Report_NEPA.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the lnterior

Saratoga National Historical Park Date:03/16/2016

Letter of Compliance Cornpletion

Memorandum

To:

From:

Subject:

Ramnik Satasiya,FHWA―EFLHD

Chris Martin,Saratoga NHP

NEPA and NHPA Clearancc:Rchabilitate the Tour Road Bridges(3)and CulVerts(2)(63270)

Saratoga National Historical Park has reviewed the proposed projecUaction and completed its environmental assessment documentation, and we have determined that there:

. Will not be any effect on threatened, endangered, or rare species and/or their critical habitat.

o Will not be any effect on historical, cultural, or archeological resources.

o Will not be serious or long-term undesirable environmental or visual effects.

The subject proposed project/action(s), therefore, is/are now cleared for all NEPA and NHPA compliance requirements as presented above. Project plans and specifications are approved and construction and/or project implementation can commence.

For the proposed project actions to be within compliance requirements during construction and/or project implementation, the following mitigations must be adhered to:

o No mitigations identified.

Recommendations for Conditions or Stipulations:

None

For complete compliance information see PEPC Project 63270.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Letter of Compliance Completion - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD: 63270

Ihan*T o,Y$eotryV

Page I of I

Saratoga National Historical Park Date:03/16/2016

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING FORM(ESF)

Updated Sept2015 per NPS NEPA Handbook

A.PROJECT:NFORMAT10N

Project Title: Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) PEPC Project Number: 63270

PMIS Numbers:

Project Type:

Project Location:

County, State:

Project Leader:

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

l) Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridge, Strucfure No 1910-001P, located in Saratoga NHP. Work will include repairing spalling of southeast and southwest end parapets and both curbs and abutments, injecting epoxy into cracks in abutment breastwalls and wingwalls, sealing cracks in asphalt wearing surface until wearing surface can be replaced, modifying ends of bridge rails to allow space for expansion, repairing broken offasphalt along underpass shoulder ofsouthbound lane, and removing asphalt pavement and installing waterproofing membrane and placing new overlay.The Tour Road Bridge carries the Tour Road Rt 200 over the Kroma Kill, located 1.2 MI from the British Camp. This concrete tea beam bridge built in I 962 is 204 FT long and 20.8 FT wide. Structure adequacy rating is 66.3. lt is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of C. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

2) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Bridge #2, Structure No 1910-002P, located in Saratoga NHP. Work willinclude repairing spalling of concrete at abutment corners; replacing damaged portion of south railing and replacing missing end caps on north railing; cleaning exposed rebar on deck sides, northwest and southwest approach curbs and northwest abutment corner, and coating with approved protective sealant; clearing covered weep hole at west abutment; and redirect channel away from east abutment with engineered riprap. The Kroma Kill Bridge #2 carries the Entrance Road Rt 010, a principal park road, over Kroma Kill, located 6.0 MI from the Visitor's Center. This concrete slab bridge built in 1962 is 37.2 FT long and 28.4 FT.

Structure adequacy rating is 73 .7 . lt is in fair to good condition overall, with a prioriry rating of C. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

3) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Bridge #3, Structure No l9l0-003P, located in Saratoga. Work will include repairing undermining at downstream comer of north abutment, patching spalls in abutment endwalls and northwest wingwall, replacing missing end caps on bridge railing, and repair erosion at downstream wingwalls with engineered riprap. The Kroma Kill Bridge #3 carries the Entrance Road Rt 010, a principal park road, over Kroma Kill, located 5.8 MI from the Visitor's Center. This concrete slab bridge built in 1962 is 45.5 FT long and 28.4 FT wide. Structure adequacy rating is 68.4It is in fair to good condition overall, with a prioriry rating of D. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

4) Rehabilitate the Mill Creek Culvert, Structure No l9l0-004P, located in Saratoga. Work will include placing additional engineered riprap in scour holes at ends of barrel floor, patching spalls in concrete fillets along bottom of both barrel walls, and removing fallen trees and flood debris from upstream channel. The Mill Creek Culvert carries the Tour Road Rt 200 over

Environmental Screening Form (ESF) - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD:63270

222475,222476,163584,222477,222478

Prcvendve Maintenance(PM)

