U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge

Appalachian National Scenic Trail Reroute through the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment

June 2018

PROJECT SUMMARY

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the impacts of re-routing the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Trail) through the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The current Trail alignment follows Oil City Road, a two-lane road with little to no shoulder, for approximately 0.5 mile where it crosses the Wallkill River using an existing bridge with no shoulder. This is one of the longest sections of the Trail that co-aligns with a public roadway. Realignment of the Trail through the Refuge would address the safety, accessibility, and aesthetic issues on the Trail. Currently, visitors to the Trail along Oil City Road are at risk from vehicle traffic and occasional flood conditions. Re-routing the Trail through the Refuge would eliminate these safety concerns and enhance opportunities for wildlife viewing and provide a visitor experience with maximum outdoor recreation potential, an objective for National Scenic Trails, as stated in the National Trails System Act (16 USC 1241-51). The proposed action would address accessibility issues through compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in accordance with new guidelines for trails.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide the decision-making framework that 1) analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to meet objectives of the proposal, 2) evaluates potential issues and impacts on the Refuge’s resources and values, and 3) identifies mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts.

This EA evaluates two alternatives for managing the Trail in southern Orange County, New York/northern Sussex County, New Jersey; describes the environment that would be affected by the alternatives; and assesses the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives. Under the no-action alternative, the current use of the Trail on Oil City Road would continue under the current management with no changes. Under the central alternative, which has been identified as the proposed action and preferred alternative, the paved portion of the Trail along Oil City Road would be eliminated and re-routed along a forested footpath at grade, along an elevated boardwalk (to minimize wetland and floodplain impacts), and across a new pedestrian bridge over the Wallkill River. Upon conclusion of this EA and decision-making process, one of the alternatives will become the long-term management alignment option for this segment of the Trail.

Impacts of the proposed alternatives were assessed in terms of their context, duration, and intensity. The resources analyzed in full detail in the EA include floodplains, wetlands, special-status species, visitor use and experience, and public health and safety. Under the no-action alternative, the floodplains and wetlands would not be adversely affect. Special-status species would continue to be negligibly affected by visitor activities that could trample habitat and disturb wildlife. Visitor use and experience under the no- action alternative would continue to be adversely affected by the roadwalk along Oil City Road, as this is not a desired experience for people hiking on the Trail and it diminishes their experience. Visitors’ health and safety would also continue to be adversely affected by the potential for flooding conditions on the road, as well as vehicle strikes from hiking along the road and crossing the road when parking at the Winding Waters parking lot.

Under the central alternative, there would be creation of temporary construction access road(s) and possible use of a barge or powered boat to construct the bridge. The bridge would be constructed during winter months to reduce impacts on the natural resources. Construction of both the bridge and boardwalk would result in a small loss of habitat. Some vegetation removal would be necessary for construction access and for the completion of the Trail. The central alternative would impact floodplains and wetlands through the installation of helical piers for the boardwalk and footings for the bridge; however, these

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk i Project Summary

features would not greatly diminish the natural functions and values of the floodplains and wetlands within the study area. Because permanent habitat loss would be minimal, construction activities would be during winter months, and mitigation measures would be implemented, the impacts on special-status species would be slight. Visitor experience would be temporarily impacted during construction due to disruption in use of the Refuge. Some visitors to the Refuge would experience adverse impacts due to the permanent structures of the bridge and boardwalk in a natural setting. Conversely, Trail visitors would experience beneficial impacts from the improvement from hiking along Oil City Road to hiking through the Refuge. Impacts on health and safety for Trail hikers would be beneficial because the roadwalk would be eliminated. Adverse impacts could result from a lack of parking areas, if visitation to the Trail and Refuge increases after the bridge and boardwalk are complete.

The Section 7 and the Section 106 consultation processes are ongoing for this project.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail ii

Contents

Project Summary ...... i Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...... 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 4 Issues and Impact Topics...... 6 Impact Topics Analyzed ...... 6 Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ...... 7 Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives ...... 9 No-Action Alternative ...... 9 Central alternative (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative)...... 9 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ...... 15 Mitigation Measures for the Action Alternative ...... 16 Required Federal and State Permits, Licenses, Certifications, and Assessments ...... 17 Chapter 3: Affected Environment ...... 19 Floodplains ...... 19 Wetlands ...... 19 Special-Status Species ...... 22 Federally Listed Species ...... 22 State Listed Species ...... 24 Visitor use and Experience ...... 26 Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge ...... 26 Appalachian Trail...... 26 Public Health and Safety ...... 26 Infrastructure ...... 27 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ...... 29 General Methodology for Evaluating Impacts ...... 29 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 29 Floodplains ...... 30 No-action Alternative...... 30 Central Alternative: Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative ...... 30 Wetlands ...... 31 No-Action Alternative ...... 31 Central Alternative: Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative ...... 31 Special-Status Species ...... 33 No-action Alternative...... 34 Central Alternative: Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative ...... 34 Visitor use and Experience ...... 37 No-action Alternative...... 37 Central Alternative: Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative ...... 37 Public Health and Safety ...... 38 No-action Alternative...... 38 Central Alternative: Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative ...... 39

