or
absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. Depending on the nature ofthe project and the conditions at the project site, further information from on-site surveys or other
sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources.
Our database is continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is
still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may
update this response with the most current information.
The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in this project
requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for information regarding
other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated
wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of EnvironmentalPermits, as listed at www.dec.ny.gov/about/39381.html.
Education: M.S. Environmental Science, Sacred Heart University
B.S. Traditional Biology, Sacred Heart University
Licenses/Registrations Methodology for Delineating Wetlands, Rutgers University
NYS Wetlands Forum Member, 2015
Years of Experience: 2.5 years
Summary of Professional Experience
Mr. Bond is a Biologist and Project Manager at IVI Telecom, a CBRE Company for over two years. He
has conducted Migratory Bird Surveys, consulted on Wetland Delineations, Natural Resource and
NEPA reviews for various clients within the telecommunications industry.
Mr. Bond’s environmental experience extends from both his background in biology and chemistry.
Specifically, Mr. Bond has conducted environmental sampling of rivers, streams and groundwater forpresence of harmful chemicals and suspended solids. Mr. Bond has also conducted biological
surveys for different migratory bird species and invertebrate diversity within streams and rivers. He
also has experience coordinating and working with the USFWS Field Offices throughout the United
States.
Mr. Bond received his Bachelor of Science at Sacred Heart University with majors in Traditional
Biology. Mr. Bond also received his Master of Science in Environmental Science at the Sacred Heart
University Environmental Graduate Program. While attending graduate school, he participated in
Project Limulus where he conducted species surveys of horseshoe crab populations within the LongIsland Sound. Mr. Bond was also a co-writer of “Estimation of Short-Term Tag-Induced Mortality in
Horseshoe Crab Limulus Polyphemus” which was published in Biology Faculty Publications in 2011.
IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE Company (IVI) has been retained to conduct a National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) review for Pyramid Network Services, LLC of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility known as“Jansen Lane,” located near 28 Jansen Lane, in Berne, Albany County, New York (the “Subject”) pursuant to 47
CFR, Part 1, Subpart 1, Rule Section 1.1307(a) of the NEPA. As part of this review, IVI must adhere to Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act to determine whether the proposed wireless telecommunications facility will jeopardize any threatened or endangered (“T/E”) species.
Project Description
Pyramid proposes the construction of a 180 ft. self-support tower (all appurtenances) along with the installation ofancillary equipment at ground level within an approximately 50’ x 60’ lease parcel. Access will be provided by an
existing farm road extending from Jansen Lane. A 1,000 gallon propane tank is also proposed within the 50’ x60’ lease area.
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility described above including all areas of potential disturbance ishereby referred to as the “Undertaking.”
Subject & Surrounding Area Description
Currently the Subject area is comprised of cleared area within forested land. The existing farm road will beutilized as the access road to the Subject, which may be improved as needed. The farm road begins off Jansen
Lane, with the new portion running northwest towards the proposed compound. The 50’ x 60’ fenced incompound will be located in an area that is currently cleared. Limited tree clearing may be needed (see attached
photos and site plans for more details). There are currently no wetlands mapped in the area of, or adjacent to, theaccess road or compound.
According to the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System, the following species are potentiallylocated in the area of the Undertaking:
Species Name Species Status Species Habitat Requirement Suitable
Habitat atSubject? Federal State
Northern Long
– Eared Bat
T T Spend winters hibernating in caves and mines. During the
summer the bats roost in cavities or crevices of both live and
dead trees, or in caves and mines.
No suitable
habitat
No Effect
Federal Status Codes: E=Endangered, T=Threatened, P=Proposed, C=Candidate, D=Delisted, NA=Not Listed
State Status Codes: E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, NA=Not Listed
Based on the above information, IVI has determined that the Undertaking does not possess suitable habitat for the
Northern Long-eared Bat. As such, the Undertaking will not effect this species.
IVI requests a reply concurring with the above determination or with any additional information necessary in
order to complete your review.