Saratoga,New York

Ranlnik Satasiya

Page I of {

MillCreek, located 0.5 MI from Chatfield Farm. This concrete box culvert built in 1950 is l0 FT wide with a barrel length of 42 FT . Structure adequacy rating is 79.2. lt is in good condition overall, with a priority rating of D. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range

5) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Culvert, Structure No l9l0-005P, located in Saratoga. Work will include repairing undermining and placing engineered riprap at scoured areas at both ends ofculvert, and repairing deteriorated stone masonry protection at upstream side between barrels. The Kroma Kill Culvert carries the Entrance Road Rt 010 over Kroma Kill, located 1.0 MI from US RTE 4. This comrgated metal pipe culvert built in l97l is 28 FT wide with a barrel length of 60 FT.

Structure adequacy rating is 69.3. It is in fair condition overall, with a priority rating of D. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

C. RESOURCE IMPACTS TO CONSIDER:

Resource Potential for lmpact

Potential lssues & lmpacts

Air Air Quality

None

Biological Nonnative or Exotic Species

Reseeding upon completion of ground disturbane

Potential Issue: The seed mix may introduce nonnative and/or invasive species to park.

Impact: This potential impact has been mitigated in the contracting process. Weed free mix is specified and subject to NPS approval prior to seeding.

Biological Species ofSpecial Concern or Their Habitat

None

Biological Vegetation

None

Biological Wildlife and/or

Wildlife Habitat including terrestrial and aquatic species

None

Cultural Archeological Resources

Impacts to archeological resources.

Potential Issue: Ground disturbing activities may impact unknown archeological resources.

Impact: This will be mitigated via the contracting process whereby the services of an archeological firm will be secured to provide on-site monitoring of ground disturbing activities.

Cultural Cultural Landscapes

None

Cultural Ethnographic

Resources

None

Environmental Screening Form (ESF) - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD:63270

Page 2 of $

Cultural Museum Collections

None

Cultural Prehistoric/historic structures

Prehistoric

Potential Issue: The park has documented significant prehistoric sites on NPS lands. Any ground disturbance has the potential to impact undocumented sites.

Impact: The potential impact from construction activity will be mitigated via the securing of contract archeologists to monitor activities during the course of the project.

Geological Geologic Features

None

Other Human Health and

Safety

None

Socioeconomic Land Use

None

Socioeconomic Minority and low-income populations, size, migration patterns, etc.

None

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic

None

Soundscapes Soundscapes

None

Visitor Use and Experience Recreation Resources

None

Visitor Use and Experience Visitor Use and

Experience

None

Water Floodplains Kroma Kil and Mill Creek Jloodplains.

Potential Issue: Stream side disturbances have to potential to impact these resources.

Impact: These disturbances will be minimized by working in consultation with and the securing of permits from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Water Water Quality or

Quantity Mill Creek and Kromma Kil

Potential Issue; In stream project activify could affect water quality for brief periods of time.

Impact: These disturbances will be minimized by working in consultation with and the securing of permits from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Environmental Screening Form (ESF) - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD:63270

Page 3 of {

Water Wetlands

Mill Creek and Kromma Kil

Potential Issue: Project activity could affect wetlands and associated resources for brief periods of time.

Impact: These disturbances will be minimized by working in consultation with and the securing of permits from the Army Corps of Engineers.

D.ESF ADDENDUM QUES丁 :ONS:

Question Answer I Notes

IDT Team Members:

Charlie Costello - Designer William Griswold - Archeologist Jason Huart - Chief of Maintenance Tim Layton - Historical Landscape Architect Chris Martin - NEPA Specialist Ramnik Satasiya - Project Leader

Christine Valosin - NHPA Specialist

Reviewers:

Chris Martin

Optional Signatures:

Compliance

NEPA

Chris Martin

NHPA

Christine

Valosin

Approved:

Superintendent:

脇 腸 ν脇 4 助ほJ蹴 山 _

Date: 多

Environmental Screening Form (ESF) - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC ID:63270

Page 4 of tl

Saratoga National Historical Park Date:0212612016

Categorical Exclusion Form

Project: Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) PEPC Project Number: 63270

Description of Action (Project Description):

1) Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridge, Structure No l9l0-001P, located in Saratoga NHP. Work will include repairing spalling of southeast and southwest end parapets and both curbs and abutments, injecting epoxy into cracks in abutment breastwalls and wingwalls, sealing cracks in asphalt wearing surface until wearing surface can be replaced, modifying ends of bridge rails to allow space for expansion, repairing broken off asphalt along underpass shoulder of southbound lane, and removing asphalt pavement and installing waterproofing membrane and placing new overlay.The Tour Road Bridge carries the Tour Road Rt 200 over the Kroma Kill, located 1.2 MI from the British Camp. This concrete tea beam bridge built in 1962 is 204FT long and 20.8 FT wide. Structure adequacy rating is 66.3.h is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of C. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

2) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Bridge #2, Structure No l9l0-002P, located in Saratoga NHP. Work will include repairing spalling of concrete at abutment corners; replacing damaged portion of south railing and replacing missing end caps on north railing; cleaning exposed rebar on deck sides, northwest and southwest approach curbs and northwest abutment corner, and coating with approved protective sealant; clearing covered weep hole at west abutment; and redirect channel away from east abutment with engineered riprap. The Kroma Kill Bridge #2 carries the Entrance Road Rt 010, a principal park road, over Kroma Kill, located 6.0 MI from the Visitor's Center. This concrete slab bridge built in I 962 is 37 .2 FT long and 28.4 FT .

Structure adequacy rating is 73.7 . lt is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of C. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

3) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Bridge #3, Structure No 1910-003P, located in Saratoga. Work will include repairing undermining at downstream corner of north abutment, patching spalls in abutment endwalls and northwest wingwall, replacing missing end caps on bridge railing, and repair erosion at downstream wingwalls with engineered riprap. The Kroma

Kill Bridge #3 carries the Entrance Road Rt 010, a principal park road, over Kroma Kill, located 5.8 MI from the Visitor's Center. This concrete slab bridge built in 1962 is 45.5 FT long and 28.4FT wide. Structure adequacy rating is 68.4 It is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of D. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

4) Rehabilitate the Mill Creek Culvert, Structure No l9l0-004P, Iocated in Saratoga. Work will include placing additional engineered riprap in scour holes at ends ofbarrel floor, patching spalls in concrete fillets along bottom ofboth barrel walls, and removing fallen trees and flood debris from upstream channel. The Mill Creek Culvert carries the Tour Road Rt 200 over Mill Creek, located 0.5 MI from Chatfield Farm. This concrete box culvert built in 1950 is l0 FT wide with a barrel length of 42 FT . Structure adequacy rating is 79 .2. lt is in good condition overall, with a priority rating of D. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range

5) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Culvert, Structure No l9l0-005P, located in Saratoga. Work will include repairing undermining and placing engineered riprap at scoured areas at both ends ofculvert, and repairing deteriorated stone masonry protection at upstream side between barrels. The Kroma Kill Culvert carries the Entrance Road Rt 010 over Kroma Kill, located I .0 MI from US RTE 4. This comrgated metal pipe culvert built in 1971 is 28 FT wide with a barrel length of 60 FT.

Structure adequacy rating is 69.3. It is in fair condition overall, with a priority rating of D . Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

Project Locations:

County: Saratoga State: IIIY

Mitigation(s):

o No mitigations identified.

CE Citation: C.9 Repair, resurfacing, striping, installation of traffic control devices, repair/replacement of guardrails, etc., on existing roads.

Decision: I find that the action fits within the categorical exclusion above. Therefore, I am categorically excluding the described project from further NEPA analysis. No extraordinary circumstances apply.

Signature

Superintendent:

Saratoga National Historical Park Date: 03/16/2016

ASSESS]Ⅵ ENT OF ACT10NS HAVING AN EFFECT ON HISTORIC

PROPERTIES

A.DESCRIPT10N OF UNDERTAKING

1. Park: Saratoga National Historical Park

2. Project Description:

Project Name: Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2)

Prepared by: Chris Martin Date Prepared: 0212512016 Telephone: 518-670-2950

PEPC Project Number: 63270

Locations:

Describe project:

1) Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridge, Structure No 1910-001P, located in Saratoga NHP. Work will include repairing spalling of southeast and southwest end parapets and both curbs and abutments, injecting epoxy into cracks in abutment breastwalls and wingwalls, sealing cracks in asphalt wearing surface until wearing surface can be replaced, modiffing ends ofbridge rails to allow space for expansion, repairing broken offasphalt along underpass shoulder ofsouthbound lane, and removing asphalt pavement and installing waterproofing membrane and placing new overlay.The Tour Road

Bridge carries the Tour Road Rt 200 over the Kroma Kill, located 1.2 MI from the British Camp. This concrete tea beam bridge built in 1962 is 204 FT long and 20.8 FT wide. Stru*ure adequacy rating is 66.3. It is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of C. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

2) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Bridge #2, Structure No l9l0-002P, located in Saratoga NHP. Work will include repairing spalling of concrete at abutment corners; replacing damaged portion of south railing and replacing missing end caps on north railing; cleaning exposed rebar on deck sides, northwest and southwest approach curbs and northwest abutment corner, and coating with approved protective sealant; clearing covered weep hole at west abutment; and redirect channel away from east abutment with engineered riprap. The Kroma Kill Bridge #2 carries the Entrance Road

Rt 010, a principal park road, over Kroma Kill, located 6.0 MI from the Visitor's Center. This concrete slab bridge built in 1962 is 37 .2 FT long and 28.4 FT. Structure adequacy rating is 73.7 . lt is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of C. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

3) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Bridge #3, Structure No l9l0-003P, located in Saratoga. Work will include repairing undermining at downstream comer of north abutment, patching spalls in abutment endwalls and northwest wingwall, replacing missing end caps on bridge railing, and repair erosion at downstream wingwalls with engineered riprap. The

Kroma Kill Bridge #3 carries the Entrance Road Rt 010, a principal park road, over Kroma Kill, located 5.8 MI from the

Visitor's Center. This concrete slab bridge built in 1962 is 45.5 FT long and 28.4 FT wide. Structure adequacy rating is

68.4 It is in fair to good condition overall, with a priority rating of D. Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the

Fair to Good range.

4) Rehabilitate the Mill Creek Culvert, Structure No l9l0-004P, located in Saratoga. Work will include placing additional engineered riprap in scour holes at ends ofbarrel floor, patching spalls in concrete fillets along bottom ofboth barrel walls, and removing fallen trees and flood debris from upstream channel. The Mill Creek Culvert carries the Tour Road Rt 200 over Mill Creek, located 0.5 MI from Chatfield Farm. This concrete box culvert built in 1950 is l0 FT wide

Assessment of Effect Form - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD:63270

Page I of 5 with a barrel length of42 FT. Structure adequacy rating is 79.2. It is in good condition overall, with a priority rating of D. Condition ratings lor most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range

5) Rehabilitate the Kroma Kill Culvert, Structure No l9l0-005P, located in Saratoga. Work will include repairing undermining and placing engineered riprap at scoured areas at both ends olculvert, and repairing deteriorated stone masonry protection at upstream side between barrels. The Kroma Kill Culvert carries the Entrance Road Rt 010 over Kroma Kill, located 1.0 MI from US RTE 4. This corrugated metal pipe culvert built in 1971 is 28 FT wide with a banel length of60 FT. Structure adequacy rating is 69.3. It is in fair condition overall, with a priority mting of D . Condition ratings for most sub-elements are in the Fair to Good range.

Area of potential effects (as defined in 36 CFR 800.16[dl)

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

-No_Yes

4. Potentially Affected Resource(s):

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

Alter or remove features/elements of a historic setting or No environment (inc. terrain)

Add non-historic features/elements (inc. visual, audible, or Yes atmospheric) to a historic setting or cultural landscape

No Disturb, destroy, or make archeological resources inaccessible

No Disturb, destroy, or make ethnographic resources inaccessible

Yes Potentially affect presently unidentified cultural resources

Begin or contribute to deterioration of historic features, terrain, setting, landscape elements, or archeological or ethnographic

No resources lnvolve a real properiy transaction (exchange, sale, or lease of land No or structures)

Other (please specify):

6. Supporting Study Data:

(Attach if feasible; if action is in a plan, EA or ElS, 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 specialisuadvisors as indicated by check-off boxes or as follows:

Assessment ofEffect Form - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC ID: 63270

' IX]Archeologist Name: William Griswold Datei 02lll/2016 Comments: See attached evaluation.

