B08(f)_-_Attachment_5_-_PEPC_81122_NHPA_Hazard_Tree.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Prince William Forest Park

Date: 06/23/2020

ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS HAVING AN EFFECT ON

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

A. DESCRIPTION OF UNDERTAKING

1. Park: Prince William Forest Park

2. Project Description:

Project Name: Hazard Tree SOP Prepared by: Gregg Kneipp Date Prepared: 05/20/2020 Telephone: 703-221-3329 PEPC Project Number: 81122 Locations:

County, State: Prince William, VA County, State: Stafford, VA Describe project:

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) establishes procedures for identification and removal of trees that are deemed hazardous and place people or property at risk of injury. A hazardous tree is defined as one which has a structural defect that predisposes it to failure and as such puts people or property at risk of injury.

Area of potential effects (as defined in 36 CFR 800.16[d]) Developed areas of Prince William Forest Park including foot trails

3. Has the area of potential effects been surveyed to identify historic properties?

No

X Yes

Source or reference:

4. Potentially Affected Resource(s):

Archeological Resources Present: Yes

Historical Structures/Resources Present: Yes

Cultural Landscapes Present: Yes

Ethnographic Resources Present: No

5. The proposed action will: (check as many as apply)

No Destroy, remove, or alter features/elements from a historic structure

No Replace historic features/elements in kind

No Add non-historic features/elements to a historic structure

Yes Alter or remove features/elements of a historic setting or environment (inc. terrain)

No Add non-historic features/elements (inc. visual, audible, or atmospheric) to a historic setting or cultural landscape

No Disturb, destroy, or make archeological resources inaccessible

No Disturb, destroy, or make ethnographic resources inaccessible>

No Potentially affect presently unidentified cultural resources

No Begin or contribute to deterioration of historic features, terrain, setting, landscape elements, or archeological or ethnographic resources

No Involve a real property transaction (exchange, sale, or lease of land or structures)

Other (please specify):

6. Supporting Study Data:

(Attach if feasible; if action is in a plan, EA or EIS, give name and project or page number.)

B. REVIEWS BY CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALISTS

The park 106 coordinator requested review by the park's cultural resource specialist/advisors as indicated by check-off boxes or as follows:

[ X ] 106 Advisor Name: Allison Young Date: 06/16/2020

Check if project does not involve ground disturbance [ ] Assessment of Effect: No Potential to Cause Effect No Historic Properties Affected X No Adverse Effect Adverse Effect X Streamlined Review Recommendations for conditions or stipulations:

Doc Method: Streamlined Review (PA) Streamlined Activity:

4. Health and Safety Activities

5. Routine Grounds Maintenance

[ X ] Archeologist Name: Joshua Torres Date: 05/26/2020 Comments: This project largely entails removal of downed trees, and specifically upper portions of the trees, for the protection of visitors, staff, and park resources. There are no archeological concerns related to these actions.

Archeological consideration should be given to the following item in the tree removal protocol which are detailed here and should be considered as a Stipulations and Condition associated with this documentation/necessary compliance:

Check if project does not involve ground disturbance [ ] Assessment of Effect: No Potential to Cause Effect No Historic Properties Affected X No Adverse Effect Adverse Effect X Streamlined Review Recommendations for conditions or stipulations: For stump removal, excluding in-place grinding to grade:

When removing tree throws/root balls, the following protocol should be executed. Step 1. Identify tree throws to be removed and document their location. If there is sufficient time, accounting for life safety of park visitors and staff, consult Step 2. If not, consult Step 3. Step 2. Consult existing archeological site reports. If throws are located in known site locations then inspect throws for artifacts or structural remains prior to removal. Should time allow, the park may wish to have stump removal monitored by the Regional Archeological Program. If throws are in locations where no archeological sites are documented and/or no survey conducted, inspect the throw for archeological remains. If no artifacts are documented the stump can be removed, documenting the action with photos and field notes. Should archeological material be identified in tree throws, consult with Regional Archeological Program to schedule a site visit or coordinate documentation of tree throws/archeological remains prior to removal. Step 3. Tree throws should be examined and inspected for archeological remains prior to removal. Should archeological artifacts/remains be identified, park Resource Management staff should expeditiously document throw location and materials/features. Remove the stump/root ball and then report findings to the Regional Archeological Program for follow up.

Doc Method: Streamlined Review (PA) Streamlined Activity:

1. Preservation Maintenance and Repair of Historic Properties

[ X ] Historical Landscape Architect Name: Julie McGilvray Date: 05/22/2020 Comments: No Adverse Effect - Streamlined

Check if project does not involve ground disturbance [ ] Assessment of Effect: No Potential to Cause Effect No Historic Properties Affected X No Adverse Effect Adverse Effect X Streamlined Review Recommendations for conditions or stipulations: If specimen and/or historic trees become hazard trees, work with regional historical landscape architect on pruning or removal/replacement planning. If no CLI or CLR exist for a given area, consult with regional historical landscape architect if trees are to be removed. These can be assessed quickly to support the park's hazard tree SOP. There are also Hazard Tree Assessments forms from the NPS Olmsted Center available if needed for tree assessment. Contact regional historical landscape architect for these if needed.

Doc Method: Streamlined Review (PA) Streamlined Activity:

1. Preservation Maintenance and Repair of Historic Properties

No Reviews From: Curator, Historical Architect, Historian, Other Advisor, Anthropologist

C. PARK SECTION 106 COORDINATOR'S REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Assessment of Effect:

No Potential to Cause Effects

No Historic Properties Affected

X No Adverse Effect

Adverse Effect

2. Documentation Method:

[ ] A. Standard 36 CFR Part 800 Consultation Further consultation under 36 CFR Part 800 is needed.

[ X ] B. Streamlined Review Under the 2008 Servicewide Programmatic Agreement (PA) The above action meets all conditions for a streamlined review under section III of the 2008 Servicewide PA for Section 106 compliance.

Applicable Streamlined Review Criteria (Specify 1-16 of the list of streamlined review criteria.)

4. Health and Safety Activities.

5. Routine Grounds Maintenance.

[ ] C. Undertaking Related to Park Specific or Another Agreement The proposed undertaking is covered for Section 106 purposes under another document such as a park, region or statewide agreement established in accord with 36 CFR 800.7 or 36 CFR 800.14.

[ ] D. Combined NEPA/NHPA Process Process and documentation required for the preparation of an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD to comply with Section 106 is in accord with 36 CFR 800.8.c.

[ ] E. Memo to Project File

3. Consultation Information

SHPO Required: No SHPO Sent:

SHPO Received:

THPO Required:

THPO Sent:

THPO Received:

SHPO/THPO Notes:

Advisory Council Participating: No Advisory Council Notes:

Additional Consulting Parties: No

4. Stipulations and Conditions: Following are listed any stipulations or conditions necessary to ensure that the assessment of effect above is consistent with 36 CFR Part 800 criteria of effect or to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects.

5. Mitigations/Treatment Measures: Measures to prevent or minimize loss or impairment of historic/prehistoric properties: (Remember that setting, location, and use may be relevant.)

No Assessment of Effect mitigations identified.

6. Assessment of Effect Notes:

D. RECOMMENDED BY PARK SECTION 106 COORDINATOR:

Compliance Specialist:

NHPA Specialist

Gregg Kneipp

Date:

E. SUPERINTENDENT'S APPROVAL

The proposed work conforms to the NPS Management Policies and Cultural Resource Management Guideline, and I have reviewed and approve the recommendations, stipulations, or conditions noted in Section C of this form.

Signature

Superintendent:

Date:

Tanya Gossett