Migratory Bird Review
On September 27, 2013, the USFWS revised the “Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting,Construction, Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning. These guidelines outline voluntary federal
recommendations designed to minimize the impacts of tower facilities on migratory birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Endangered Species Act. Based upon the Undertaking design (i.e.non guyed) and height (i.e. less than 200 feet above ground level), the Undertaking meets many of therecommendations set forth in the USFWS’s Revised Guidelines. As such, it is unlikely that the Undertaking
would adversely impact migratory bird species protected under the MBTA and the Endangered Species Act.
Please fax or mail your response to the address/number provided above or email to [email protected]
(preferred method). Thank you very much for your assistance and please do not hesitate to contact IVI for anyadditional information or questions you may have.
09/25/2015 09:14 Page 3Information for Planning and ConservationIPaC
Version 2.2.7
Threatened
Endangered SpeciesProposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the
and should be considered as part of an effect analysisEndangered Species Program
for this project.
This unofficial species list is for informational purposes only and does not fulfill the
requirements under of the Endangered Species Act, which states that FederalSection 7agencies are required to "request of the Secretary of Interior information whether any
species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a
proposed action." This requirement applies to projects which are conducted, permitted
or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can be
obtained by returning to this project on the IPaC website and requesting an official
species list on the Regulatory Documents page.
Mammals Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
Education: M.S. Environmental Science, Sacred Heart University
B.S. Traditional Biology, Sacred Heart University
Licenses/Registrations Methodology for Delineating Wetlands, Rutgers University
NYS Wetlands Forum Member, 2015
Years of Experience: 2.5 years
Summary of Professional Experience
Mr. Bond is a Biologist and Project Manager at IVI Telecom, a CBRE Company for over two years. He
has conducted Migratory Bird Surveys, consulted on Wetland Delineations, Natural Resource and
NEPA reviews for various clients within the telecommunications industry.
Mr. Bond’s environmental experience extends from both his background in biology and chemistry.
Specifically, Mr. Bond has conducted environmental sampling of rivers, streams and groundwater forpresence of harmful chemicals and suspended solids. Mr. Bond has also conducted biological
surveys for different migratory bird species and invertebrate diversity within streams and rivers. He
also has experience coordinating and working with the USFWS Field Offices throughout the United
States.
Mr. Bond received his Bachelor of Science at Sacred Heart University with majors in Traditional
Biology. Mr. Bond also received his Master of Science in Environmental Science at the Sacred Heart
University Environmental Graduate Program. While attending graduate school, he participated in
Project Limulus where he conducted species surveys of horseshoe crab populations within the LongIsland Sound. Mr. Bond was also a co-writer of “Estimation of Short-Term Tag-Induced Mortality in
Horseshoe Crab Limulus Polyphemus” which was published in Biology Faculty Publications in 2011.
Subject: Section 106 Notification of SHPO/THPO Concurrence- Email ID #1375920
Date: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:47:55 AM
This is to notify you that the Lead SHPO/THPO has concurred with the following filing:Date of Action: 08/28/2015
Direct Effect: No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE)Visual Effect: No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties in APEComment Text: Daria Merwin, NY SHPO, August 28, 2015
File Number: 0006914512TCNS Number: 129733Purpose: New Tower Submission Packet Notification Date: 7AM EST 08/17/2015Applicant: Albany CountyConsultant: IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE CompanyPositive Train Control Filing Subject to Expedited Treatment Under Program Comment: No
Site Name: Jansen Lane - MOTNY1009Site Address: 28 Jansen LaneDetailed Description of Project: Jansen Lane-MOTNY1009 - proposed construction of a new telecommunications self-support tower and compound Site Coordinates: 42-37-14.5 N, 74-8-40.4 WCity: BerneCounty: ALBANYState:NYLead SHPO/THPO: New York State Historic Preservation Office
NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT USE OF SYSTEM, ABUSE OF PASSWORD AND RELATED MISUSE
Use of the Section 106 system is intended to facilitate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable laws. Any person having access to Section 106 information shall use it only for its intended purpose. Appropriate action will be taken with respect to any misuse of the system.