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 _ Streamlined Review Recommendations for conditions or stipulations: Monitoring; see attached evaluation

I x ] Historical Landscape Architect Name: Eliot Foulds

Oale:02lll/2016 Comments: I have reviewed the materials describing the proposed undertaking focused on rehabilitation of SARA tour road bridges and culverts. Deferring to the park's archaeological advisors regarding ground disturbing project elements, I have evaluated the proposal otherwise will have no-adverse-effect on qualities ofthe landscape that make this property and its associated landscape resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and best wishes as the park pursues this important preservation maintenance work.

Check if project does not involve ground disturbance I I Assessment of Effect: _ No Potential to Cause Effect _ No Historic Properties Affected x No

Adverse Effect _ Adverse Effect

Streamlined Review Recommendations for conditions or stipulations:

Doc Method: Standard 4-Step Process

No Reviews From: Curator, Historical Architect, Historian, 106 Advisor, 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:

I X I A. STANOARD 36 CFR PART 8OO CONSULTATION

Further consultation under 36 CFR Part 800 is needed.

[ ] B. STREAMLINED REVIEW UNDER THE 2OO8 SERVICEWIDE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT (PA)

The above action meets all conditions for a streamlined review under section lll of the 2008 Servicewide PA for Section 106 compliance.

Assessment of Effect Form - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC ID: 63270

APPL:CABLE SttREAMLINED REV:EW Criteria

(SpeCify l‐ 1 6 of the list of streamlined review criteria.)

[IC,PLAN‐ RELATED UNDERTAKING

Consultation and review ofthe proposed undertaking were completed in the context of a p:an review process,in accordance with the 2008 Servicewide PA and 36 CFR Part 800.

Specify plan/EAノ EIS:

[]D.UNDERTAK:NG RELATED ttO ANOTHER AGREEMENT The proposed undertaking is covered for Section 106 purposes under another document such as a statewide agreement established in accord with 36 CFR 800.7 or counterpart regu:ations.

[ ] E. COMBINED NEPA/NHPA Document Documentation is required for the preparation of an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD has been developed and used so as also to meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6

[ ] G. Memo to SHPO/THPO

[ ] H. Memo to ACHP

SHPO/THPO Notes: New York SHPO has determined that no historic properties wil! be adversely affected by this undertaking.

3. Additional Consulting Parties lnformation:

Additional Consulting Parties: No

4. Stipulations and Conditions:

Follou'ing are listcd any stipulations or conditions necessarv to cnsurc that the assessment of effect above is consistent with 36 CFR Part 800 criteria of effect or to avoid or reduce potential advcrse efl'ects.

5. Mitigations/Treatment Measures:

Measures to prevent or minimize loss or impairment of historic/prehistoric properties:

(Rcnrember that setting, Iocation, and use mav bc relcvant.)

No Asscssnrent of Effect mitigations idcntified.

D. RECOMMENDED BY PARK SECTION 106 COORDINATOR:

Compliance Specialist:

NHPA

Specia‖ st

Christine

Valosin

Assessment of Effect Form - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD: 63270

協 復 ι嚇 際α

I

a. suPERTNTENDENT'' AppRovAL

The proposed work conforms to the NPS Management Policies and Cultural Resource Management Guideline, and lhave reviewed and approvethe recommendations, stipulations, orconditions noted in Section C of this form.

Superintendent: Date:う |lυ llマ

Assessment of Effect Form - Rehabilitate the Tour Road Bridges (3) and Culverts (2) - PEPC lD:63270

NEl″ YORK

STATE OF

OpPORTUN:TY

Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation

ANDREW M. CUOMO ROSE HARVEY

Governor Commisstoner

March 16, 2016

Mr. Chris Martin Resource Manager National Park Service Saratoga NHP 648 Rt 32 Stillwater, NY 12170

Re: NPS Saratoga NHP Rehabilitate Tour Road Bridges and Culverts 648 Rt 32, Stillwater, NY 12170

'16PR00606

Dear Mr. Martin:

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8).

Based upon this review, the New York SHPO has determined that no historic properties will be adversely affected by this undertaking.

lf further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above.

