PENNS NECK AREA EIS MEETING REPORT Meeting Description: Penns Neck Area EIS Consulting Parties Workshop Date: January 22, 2003 Location: West Windsor Senior Center 271 Clarksville Road West Windsor, New Jersey Prepared by: Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey INTRODUCTION: Jon Carnegie, Senior Project Manager, Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI), called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 PM and welcomed the group to the second meeting in a series of workshops organized for Penns Neck Area EIS Section 106 consulting parties and interested members of the public. Mr. Carnegie reported that the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the findings of the DRAFT Cultural Resources Effects Report, which was distributed to the consulting parties in early January 2003. STATUS REPORTS AND UPDATES: Mr. Carnegie asked Peter Siegel and Douglas McVarish, John Milner Associates, Inc. to provide a brief update/status report regarding issues and concerns raised at the December 2nd workshop. Additional archeological field work Mr. Siegel reported that, in response to concerns raised by consulting parties at the December 2nd workshop, the Milner team had performed additional archeological fieldwork on the Sarnoff Corporation property. The additional field work was conducted in the vicinity of the proposed east-side connector road (ESC) 2 alignment and the Vaughn Drive connector road interchanges. He reported that the vast majority of additional field shovel tests were negative, but noted that the additional field work resulted in a slight expansion of the Site 28ME2 boundary. This expansion reflects the additional discovery of pottery and stone tool artifacts dating from the Late Woodland period, just south of the site boundary previously identified by Greenhouse Consultants. He also noted that a new very small site was identified in the vicinity of the VDC 3 interchange ramps. This site has been catalogued and identified as Site 28ME291. Mr. Siegel described this site as a small but intact deposit dating to the Early Woodland period. Sarnoff eligibility Mr. McVarish reported that two meetings have been held with representatives of NJDOT, SHPO, Sarnoff, Milner and the Rutgers project team to discuss the Sarnoff Corporation property's National Register eligibility. He further reported that on December 11, 2002 SHPO issued an eligibility opinion, which stated that the David Sarnoff Research Center is eligible for listing on the National Register. Mr. Carnegie noted that detailed discussions regarding the period of historic significance and site boundaries are still on-going. He indicated that the DRAFT Cultural Resources Effects Report will be amended to address potential impacts to the Sarnoff property as the EIS process progresses. Mr. McVarish described the proposed boundary for the David Sarnoff Research Center. It extends west to Route 1, east to an area proximate to the forest edge adjacent to the Little Bear Brook, north to an area near the Sarnoff Driveway and Harrison Street and south to the rear edge of properties fronting on Fisher Place. The following comments, questions, and issues of concern were shared during and following the status reports and updates: * In response to a question, Lauralee Rappleye-Marsett, NJDOT, stated that according to Section 106 regulations, if the project/action in question would result in a temporary or permanent negative impact on a resource, the impact is deemed to have an "adverse effect" that must be avoided, minimized or mitigated. She noted however, potential disturbance of an archeological site would not necessarily preclude construction of a project. * Clarification was sought on why the EIS process must consider potential impacts to Sarnoff if there are no protections in place to ensure that proposed renovations and additional construction on the Sarnoff property do not negatively impact the historic character of the property. Specifically, one of the consulting parties asked if preservation of certain buildings on the Sarnoff property would be mandated as a result of National Register eligibility status. Charles Scott, SHPO, responded that National Register eligibility does not mandate private sector actions to preserve a resource. He explained that Section 106 regulations apply only to proposed federal actions not private sector actions. He further explained that Section 106 regulations encourage but do not mandate preservation. National Register eligibility status and Section 106 review are intended to ensure that preservation values are factored into federal agency planning and decision-making. As such, NJDOT/FHWA must do everything possible in the Penns Neck Area EIS to avoid impacts to National Register eligible or listed historic and archeological resources. If impacts cannot be avoided, then they must be minimized and mitigated. DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCES EFFECTS REPORT: Potential effects on archeological resources Mr. Siegel reviewed the four National Register eligible archeological sites located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). They are as follows: 28ME2 - This site is located in the vicinity of the Harrison St/Route 1 intersection on the east side of Route 1. It contains artifacts indicating prehistoric occupations dating to the Late Archaic, Terminal Archaic, and Woodland periods. 28ME23 - This site is located in the vicinity of the proposed east-side connector road crossing of the Little Bear Brook on the west side of the brook. It contains artifacts indicating prehistoric occupations dating to the Late Archaic and Late Woodland periods. 28ME86 - This site is located in the vicinity of the proposed east-side connector road crossing of the Little Bear Brook on the west side of the brook. It contains artifacts indicating prehistoric occupations dating to the Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland periods. 