1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and culturalsignificance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visualeffects?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
129733 11
X
0
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
( ) No Reply
( ) Replied/No Interest
( ) Replied/Have Interest
( ) Replied/Other
Cayuga Nation
07/30/2015
X
Clint HalftownC
Cayuga Nation Representative
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS
3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and culturalsignificance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visualeffects?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
129733 11
X
0
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
( ) No Reply
( ) Replied/No Interest
( ) Replied/Have Interest
( ) Replied/Other
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
07/30/2015 07/31/2015
X
Robin Dushane
THPO
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS
3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and culturalsignificance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visualeffects?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
129733 11
X
0
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
( ) No Reply
( ) Replied/No Interest
( ) Replied/Have Interest
( ) Replied/Other
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
07/30/2015 08/04/2015
X
Melinda YoungJ
THPO
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS
3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and culturalsignificance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visualeffects?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
129733 11
X
0
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
( ) No Reply
( ) Replied/No Interest
( ) Replied/Have Interest
( ) Replied/Other
Shawnee Tribe
07/30/2015 08/06/2015
X
Kim Jumper
THPO
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS
3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and culturalsignificance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visualeffects?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________
129733 11
X
0
Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS3) Tribe/NHO FRN:
4) Tribe/NHO Name:
Contact Name
5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:
9) Title:
Dates & Response
10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________
2) You may also designate up to three additional SHPOs/THPOs if the APEs include multiple states. If the APEs include other countries, enter the name othe National Historic Preservation Agency and any state and provincial Historic Preservation Agency.
I certify that all representations on this FCC Form 620 Submission Packet and the accompanying attachments are true, correct, and complete.
Party Authorized to Sign
First Name: MI: Last Name: Suffix:
Signature: Date: _______________
FAILURE TO SIGN THIS APPLICATION MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION AND FORFEITURE OF ANY FEES PAID.
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM OR ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT (U.S.Code, Title 18, Section 1001) AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section312(a)(1)), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 503).
Education: Master Historic Preservation, University of Maryland, College Park
B.A., Humanities, Providence College
Years of Experience: 10+ years
Summary of Professional Experience
Ms. Mancuso holds a Master’s Degree in Historic Preservation and has more than 10 years of
experience as an Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Professional.
As Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and the Construction Grant Coordinator for the State
of Connecticut, Ms. Mancuso provided technical assistance on hundreds of restoration and Section
106 projects and managed a portfolio of over $5 million in grants. In this capacity she developed
multiple grant programs and guidelines, applications, and contracts. She assisted grantees and
potential grantees with project planning and design to ensure projects met the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Ms. Mancuso developed and
reviewed hundreds of determinations of eligibility for properties for submitted for listing in theNational Register of Historic Places. She hosted and attended numerous meetings and training
sessions to improve the public’s understanding of historic preservation pol icies and programs. Ms.
Mancuso also attended annual National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
(NCSHPO) meetings and developed relationships with many of the State Historic Preservation
Officers.
In addition, Ms. Mancuso has over 5 years of experience in the telecommunications field, providing
environmental and regulatory due diligence under the National Historic Preservation Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act. As an Architectural Historian, she completed hundreds of
Section 106 and NEPA reports throughout the United States. Ms. Mancuso has provided quality
control, performed building analyses and historical research, conducted SHPO file reviews,
managed portfolios, and acted as a client manager. In consultation with carriers, SHPOs, and
stakeholders, Ms. Mancuso has facilitated redesigns of installations and developed mitigation
strategies to avoid potential adverse effects to historic resources.
Subject: NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER
CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #4294778
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 "Tribal Nations"), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). For your convenience in identifying the referenced Tribal
Nations and NHOs and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribal Nation
and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the listing below. We note that Tribal Nations 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 Tribal Nations 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 Tribal Nation or NHO. (NPA, Section IV.F.4).
The information
you
provided
was
forwarded
to
the
following
Tribal
Nations
and
NHOs.