Sincerely, 和 ダ,け Ruth L. Pierpont Deputy Commissioner for Historic Preservation

Division for Historic Preservation P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 ' (518)237-8643. www.nysparks.com

IPaC - Information for Planning and Conservation ( ): A project planning tool to helphttps://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ streamline the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service environmental review process.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

SARA BMS(1)

IPaC Trust Resource Report Generated February 22, 2016 09:06 AM MST, IPaC v2.3.2

This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project reviews that require U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service review or concurrence, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents page.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

IPaC Trust Resource Report

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 2Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

US Fish & Wildlife Service

IPaC Trust Resource Report

NAME

SARA BMS(1)

LOCATION

Saratoga County, New York

DESCRIPTION

Bridge repair/rehabilitation and culvert work in Saratoga National Historical Park.

IPAC LINK

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/

DIMZF-7HMHR-FA7IU-L3CCH-MJ3BZY

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information Trust resources in this location are managed by:

New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9349

(607) 753-9334 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/DIMZF7HMHRFA7IUL3CCHMJ3BZY https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/DIMZF7HMHRFA7IUL3CCHMJ3BZY

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 3Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

Threatened

Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species are managed by the of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.Endangered Species Program

This USFWS trust resource report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts.

For project evaluations that require FWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents section.

of the Endangered Species Act Federal agencies to "request of theSection 7 requires Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.

A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from the Regulatory Documents section in IPaC.

The list of species below are those that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in this location:

Mammals Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis

CRITICAL HABITAT

has been designated for this species.No critical habitat https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE

Critical Habitats There are no critical habitats in this location http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-7.html https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 4Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Migratory Birds Birds are protected by the and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle

.Protection Act

Any activity which results in the of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unlesstake authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( ). There are no provisions for1 allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conservation measures.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Year-round bird occurrence data http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ akn-histogram-tools.php

The following species of migratory birds could potentially be affected by activities in this location:

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F3

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HI

Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0EU

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus

Season: Breeding

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Season: Breeding

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G4 http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/akn-histogram-tools.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/akn-histogram-tools.php https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F3 https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008 https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HI https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0EU https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G4

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 5Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern

Bird of conservation concern Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0AN

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Season: Breeding

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Season: Breeding

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Season: Breeding

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Season: Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HC

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0AN https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HC https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 6Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

Refuges Any activity proposed on lands must undergo a 'CompatibilityNational Wildlife Refuge Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

Refuge data is unavailable at this time.

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 7Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

3.16 acres

4.61 acres

15.6 acres

20.7 acres

0.191 acre

0.571 acre

2.01 acres

2.89 acres

5.28 acres

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation underNWI wetlands Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army .Corps of Engineers District

DATA LIMITATIONS

The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.

Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

DATA EXCLUSIONS

Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.

Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.

These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

DATA PRECAUTIONS

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

This location overlaps all or part of the following wetlands:

Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1Bd PEM1Ed

PEM1C

PEM1B

PEM1E

Freshwater Forested/shrub Wetland

PFO1/SS1C

PFO1E

PFO1C

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PEM1Bd http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PEM1Ed http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PEM1C http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PEM1B http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PEM1E http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PFO1/SS1C http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PFO1E http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PFO1C

02/22/2016 09:06 AM Page 8Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) v2.3.2

2.47 acres

PFO1A

PFO1/SS1E

A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website: http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PFO1A http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx?CodeURL=PFO1/SS1E http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for

Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat

Project Submittal Form for FHWA, FRA, and Transportation Agencies Updated June 23, 2015

In order to use the programmatic informal consultation to fulfill Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, transportation agencies must use this form to submit project-level information for all may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determinations to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) field office prior to project commencement. For more information, see the Standard Operating Procedure for Site Specific Project(s) Submission in the User’s Guide.

In submitting this form, the transportation agency ensures that the proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA. Upon submittal of this form, the appropriate Service field office may review the site-specific information provided and request additional information.

If the applying transportation agency is not notified within 14 calendar days of emailing the Project Submittal Form to the Service field office, it may proceed under the range-wide programmatic informal consultation.

Further instructions on completing the form can be found by hovering your cursor over each text box.

