PENNS NECK AREA EIS MEETING REPORT Meeting Description: Consulting Parties Workshop Date: December 2, 2002 Location: West Windsor Senior Center 571 Clarkesville Road West Windsor, NJ Prepared by: Rutgers - Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Jon Carnegie, Senior Project Manager, Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI), called the meeting to order at approximately 6:10PM. He reminded the group that public involvement activities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act have been merged with the public involvement activities of the Penns Neck Area EIS. He explained that this meeting is the first in a series of workshops intended to provide Section 106 consulting parties and interested members of the public additional opportunities to consider and discuss issues related to cultural resources potentially impacted by the alternatives under consideration in the Penns Neck Area EIS. He indicated that the workshops were undertaken in direct response to requests from consulting parties for additional opportunities of input. Chitra Radin, Radin Consulting, Inc., explained the purpose and components of the Section 106 process and briefly described the role of consulting parties. In response to a question regarding whether or not the project will utilize the more stringent Section 4 (f) standards, Ms. Radin explained that Section 4 (f) standards are a US DOT requirement, and that the EIS will reflect Section 4 (f) standards as appropriate. She noted that the findings of the effects determination under Section 106 will form the foundation of the Section 4 (f) analysis included in the EIS. The Section 4 (f) process is intended to ensure that there is no "prudent or feasible alternative" to a proposed action that would potentially impact a resource. OVERVIEW OF DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY DOCUMENTS Archeological Resources Peter Siegel, John Milner Associates, Inc., provided an overview of the archeological survey work and findings presented in the Draft Cultural Resources Inventory reports and documents. He described the EIS cultural resources study area and the Area of Potential Effects (APE) related to archeological resources and briefly reviewed previous archeological survey work conducted within the study area. Mr. Siegel indicated that the scope of EIS cultural resources investigation included a synthesis of all previous studies and new field investigations as needed to ensure that the areas potentially impacted by one or more of the EIS alternatives were surveyed. He indicated that the findings of both previous studies and new field investigations indicate that the project area is an area "rich with archeological resources." He reviewed a map of identified resources located in the study area and briefly described those resources within the APE that are listed or deemed eligible for listing on the National Register. These resources were identified 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. The following is a summary of issues and concerns raised by consulting parties and members of the public regarding the archeological survey work and findings: * Several individuals asked questions for clarification on field work methodologies and protocols. Mr. Siegel indicated that field investigations were concentrated on those areas within the physical alignment or "footprint" of one or more of the alternatives. Field investigations included both surface inspections looking for artifacts visible on the surface of plowed or formally plowed fields; as well as, shovel tests conducted in a grid pattern every 15 meters to a depth of about 70 cm or 10 cm into sterile subsoil, whichever is shallower. This protocol was approved by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Siegel also noted that archeologists generally agree that disturbance by agricultural plowing does not significantly alter the integrity of archeological sites. * Several individuals asked questions related to the dissemination of information regarding the identified archeological sites and whether there were any means available to protect the sites. There was particular interest in the discovery of a Clovis point in one of the sites (Site 28ME91). In response, Lauralee Rappleye-Marsett, NJDOT, explained that while the consultants are keeping track of sites and the artifacts found at each site, protection is often completely dependent on the actions of private landowners. As such, she indicated the DOT generally does not make this information widely available to the public for fear of possible theft. * It was noted that the boundaries of some sites identified for the Draft Cultural Resources Inventory reports appear slightly different from the boundaries depicted in previous studies and reports. Mr. Siegel explained that the sites on the current maps are based on sites described in the earlier studies conducted by Greenhouse Consultants, as well as information from the State Museum database. He indicated that data from previous studies and the State Museum provided a starting point from which to field locate and reestablish site boundaries. Mr. Siegel added that a "Phase II evaluation" was conducted for some sites. This evaluation is more detailed than the level of analysis conducted in the earlier Phase I studies by Greenhouse Consultants. Consequently, in some cases, site boundaries may have changed based on additional investigation. * Concern was raised regarding the possible interrelationship of the sites located along the Millstone River. Specifically, one consulting party asked whether the sites should be considered more in their "totality" rather than as discreet sites. In response, Mr. Siegel indicated that this observation echoes a philosophical debate that often occurs among archeologists. On one side of the debate are those archeologists that pursue the identification and cataloguing of discreet sites with identifiable boundaries as a way to understand the larger context of historic and prehistoric occupations. On the other side of the debate are those that conceive of archeological sites in a more holistic way. Archeologists on this side of the debate favor the consideration of individual sites as part of a "district" in the larger landscape, which was part of the historic or prehistoric occupation. Mr. Siegel explained that while "archeological districts" do exist, more commonly, archeological sites are considered as discreet sites that contribute to a larger body of knowledge regarding historic and prehistoric occupations. Despite Mr. Siegel's response, several consulting party members remained concerned that the sites will be treated as separate sites in the EIS. Mr. Siegel assured the group that the sites were being reviewed in the context of where they occur relative to other sites in the study area. * The possibility of conducting more detailed site investigations was considered and discussed. Ms. Rappleye-Marsett explained that Phase 2 and 3 studies would only be conducted if potential site disturbance could not be avoided. If there was no reasonable or prudent alternative to avoid disturbance, further investigations would be conducted, disturbance would be minimized, and an appropriate mitigation plan would be developed. Mitigation plans typically involve inventorying and recovery of artifacts contained at the site. She noted that protection of sites located outside of the project right-of-way is generally the responsibility of the property owner. Historic Architectural Resources Doug McVarish, John Milner Associates, Inc., provided an overview of the historic architectural survey work and findings presented in the Draft Cultural Resources Inventory reports and documents. He described the APE related to archeological resources and briefly reviewed previous survey work conducted within the study area. Mr. McVarrish reiterated that the scope of EIS cultural resources investigation included a synthesis of all previous studies and new field investigations and research as needed to ensure that the areas potentially impacted by one or more of the EIS alternatives were surveyed. He reviewed a map of identified resources located in the study area and briefly described those resources within the APE that are listed or deemed eligible for listing on the National Register. These resources were identified 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) * David S. Voorhees House * Washington Road Elm Allée Mr. McVarish noted that consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office was on-going regarding the potential eligibility of the Sarnoff Corporation property (formerly RCA Laboratories - David Sarnoff Research Center). He stated that once this consultation is concluded, the potential effects of the proposed alternatives on the Sarnoff property will be assessed. The following is a summary of issues and concerns raised by consulting parties and members of the public regarding the historic architectural survey work and findings: * In response to a question, Charles Scott, NJ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), stated that a structure located within a historic district is afforded the same level of protection as an individually protected structure; however, he also noted that there are some small nuances to the law that might make an individual National Register listing preferable. * Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of past eligibility assessments made by Milner Associates. It was noted that in several instances, resources were initially deemed by Milner as not eligible for National Register listing. These assessments were later questioned and determined eligible by the SHPO. Mr. McVarish explained that National Register eligibility is not an exact science and that opposing views on the historic significance of sites is common. Mr. Carnegie added that the purpose of the consulting parties process is to involve knowledgeable, interested parties like the SHPO and others to better understand the historicity of resources and to ensure that all points of view are considered in making final determinations of eligibility. Mr. Scott concurred with both observations. Ms. Radin noted that the SHPO concurs with the opinion of private consultants about 80% of the time. Final determinations on the remaining 20% are the result of consultations and back and forth between project consultants and consulting parties. * Several individuals sought clarification on how National Register eligible and listed resources are protected. Ms. Radin noted that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies consider the potential impacts of proposed actions on National Register listed or eligible resources. In the case of the Penns Neck Area EIS, the federal action is the expenditure of federal funds for a transportation project. She indicated that if no federal action is involved then protection under Section 106 will not apply. Ms. Radin also noted that absent the Section 106 process, there are few protections for historic resources. Protection is primarily the responsibility of private property owners. Ms. Rappleye-Marsett commented that while NJDOT generally provides local communities with copies of the historic resource reports, protection ultimately