If
a Tribal
Nation
or
NHO
does
not respond within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort at follow‐up contact, unless the Tribal
Nation or NHO has agreed to different procedures (NPA, Section IV.F.5). In the event a Tribal Nation or NHO does not
respond to a follow‐up inquiry, or if a substantive or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribal Nation 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. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Arnold L Printup ‐ St. Regis Mohawk Tribe ‐ Akwesasne, NY ‐ electronic mai
and regular mail
Details: request to receive topo maps, street maps, and site plan of actual construction site
If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe within 30 days after
notification through TCNS, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe has no interest in participating in pre‐construction review for the
proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, howeve
r, must immediately notify the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in the event archaeological properties or human remains
are discovered during construction, consistent with Section IX of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement and
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................ 5
THE PROJECT AND PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 8
In August 2015, IVI, Inc. and PaleoWest Archaeology performed a Phase 1B culturalresources investigation in advance of the construction of a telecommunications facility in
Albany County (Appendix B) in New York. The Phase 1B study included background
research and an archaeological survey of the direct effects Area of Potential Effects (APE),also referred to as the “project area” in this report. The Phase 1B investigations were
performed in order to satisfy Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act’s charge
to identify National Register-eligible historic properties. The Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) is the lead federal agency in this undertaking.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether cultural resources exist withinthe Subject and, if possible to determine whether any identified resources may be eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Multiple archaeological recovery
strategies were implemented during the survey, i.e. surface collection, surface inspection and
subsurface testing.
The methods used in the Phase 1B research and the presentation of the information in this
report conform to the New York State Historic Preservation Office guidelines, various Native American tribal requirements for cell tower consultation (e.g. Eastern Shawnee Tribe
of Oklahoma 2014), the National Historic Preservation Act, the federal legislation that
guides cultural resources studies (36CFR60, 1966, as amended), FCC’s NationwideProgrammatic Agreement of 2004 (NPA), and the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines
(NPS 1983a, 1983b). Fieldwork was performed under direction of the Principal Investigator
Julie Richko Labate (M.A., RPA, see curriculum vitae in Appendix A), Matthew Spigelman
(M.A.) conducted the field work in person. Fieldwork took approximately 6 hours tocomplete.
Previous background research at the New York SHPO’s archives determined that noarchaeological sites were recorded for the proposed direct effects APE and that no
archaeological sites are located within a 1.0-mi (1.61-km) radius of the APE. Shovel tests
were employed for this project, all of the soils from the shovel tests were screened through1/4 inch mesh. No significant archaeological remains were excavated at this time. A
finding of No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects for Direct Effect by the
proposed telecommunications facility is recommended.
It should be noted however, that negative results do not guarantee cultural resources are not
present. Project personnel should be aware that buried cultural resources may be exposed by
construction activities and if there is an inadvertent discovery of human remains, funeraryobjects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony on Federal or tribal lands, Federal
agency officials must be notified with respect to Federal lands, and, Indian tribe official withrespect to tribal lands (43CFR10.4).
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires licensees and their
representatives to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, in accordancewith Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Federal Communications
Commission 1996). Historic properties include Native American or European-Americanarchaeological sites, architectural resources (historic districts and standing structures),
objects, and traditional cultural properties. Applicants are required to assess and report
all potential environmental effects as part the Section 106 process prior to construction.
A site visit was conducted on August 3, 2015 by Matthew Spigelman (M.A.) of
PaleoWest Archaeology representing IVI. It was slightly overcast during fieldwork and
the temperature was approximately 80°F at the time. IVI and PaleoWest conducted thesite reconnaissance in a systematic manner over the span of approximately 6 person
hours. Ground visibility was 80% along the proposed access road on account of an
established farm and forest road with a highly deflated surface and 30-50% within the proposed lease area.
The survey was completed in accordance with New York State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO) Guidelines. It is intended to provide information that will enable the New
York SHPO to review the subject project. The Principal Investigator meets and/or
exceeds the qualifications described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Guidelines (Federal Register 48:190:44738-44739) (United States Department of theInterior 1983). Background research was conducted using the New York SHPO CRIS
The proposed Jansen Lane Tower compound and its access/utility corridor together
constitute the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects from construction,
maintenance, and use. Primary, direct, ground-disturbing effects will include site preparation and installation of the cellular tower facility, construction of the access road,
and installation of the new utility line (Appendix B). The limits of the proposed
compound and access/utility corridor were determined by survey drawings provided bythe client, as well as coordinates taken with a Garmin GPSMAP64 GPS unit.
