Categorical_Exlusion_Form_(NEPA).pdf

Categorical Exclusion Form Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge

Morris County, NJ

Project: RRP GRS 10(2) Date: April 16, 2013

Environmental Commitments:

In order to avoid the potential for adverse impacts to maternal colonies of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), tree clearing will be restricted to the period between September 30 and April 1.

Nightime work will not be allowed on this project.

Project description, including location:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), proposes to rehabilitate sections of Pleasant Plains Road, improve drainage, and make other safety improvements along Pleasant Plains Road within the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Morris County, New Jersey.

Drainage is a major concern for this road, and would be addressed by ditch reconditioning. Work would include repaving a 0.81-mile section of Pleasant Plains Road, replacing 60 feet of guardrail, replacing culverts, and ditch reconditioning. At present, there is a sharp turn at a gravel section of the roadway, known as Marsden’s Corner that is a safety concern. A 0.11-mile section of the road would be realigned, the old section of road would be removed, and the ground revegetated.

Describe the category used to exclude the action from further NEPA:

Categorical exclusion as provided by 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 2, Appendix 1, and

516 DM 8.5, B.(2) The operation, maintenance, and management of existing facilities and routine recurring management activities and improvements, including renovations and replacements which result in no or only minor changes in the use, and have no or negligible environmental effects on-site or in the vicinity of the site.

23 CFR 771.117 (d)(1) Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g. parking, weaving, turning, climbing).

Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:

In a letter dated April 12, 2013, the USFWS requested concurrence from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with its determination that the proposed project would have no effect on historic properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. SHPO concurrence with the no effect determination is expected. If the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma or the SHPO raise any concerns regarding the potential effect of the proposed project on significant historic properties, their concerns will be addressed to the maximum extent possible, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

On March 29, 2013, the USFWS completed Phase I archaeological testing at Marsden’s Corner, and no significant archaeological resources were identified.

In a letter dated March 28, 2013, the Delaware Tribe of Indians stated that there are no sites with religious or cultural significance to the Delaware Tribe of Indians in the project area.

On March 15, 2013, the USFWS sent letters to the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma and the Delaware Tribe of Indians requesting their comments on the proposed project.

In an e-mail on February 7, 2013, USFWS stated that it would complete an archaeological survey of the area where the proposed roadway realignment would occur, and would continue consultation with the SHPO and federally recognized tribes with ancestral lands in New Jersey (Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe, and Mohican Nation). If any archaeological deposits are found, measures would be taken to avoid adverse effects to the archaeological site.

On August 3, 2012, the FHWA requested concurrence from the SHPO, that the proposed project will have no adverse impacts on historic properties.

On August 24, 2012, the SHPO concurred with the FHWA’s determination that the proposed project will have no adverse impacts on historic properties.

On October 25, 2012, the FHWA requested concurrence from the New Jersey Field Office of the USFWS (NJFO) that the proposed project will have no effect on the federally listed, threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally listed, endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).

On November 5, 2012, the NJFO concurred with the FHWA’s determinations that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed or candidate species, and that “no further consultation pursuant to the [Endangered Species Act] is required.”

23 CFR 771.117 Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions, do not involve significant environmental impacts.

THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL: YES NO

Induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area X

Require the relocation of significant numbers of people X

Have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic, or other resource

X

Involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts X

Have significant impacts on travel pattern X

Otherwise, either individually or cumulatively have any significant environmental impacts

X

If any box is checked yes, the action may not be categorically excluded and an EA or EIS must be prepared. If none are checked yes, attach Environmental Screening Form, notes from consultation with agencies and/or the public, notes of site visits and any other material related to the environmental impact of the proposal. This becomes the NEPA piece of the statutory compliance file.

Environmental Screening Form

Project: RRP-GRS 10(2) Date: April 16, 2013

Yes

No

Don’t Know

1. Described fully in one of the list of categorically excluded actions?

x

2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete?

See Note

3. Site visit completed?

4. Are any significant impacts possible on the following physical, natural, or cultural resources?*

A. Geological resources - soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc.

B. From geohazards?

none

C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise

D. Water Quality or Quantity

E. Streamflow characteristics x

F. Marine or Estuarine Resources

G. Land Use, including agricultural lands

H. Rare or unusual vegetation-old growth timber, riparian, alpine, etc.

I. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat

J. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites

K. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat

L. Unique or important fish or fish habitat

M. Introduce or promote non-native species (plant or animal)

N. Recreation resources

O. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources

P. Cultural resources, cultural landscape, etc.

Q. Minority and Low Income Populations

R. Socioeconomics

S. Energy Resources

Yes

No

Don’t Know

T. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies

U. Resource, including energy, conservation potential

V. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc.