1. Date:

2. Lead Agency:

This refers to the Federal governmental lead action agency initiating consultation; select FHWA or FRA as appropriate

3. Requesting Agency:

a. Name:

b. Title:

c. Phone:

d. Email:

4. Consultation Code1:

5. Project Name(s):

1 Available through IPaC System Official Species List: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

6. Project Description:

Please attach additional documentation or explanatory text if necessary

7. Other species from Official Species List:

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable habitat – see additional information attached

May Affect – see additional information provided for those species (either attached or forthcoming

8. For Ibat/NLEB, if Applicable, Explain Your No Effect Determination

No effect – project(s) are outside the species’ range (form complete)

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable summer habitat (form complete)

No effect from maintenance, alteration, or demolition of bridge(s)/structure(s) – results of inspection surveys indicate no signs of bats. (form complete)

No effect – other (see Section 2.2 of the User’s Guide – form complete)

Otherwise, please continue below.

9. Affected Resource/Habitat Type

Trees

Bridge

Other Non-Tree Roosting Structure (e.g., building)

Other (please explain):

10. For Tree Removal Projects:

a. Please verify that no documented roosts or foraging habitat will be impacted and that project is within 100 feet of existing road surface:

b. Please verify that all tree removal will occur during the inactive season2:

c. Timing of clearing:

d. Amount of clearing:

11. For Bridge/Structure Work Projects:

a. Proposed work:

b. Timing of work:

c. Evidence of bat activity on bridge/structure:

d. If applicable, verify that superstructure work will not bother roosting bats in any way:

e. If applicable, verify that bridge/structure work will occur only in the winter months:

2 Coordinate with local Service field office for appropriate dates.

12. Please confirm the following:

Proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA (see Section 2.0).

All applicable AMMs will be implemented, including3:

Tree Removal AMM 1:

Tree Removal AMM 2:

Tree Removal AMM 3:

Tree Removal AMM 4:

Bridge AMM 1:

Bridge AMM 2:

Bridge AMM 3:

Bridge AMM 4:

Structure AMM 1:

Structure AMM 2:

Structure AMM 3:

Structure AMM 4:

Lighting AMM 1:

Lighting AMM 2:

Dust Control AMM 1:

Water Control AMM 1:

Water Control AMM 2:

Water Control AMM 3:

Water Control AMM 4:

Water Control AMM 5:

Water Control AMM 6:

Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 1:

Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 2:

Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 3:

Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 4:

Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 5:

Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 6:

3 See AMMs Fact Sheet (Appendix B) for more information on the following AMMs.

McDaniels, Michael (FHWA)

From: Doran, Sandra <sandra_doran@fws.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:54 AM To: McDaniels, Michael (FHWA) Cc: Sandra Doran Subject: Re: Queston Re: Project SARA BMS and Sec 7 Consultation

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Michael -

I completed my review of these two files and the Rangewide forms that you submitted. It appears that each Region has their own form. All the information is complete and no further consultation is required.

I look forward to working with you on these types of projects in the future.

Sandie

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Doran, Sandra <sandra_doran@fws.gov> wrote:

Thank you Michael.

On Friday, October 23, 2015, <michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov> wrote:

Sandie, Attached are the Rangewide Programmatic BA forms for both projects. Thank you for your help and consideration.

Michael McDaniels

From: Doran, Sandra [mailto:sandra_doran@fws.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:50 PM To: McDaniels, Michael (FHWA) Subject: Re: Queston Re: Project SARA BMS and Sec 7 Consultation

Hi Michael, michael.mcdaniels Highlight

For SARA and Vanderbuilt - Based on the recent bat survey, NLTAA was appropriate for tree removal and bridge work (not No effect). You need to follow the Rangewide Programmatic Biological Assessment. Please fill out and submit the Rangewide Programmatic BA form for these two projects.

Sandie

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:07 PM, <michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov> wrote:

I don’t believe I received a response to my email below which I sent on 9/15. My question is, after our various emails and discussions, have we come to concurrence of No Effect for this project for all the species listed below?