Albany County is proposing to construct a 180’ self-supporting telecommunications
tower at 28 Jansen Lane, Berne, Albany County, New York 12023. The new towerfacility will include a 50’ by 60’ (15.2m by 18.3m) lease area and an approximately
2,500’ (750m) long access road, totaling 33,000 square-feet (0.76 acres/0.31 hectares) of
lease area and associated access and utility easements. The area of disturbance is 3,000square-feet (0.07 acres/0.03 hectares).
The proposed Jansen Lane Tower cell tower will be located in a wooded area, situatedamidst a working farm. Jansen Lane is to the east, the Helderberg Trail Road is to the
north, and Switzkill Road is to the west and south. The Town of Berne is 1 mile to the
north. The subject is located on a steep hill, the access road follows an existing farm and
woods road for all of its length (Appendix B). The APE is immediately bounded on allsides by the parent tract. The APE lies in a residential and rural part of Albany County.
The Area of Potential Effects, Direct Effects (APE-DE), includes a 50’ by 60’ (15.2m by18.3m) lease area and an approximately 2,500’ (750m) long access road, totaling 33,000
square-feet (0.76 acres/0.31 hectares) of lease area and associated access and utility
easements. The area of disturbance is 3,000 square-feet (0.07 acres/0.03 hectares).
The proposed Subject is located in a wooded area amidst a working farm. The lease area
shows signs of use associated with modern hunting and wood splitting for personal use.
The access road and utility line follow this now existing road for much of their length.The wooded area surrounding the access road shows signs of active logging and well
established logging roads.
The Subject is located in a rural area with land utilized for agriculture, housing, andlogging. Residential structures are associated with working farms. The proposed lease
area is in a forested section of the property that is being utilized for hunting and other
recreational activities, and adjacent areas have had timber harvested from them.
The Subject is located on fields and forested land that has been developed for pasture,
hunting, and recreational use. The area has most likely had timber harvested from it at
many times. As the whole of the subject, save for the lease area itself, is steeply sloped, itis unlikely that the area was ever farmed, and there are no field walls present.
IVI reviewed the USGS National Wetlands Inventory Global Information Systems (GIS)
Mapper which includes a federal wetlands data layer prepared by the US Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. There are riverine environments located one halfmile to the north and three quarters of a mile to the west of the Subject.
Albany County is located directly to the west of the Hudson River. The eastern portion of
Albany County, where the Subject is located, is in the Middle Hudson drainage basin. TheSubject is located 1 mile to the south of Fox Creek and 2 miles to the east of Cobleskill
Creek, which drains to the Hudson River. The Hudson River is located 20 miles to theeast of the Subject.
The Jansen Lane proposed cell tower site lies in an area of Albany County characterized
as the Undifferentiated Lower Hamilton Group, and containing Panther Mountain,Mount Marion, Stony Hollow, and Union Springs shales and sandstones. The western
portion of Albany County, including the subject, falls within the Appalachian Plateaus
physiographic region, Southern New York section.
The Nunda series consists of very deep and deep, moderately well drained soils formed in
silty mantles that overlie till derived from clayey shale. These soils are on upland till
plains. Slope ranges from 0 to 35 percent. The A horizon is dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) silt loam. The B horizon is brown (10YR 5/3) silt loam. The C horizon is gray
(5YR 6/1) channery silty clay loam. The subject is composed of Nunda silt loam, 8 to 15
The area around Albany was part of the Manor of Rensselaerswyck, a large estate grantedto Kiliaen van Rensselaer by the Dutch West India Company in 1630. Permanent
settlement occurred in appreciable numbers in the early 1700s, as Dutch farmers moved
Relevant literature pertinent to the historic era was studied in order to better understand
the historical cultural context of the project area, determine recent land use practices andtheir impact on the archaeological record, and aid in identifying historic sites. These
archival sources were also consulted to determine if sites were known for the project area
and to evaluate the likelihood that other sites might be present.