relies on municipal historic preservation ordinances and enforcement of those ordinances during the land development process. She also noted that Section 106 requirements do not mandate protection. The law requires that agencies consider the impacts of proposed actions on historic resources and make every effort to avoid impacts. If impacts are unavoidable the agency must seek to minimize and mitigate any adverse effects that may occur. FORMAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT INVENTORY DOCUMENTS Mr. Carnegie informed the group that several letters and emails were received from consulting parties and members of the public as formal comments on the Draft Cultural Resources Inventory reports and documents. He briefly summarized the comments received to date and asked members of the project team and consultants to briefly describe how the comments are being addressed. Involvement of other groups - several comment letters requested that additional groups (e.g., archeology groups and Indian tribes) be invited to participate in the EIS/Section 106 process. Ms. Rappleye-Marsett indicated that FHWA and DOT have initiated consultation with two federally recognized Native American tribes. She stated that the tribes have expressed the desire to be involved in the process if the project will affect burial grounds. With regard to other groups, she noted that the list of current consulting parties is extensive and represents a broad array of perspectives. She also noted that all relevant reports and documents are available at the six project repositories and that members of the public are encouraged and welcome to provide input on cultural resource issues at any time. Consideration of archeological sites as a whole - Some commentators expressed concern that the archeological sites were not being reviewed in their totality. This concern was discussed as part of the meeting and summarized above. Crossroads of the American Revolution - Several comment letters urged the NJDOT/FHWA to consider potential impacts on the on-going Crossroads of the American Revolution initiative. Mr. Scott commented that SHPO has an expert on staff that is examining this particular issue. He further noted that this is not a federally mandated analysis and that there is normally not a separate course of analysis for Revolutionary War sites/structures. Ms. Rappleye-Marsett added that although certain transportation routes are being recognized in this context, they are not considered significant in the Section 106 process. Sarnoff Corporation eligibility - Several commenters expressed the opinion that the Sarnoff Corporation property should be considered eligible for National Register listing. As noted previously, consultation with the SHPO regarding Sarnoff eligibility is on-going. Comments from the SHPO - The SHPO provided comments indicating the opinion that the Pennsylvania Railroad historic district, 12 Washington Road (David S. Voorhees Farmhouse), 45 Station Drive (Princeton Junction Hotel), and the Nassau Interlocking Tower were National Register eligible. These resources will be added to the inventory documents as NR-eligible and the cultural resources effects assessment will incorporate an analysis of potential impacts to these resources. In addition, based on SHPO input, references and documentation for the following properties will be incorporated and/or clarified in the final inventory documents: 1) 536 Alexander Road; 2) Berrien City and properties therein; 3) 258 Washington Road; and 4) 137 Washington Road Issues raised at September In-Progress Review - At the September 30th EIS In-progress Review, members of the public suggested that potential impacts to the following resources should be considered in the cultural resource effects assessment: 1) the area known locally as the "Sheepwash;" 2) the Berrien City neighborhood; and 3) the Mercer Hill Historic District. Mr. McVarish noted that while the "Sheepwash" area may have local significance as a cultural resource, it does not meet the eligibility criteria for National Register listing. Mr. Carnegie indicated that potential impacts to the "Sheepwash" would be considered in the EIS as a natural area associated with the Millstone River corridor. With regard to the Berrien City neighborhood and the Mercer Hill Historic District, he noted that both are located outside the agreed APE for the EIS. Mr. Carnegie indicated that representatives from the Berrien City neighborhood are actively participating as a member of the Partners' Roundtable and agreed to contact a representative from the Mercer Hill Neighborhood Association to answer any questions they may have regarding the EIS process. PUBLIC COMMENT: * A member of the public asked for clarification regarding the level of field investigation undertaken on the Sarnoff Corporation property west of the area immediately adjacent to the Millstone River and site 28ME86. After some discussion and consideration, Mr. Siegel reported that field investigations in this area were limited due to a past history of site disturbance. Mr. Carnegie indicated that the project team would revisit the assessment approach for this area to determine what, if any, additional field investigations are warranted. Mr. Carnegie thanked everyone for participating in the meeting and announced that the next consulting parties workshop has been tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, January 7, 2003 from 6:00-8:00PM. He indicated that details regarding the meeting location will be confirmed via email. The meeting was adjourned. Penns Neck Area EIS - Consulting Parties Workshop 12-2-02 meeting report 6