W. Long term management of resources or land/resource productivity

* Insert the word “none” in the “no column” if the reason that a resource is not impacted is because the resource is not found in the project area.

This form is meant to be annotated with relevant information, such as notes of site visit, personnel conducting the site visit, agency officials contacted and their responses, etc. A site visit is required to complete this form, and so is required to categorically exclude a project (sec 3-4), prepare an EA or prepare an EIS.

If the answers to questions 1-3 are yes, and all answers to number 4 are no, complete the categorical exclusion checklist. If any of the answers to question 4 are don’t know, complete an EA. If any are answered yes, either a mitigated EA or EIS is required.

Note: Concurrence from the SHPO and a response from the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma are expected. If any concerns are expressed, they will be addressed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

u. S.

FISH" WILDLIFE

SERVICE

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035-9589

In Reply Refer To:

FWS/Region 5INWRS

Mr. Daniel D. Saunders Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 420 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420

Dear Mr. Saunders:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) seeks your comment under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the proposed rehabilitation of Pleasant Plains Road on Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Basking Ridge (Harding Township, Morris County). In cooperation with the Service, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Division proposes to rehabilitate sections of Pleasant Plains Road (HPO Project No. 12-1821) in order to improve drainage and make safety improvements. Enclosed please find an aerial map that shows the project location (Enclosure 1).

Drainage is a major concern for Pleasant Plains Road. The proposed work includes repaving a 0.81-mile section of the road, replacing 60 feet of guardrail, replacing culverts, and reconditioning roadside ditches.

At present, there is a sharp turn at a gravel section of the roadway (Marsden's Corner) that is a safety concern. A O.II-mile section of the road will be realigned in direct proximity to the existing road to make this turn more gradual, the old section of road will be removed, and the ground re-vegetated. An area of approximately 0.20 acre will be affected. Enclosed please find a topographic quadrangle map showing the location of Marsden's Corner (Enclosure 2) and a design plan for the proposed roadway realignment at the corner (Enclosure.J). ~ •.

In a letter to the FHWA dated August 20, 2012, your office concurred with a find ing of no effect for the Pleasant Plains Road rehabilitation project, with the exception of the roadway realignment that is currently proposed at Marsden's Corner. Because this location exhibits archaeological sensitivity, a Phase I locational survey has been performed within the area that will be affected by the roadway real ignment.

The Phase I survey was; completed on Mar~h 29, 20 IJ, and consisted of the excavation of seven shovel test pits, each measuring 50 by 50 centimeters, at 8-meter intervals along the proposed limit of construction inside the roadway corner (Enclosure 4). The soils in this former agricultural field consist of poorly drained Whippany silt loam of glacio-lacustrine origin. A typical stratigraphic soil profile consisted of an A-Horizon stratum of dark brown silt loam to a depth of 20 centimeters (Munsell color value IOYR3/3) overlying a B-Horizon stratum of brownish yellow silt clay (I OYR6/6) visible to a depth of at least 50 centimeters below the ground surface.

2 Mr. Daniel D. Saunders

No Native American cultural materials were recovered by the testing. A low volume of historical artifacts, consisting of small fragments of glazed redware, brick, and iron, were recovered from the plowzone stratum in one test pit. These materials are possibly associated with a farmstead that was located on the east side of the roadway prior to the 1960s, and are not considered to be historically significant.

Due to the absence of significant archaeological resources, we believe that the proposed roadway realignment at Marsdents C~l~ will have no effect on properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. We would appreciate receiving your concurrence with this finding within 30 days, as prescribed in the Regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [36 CFR 800.4 (c)]. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Timothy Binzen, Archaeologist, at 413-253-8731, or at timothvbinzentiifws.gov.

Sincerely, Scott B. Kahan Regional Chief National Wildlife Refuge System

Enclosure 1 - Aerial photograph showing the location of the Pleasant Plains Road rehabilitation project.

Enclosure 2 - Topographic quadrangle map showing the location of the proposed roadway realignment at

Marsden's Corner.

Enclosure 3 - Design plan showing existing conditions and the proposed roadway realignment at

Marsden's Corner.

Enclosure 4 - Map showing the locations of archaeological Phase I shovel test pits at Marsden's Corner.

.• i- ~~

,1:) E. LC I ~ - I '-I

i

I~":'_-""" • .,' i' .".._,.t......... ",.r_~ ....~ I:, :•. -:.... f' •. ~ .. • ·~v _.~,