A number of maps from the late nineteenth century through the present were inspected as
part of this research, as were aerial photos from ca. 1997 through 2011. These documentswere examined for any visual indication of site locations, as can sometimes be revealed
by vegetation patterns or signs of structures, and evidence of disturbance. The literature
review did not revealed evidence of previously inventoried archaeological sites within a
one mile radius of the Subject; however, previous archaeological survey had been performed within the Subject detected an archaeological site.
A review of NYSHPO files determined that no objects, structures, or sites have been previously inventoried within the Subject. No National Register sites or properties are
The APE was investigated using pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. A total of five
(5) shovel tests were made to examine the proposed APE. An additional forty nine (49) proposed shovel test locations were inspected at 15m intervals along proposed access
road route.
Shovel tests were 40-50-cm (approximately 16 to 19-in) on a side, square, and up to 45-cm (17.7-in) deep. All excavated earth was screened through 6.44-mm (0.25-in) hardware
cloth. Shovel tests were excavated stratigraphically and then backfilled. Please see
Appendix B for a plan view from the project’s zoning drawings and Appendix C for asummary of shovel test profiles and UTM coordinates.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether cultural resources exist withinthe proposed location for the Subject and, if possible to determine whether any identified
resources may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.Multiple archaeological recovery strategies were implanted during the survey, i.e. surface
collection, surface inspection, and subsurface testing.
The Phase 1B survey was conducted in accordance with the methods described in this
report. Five (5) shovel tests (ST 1-5) were excavated in the proposed compound area andan additional forty nine (49) proposed shovel test locations (ST 6-54) were thoroughly
inspected for STP viability in the proposed lease area and along the proposed access road
(Appendix B). All locations along the proposed access road that were determinedinappropriate for subsurface investigations (“no digs”) due to the presence of gravel
topped road, established farm or woods roads, excessive slope, and/or exposed bedrock.
Of the five (5) shovel tests (ST 1-5) that were excavated within the proposed lease area,zero (0) contained historic cultural material. All showed bedrock at relatively shallowdepths.
In light of the available information, it is my professional opinion that the APE-DE for
the present project is not sensitive for the presence of significant precontact and/or post-
contact archaeological resources due to the low historic and prehistoric archaeologicalsensitivity, unfavorable environmental setting, steeply sloped soils, and negative results
of the pedestrian survey of the Project Site. In this context, it is unlikely that the proposed installation would adversely affect intact below-grade cultural resources. No
Historic Properties were identified by this survey. No further archaeological testing is
recommended for this project.
In the event that a concentration of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits (including
trash pits older than 50 years) should be encountered at any time during ground disturbing
activities, all work must stop until a qualified archaeologist views the finds and makes a preliminary evaluation. If warranted, further archaeological work in the discovery area
should be performed. Although unlikely, if human remains are encountered, all workmust stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until the County Coroner and aqualified archaeologist evaluate the remains.
IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE Company (IVI) is writing on behalf of the Albany County Sheriff to solicit your input
concerning a proposed telecommunications facility at the above reference address. The Project will entail the construction
of a 192-foot self-support telecommunications tower along with the installation of ancillary equipment. IVI is requesting
comments with regards to any potential impacts on historic architectural and/or archaeological resources.
As the Project is a federal undertaking regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it is being reviewed
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for its impacts to historic architectural and archaeological
resources. Federal regulations allow for public participation as part of the Section 106 process.
As such, IVI would like to inquire if you would be interested in commenting on this proposed project. Please note that we
are requesting your review as part of the Section 106 process only and not as part of the local zoning process. Furthermore, only responses related to historic properties potentially affected will be considered.
If you are interested in becoming a consulting party and have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed Project,
please contact us in writing at IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE Company, 4 West Red Oak Lane, White Plains, NY 10604 or
at [email protected]. Please reference the project name and address in your comments. Any responses must be
received within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Only consulting parties indicating their desire to receive information and/or
otherwise participate in the Section 106 review process will be afforded this opportunity.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Subject: NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER
CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #4294778
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 "Tribal Nations"), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). For your convenience in identifying the referenced Tribal
Nations and NHOs and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribal Nation
and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the listing below. We note that Tribal Nations 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 Tribal Nations 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 Tribal Nation or NHO. (NPA, Section IV.F.4).