Thank you, Michael

From: McDaniels, Michael (FHWA) Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:42 PM To: 'Doran, Sandra' Subject: RE: Queston Re: Project SARA BMS and Sec 7 Consultation

The recent bat survey is the following:

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2012/599

Bat Inventories of Eight National Park Service Units in the Northeast Region of the United States

This survey used acoustic methods as well as mist netting and covered both Saratoga and Vanderbilt in addition to other parks in the Northeast Region. The report indicated no presence of Indiana Bat in any park and only minimal acoustic readings for NLE bat at Vanderbilt, which has the hazard tree and, as you stated, could be regarded as discountable or insignificant. I have attached the survey for your perusal. Given the information in the report, comments I have provided below, and your additional justifications you provided below, have we come to concurrence of No Effect for this project as it relates to the species listed below?

Michael

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:44 PM

Michael, See additional comments/questions below.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 AM, <michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov> wrote:

Thank you for the additional comments and insight. I believe you are correct in your assessment of the situation. In light of this, FHWA has determined the following:

Vanderbilt (VAMA BMS(1), Bridge Repair/Rehabilitation)‐

Given no in water work, we determine No Effect for the Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon).

Additional justification would include 1) the project is not located in the Delaware/Neversink River system.

2) the work is above the waterline and 3) the streams do not provide suitable habitat for DWM. You can look at our website for a description of suitable habitat for DWM.

Given the work will remain in the footprint of the bridges and along their wingwalls, we determine No Effect for the New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis).

Additional justification would include the work is within the highway right of way and the area does not provide suitable habitat. Also, just announced, NEC is no longer considered a candidate species as the Service found that the species is not warranted for listing.

Based on recent bat surveys and given only one tree will be removed and said tree is a hazard tree, we determine No Effect for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and Northern Long‐eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis).

What recent bat survey are you referencing and what were the results? Present/absence using acoustic or mist net surveys?

Saratoga (SARA BMS(1), Bridge Repair/Rehabilitation and Culvert work)‐

Given all proposed work will take place in and around the footprint of the bridges and culverts and no tree clearing will be part of this project, we determine No Effect for the Northern Long‐eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis).

Please let me know if you concur and if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Environmental Protection Specialist

FHWA‐EFL

703‐948‐1438

Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:21 PM

Michael -

Bridges should be surveyed per the Programmatic Rangewide informal consultation. Your effects determination should be based on bridge surveys in addition to considering trees and tree removal.

These comments also pertain to two other projects that I have reviewed are Saratoga National Historical Park and the Vanderbilt National Historical Site bridge.

Vanderbuilt - You provided an overall NLTAA determination, when you should evaluate the species separately, some may be no effect.

Also, it appears that the one tree that you propose to remove is a hazard tree, and effects may be discountable or insignificant.

Saratoga - if no tree clearing then no effect.

Please call if you have any questions.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:24 PM, <michael.mcdaniels@dot.gov> wrote:

Thank you for contacting me in regard to this matter. The streams involved in the proposed project are the Kroma Kill and Mill Creek, neither of which are listed by NY DEC as trout streams.

As for the NLE Bat, the bridge/culverts are cleared but some sources indicate the rare potential for NLE bat to roost under bridges. For this reason I gave the may affect, but not likely to adversely affect determination. However, if you feel this is inaccurate, I would not be against changing that determination.

Please let me know how we should proceed from here and thank you for your time and consideration.

Environmental Protection Specialist

FHWA‐EFL

703‐948‐1438

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:31 AM To: McDaniels, Michael (FHWA) Cc: Patricia Cole; Sandra Doran Subject: Queston Re: Project SARA BMS and Sec 7 Consultation

Hi Michael, Your determination of may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat should be a no effect based on the fact that you state that "no trees will be removed as part of this project". I assume that the bridge/culvert access areas are cleared already.

Secondly,are the streams identified in your letter of August 27, 2015 classified by DEC as trout streams? If so, is there a proposed work window to protect fish spawning?

Sandra Doran, Fish & Wildlife Biologist

Conservation Planning Assistance/Endangered Species Branch

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

New York Field Office (Region 5)

3817 Luker Rd.

Cortland, NY 13045

(607) 753-9334 Ext. 0586 (voice)

(607) 753-9699 (fax) http://nyfo.fws.gov (web) sandra_doran@fws.gov (email)

Sandra Doran, Fish & Wildlife Biologist

Conservation Planning Assistance/Endangered Species Branch

• Tour Road Bridge (1910-001P) - 43°00’20.50”N 73°37’01.50”W: The work includes removing pavement, sealing the bridge deck, and…