28ME291 - This site is located in the vicinity of the Vaughn Drive connector road interchange with CR571/Washington Rd. It is a small but intact deposit dating to the Early Woodland period. Mr. Siegel then reviewed the Possible Adverse Effects to National Register Eligible Archeological Sites Located within the Area of Potential Effects table (distributed at the meeting). He noted that most of the proposed action alternatives would have an adverse effect on one or more of the four archeological sites. He also specifically noted that only VDC 3 would have an adverse effect to Site 28ME291; VDC 1 and VDC 2 would not. Potential effects on historic architectural resources Mr. McVarish reviewed the Possible adverse effects on National Register-Listed and Eligible Historic Architectural Resources table (distributed at the meeting). He reported that there are thirteen National Register listed or eligible historic architectural resources located within the APE. They are as follows: * Aqueduct Mills Historic District * Aqueduct Mills Historic District Extension * Covenhoven-Logan-Silvers House * Delaware & Raritan Canal Bridge * Delaware & Raritan Canal Historic District * Lake Carnegie Historic District * Penns Neck Baptist Church (a.k.a. - Princeton Baptist Church at Penns Neck) * Penns Neck Cemetery * Pennsylvania Railroad Historic District * Princeton Operating Station (a.k.a. - Eden Institute) * Sarnoff Corporation * David S. Voorhees House * Washington Road Elm Allée Mr. McVarish reported that all of the EIS alternatives impact at least one of the above-listed resources and explained that the term "adverse effect" typically refers to a direct impact such as physical destruction or indirect impacts such as noise and visual impact(s). With specific regard to noise impacts, Mr. McVarish noted that the Milner team relied upon noise data provided by NJDOT, DMJM + Harris and the Rutgers project team. He added that a traffic noise impact occurs when predicted noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria or when predicted noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise level. Comments shared during and following the presentations on the findings contained in the DRAFT Cultural Resources Effects Report included the following. * In response to a question, it was noted that all National Register listed and eligible resources are treated equally under Section 106 regulations. Potential impacts to all resources must be avoided, minimized and mitigated. * Several participants objected to the assessment of potential impacts to the D&R Canal Historic District. Specifically, Jim Amon, Executive Director of the D& R Canal Commission, objected to the categorization given to the D&R Canal Historic District as a "Category B" resource relative to noise impact criteria. He indicated that the D&R Canal Master Plan, which has statutory authority, recognizes the importance of serenity as a guiding principle related to protecting the park as an important cultural resource. He asserted that the importance of serenity should be reflected in the assessment of impacts. Mr. Carnegie explained that the Category B designation is consistent with FHWA guidance on applying the Noise Abatement Criteria. He noted that this is the category reserved for parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, etc. He further noted that the more stringent Category A was reserved for places like amphitheaters, some national monuments and interior portions of some national parks. Mr. Carnegie also reported that the project team had consulted with FHWA on this matter. Based on this consultation, it was agreed that the Category B designation was appropriate; however, accommodation could be made in the effects assessment to acknowledge public input regarding the local importance of serenity for users of the D&R Canal park. Mr. Carnegie indicated that future revisions of the effects documents will be amended to acknowledge concerns related to potential noise impacts. * In response to a question, Mr. Carnegie reiterated that a locally preferred alternative will not be identified in the DEIS. Instead, all eighteen alternatives and sub-alternatives will be assessed and compared relative to potential impacts. A locally-preferred or environmentally-preferable alternative will not be identified until the FEIS, after all public and agency comments on the DEIS are received, reviewed, and processed. * In response to a question, Ms. Rappleye-Marsett and Mr. Siegel replied that the setting of an archeological site is generally not considered an important factor relative to its historic significance. Mr. Scott concurred. Facilitated discussion by resource Mr. Carnegie reviewed the Adverse Effects to National Register Eligible or Listed Properties by Major Design Components table (distributed at the meeting), and led a discussion of potential impacts on each resource. The following concerns, issues and comments were boarded: Archeology resources * Consideration of archeological sites as discreet sites vs. a single large district (e.g., consider the totality of sites). * The various interchange options and the ESC road options provide opportunities to avoid and/or minimize impacts on some archeological sites. * Tradeoffs may be necessary regarding potential archeological sites and potential impacts to the Sarnoff property. * All of the ESC road options would result in significant impacts to archeological resources. These impacts should be avoided. * The frontage road system appears to have many fewer potential impacts than the west-side connector road options. PUBLIC COMMENT * It was noted that development over the past several decades has resulted in the loss of many archeological resources. In this context, a member of the public asked if previous losses elevate the importance of remaining archeological sites. Mr. Siegel responded that sites are evaluated on an individual basis; as such, their "importance" is based upon whether or not the site is deemed to have good or bad integrity. * A representative of the Lenape American Indian tribe asked the group to seek balance in their ultimate decisions with regard to this project and emphasized the importance of preserving the archeological sites in the APE. He added that these sites provide a crucial link between the present and past and are important to the culture and history of the Lenape tribe, and all people. CONCLUSION Mr. Carnegie concluded the meeting by reiterating that the purpose of the workshop and the responsibility of Section 106 consulting parties is to review the effects of EIS alternatives on National Register listed or eligible resources. He also explained and emphasized that the overall purpose of the EIS process is to balance a wide array of potential impacts from the alternatives. For this reason, the January 29th Roundtable presentation on potential impacts to cultural resources will be respectful of Section 106 guidance and criteria for adverse effects; however, it will also attempt to highlight the "shades of gray" that are important in balancing positive and negative impacts as part of the EIS process. Finally, Mr. Carnegie indicated that another consulting parties workshop will be scheduled for the near future to continue the discussion of potential effects. Details regarding the date, time and location of this meeting will be communicated via email. The meeting was adjourned. Penns Neck Area EIS - Consulting Parties Workshop 1-22-03 meeting report 2