The information
you
provided
was
forwarded
to
the
following
Tribal
Nations
and
NHOs.
If
a Tribal
Nation
or
NHO
does
not respond within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort at follow‐up contact, unless the Tribal
Nation or NHO has agreed to different procedures (NPA, Section IV.F.5). In the event a Tribal Nation or NHO does not
respond to a follow‐up inquiry, or if a substantive or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribal Nation 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. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Arnold L Printup ‐ St. Regis Mohawk Tribe ‐ Akwesasne, NY ‐ electronic mai
and regular mail
Details: request to receive topo maps, street maps, and site plan of actual construction site
If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe within 30 days after
notification through TCNS, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe has no interest in participating in pre‐construction review for the
proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, howeve
r, must immediately notify the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in the event archaeological properties or human remains
are discovered during construction, consistent with Section IX of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement and
Please let me know if you need anything for these or if there are any issues.
Thank you!
Talia
Talia C. Gilmore, MS
Tribal Outreach Manager
IVI Telecom Services, a CBRE Company
(717) 601
‐1144
(direct)
Talia.Gilmore@ivi‐intl.com
www.ivi‐intl.com
IVI Telecom Services, Inc. offers a wide spectrum of environmental services for nationwide telecommunications
infrastructure development ranging from environmental site assessments to FCC/NEPA screenings and Section 106consultations. At IVI, we understand your program and schedule constraints and use our expertise to realize your goals ina cost effective and timely manner.
The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) received your requests for comments or interest
concerning the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 request for review and comment to the effect on historic
and cultural sites within the proposed above referenced project area.
The Lac du Flambeau Tribe does not release any cultural/historical data to any agency outside of the Tribe. We will,
however research and check our databases, maps, and any other pertinent inventory records with regards to said project.
Under the authority of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, we have reviewed theabove-cited undertaking at the location noted above. Based on the information provided for our review, it is the opinion
of the Lac du Flambeau THPO that the project has No Historic Properties within the project area.
This letter evidences the FCC's compliance with 36 CFR § 800.4 “Identification of historic properties” and 36 CFR §
800.5 “Assessment of adverse effects”, and the fulfillment of the FCC’s responsibility to notify the THPO, as a consulting
party in the Section 106 process, under 36 CFR § 800.5(c) “Consulting party review”.
Referencing above mentioned project we have determined that we have no objections to the project at this time we have
now completed the necessary paper work and research for site documentation and will keep the project open until such
time it ends. If the scope of work changes in any way, or if artifacts or human remains are discovered please notify Lac du
Education: M.S. Environmental Science, Sacred Heart University
B.S. Traditional Biology, Sacred Heart University
Licenses/Registrations Methodology for Delineating Wetlands, Rutgers University
NYS Wetlands Forum Member, 2015
Years of Experience: 2.5 years
Summary of Professional Experience
Mr. Bond is a Biologist and Project Manager at IVI Telecom, a CBRE Company for over two years. He
has conducted Migratory Bird Surveys, consulted on Wetland Delineations, Natural Resource and
NEPA reviews for various clients within the telecommunications industry.
Mr. Bond’s environmental experience extends from both his background in biology and chemistry.
Specifically, Mr. Bond has conducted environmental sampling of rivers, streams and groundwater forpresence of harmful chemicals and suspended solids. Mr. Bond has also conducted biological
surveys for different migratory bird species and invertebrate diversity within streams and rivers. He
also has experience coordinating and working with the USFWS Field Offices throughout the United
States.
Mr. Bond received his Bachelor of Science at Sacred Heart University with majors in Traditional
Biology. Mr. Bond also received his Master of Science in Environmental Science at the Sacred Heart
University Environmental Graduate Program. While attending graduate school, he participated in
Project Limulus where he conducted species surveys of horseshoe crab populations within the LongIsland Sound. Mr. Bond was also a co-writer of “Estimation of Short-Term Tag-Induced Mortality in
Horseshoe Crab Limulus Polyphemus” which was published in Biology Faculty Publications in 2011.