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk iii Contents

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination ...... 41 Public Involvement ...... 41 Agency Consultation ...... 41 Section 7 Consultation ...... 41 Section 106 Consultation ...... 41 List of Preparers ...... 42 References ...... 43

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail iv Contents

Figures

Figure 1. Project Location ...... 2 Figure 2. Study Area Detail ...... 3 Figure 3. Appalachian Trail along Carnegie Road...... 5 Figure 4. Oil City Road Bridge that spans the Wallkill River ...... 5 Figure 5. Examples of Helical Piers ...... 9 Figure 6. Central Alternative with Land Ownership and Floodplain Information ...... 10 Figure 7. Example of a Timber Suspension Bridge ...... 11 Figure 8. Features of a Typical Timber Suspension Bridge ...... 12 Figure 9. Elements for Possible Construction Methods ...... 14 Figure 10. Floodplains and Wetlands ...... 20

Tables

Table 1. Wetlands Functions and Values ...... 22

Appendices

Appendix A: Special-Status Species ...... 47

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk v Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ATC Appalachian Trail Conservancy

BMP Best management practices

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

EA Environmental Assessment

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJ HPO New Jersey Historic Preservation Office

NPS National Park Service

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NY-NJ Trail Conference New York–New Jersey Trail Conference

PEM1 Emergent wetland

PFO1 Forested wetland

Refuge Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge

Service or USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Trail Appalachian National Scenic Trail

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

WUS Waters of the U.S.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail vi

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) is preparing this Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the environmental consequences related to the potential re-route of a portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Trail) through the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), including constructing an at-grade trail, an elevated boardwalk, and a new pedestrian bridge over the Wallkill River. This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); and Service NEPA guidance and Departmental regulations (43 CFR 46), procedures, and memoranda, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) guidelines, and it examines the consequences of a proposed action on the environment. This document analyzes the short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects of one action alternative and the no- action alternative. By comparing the action alternative with the no action alternative, and identifying mitigation measures that would minimize adverse effects, this EA will assist in the decision-making process.

The project proposes to move a portion of the Trail from where it crosses the Wallkill River via Oil City Road in Orange County, New York, and relocate the Trail within the Refuge in Sussex County, New Jersey. The study area is located within Sussex County and Orange County, New York and encompasses the current Appalachian Trail route that is considered for relocation and associated parking areas (figures 1 and 2). The study area is approximately 500 acres.

The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge was established by Congress in 1990 to conserve and protect wildlife and water quality. The Refuge provides natural resource recreation and research opportunities by conserving biological diversity and managing land to preserve wildlife. The Refuge is one of more than 560 units in the National Wildlife Refuge System managed by the Service and is one of the two national wildlife refuges crossed by the Trail. The Refuge encompasses approximately 6,500 acres of land in Sussex County, New Jersey and extending north into southern Orange County, New York.

The National Park Service (NPS) is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA and assist the lead federal agency in developing the environmental assessment document. The NPS is charged under the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241, 1244(a)) with administration of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail as a unit of the NPS. The NPS utilizes authorities applicable to both the national park system and national trails system in carrying out its administrative and management responsibilities for the Trail.

The Trail is a 2,190-mile-long public footpath that traverses scenic, wooded, pastoral, wild, and culturally resonant lands of the Appalachian Mountains between Mount Katahdin in Maine to Springer Mountain in Georgia. It was conceived in 1921, built by a consortium of agencies and private citizens, and opened as a continuous trail in 1937. Congress designated the Appalachian Trail a National Scenic Trail in 1968, as one of two initial components of the National Trails System. It is enjoyed by an estimated 3 million people each year and lies within a day’s drive of two thirds of the U.S. population. People of all ages and abilities come to the Trail to enjoy short walks, day hikes, long-distance backpacking journeys, or the revered “thru-hike” on this iconic trail. The Trail offers a variety of opportunities for viewing spectacular scenery, adventure, exercise, nature study, personal exploration, and renewal.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 1 Purpose and Need

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 2 Purpose and Need

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 3 Purpose and Need

Administration and management of the Trail is achieved through a unique system of cooperative management involving more than 75 federal and state land-managing agencies, the non-profit Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and volunteers from 31 local Appalachian Trail clubs. The local maintaining club designated by ATC is the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference (NY-NJ Trail Conference). A Comprehensive Plan for the Protection, Management, Development, and Use of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail was completed in 1981. This plan is supplemented by Appalachian Trail club local management plans and agreements between the cooperative management partners. The success of the cooperative management system relies heavily on thousands of volunteers who do much of the work each year to keep the Trail open for all to enjoy.

The Trail is currently protected along more than 99% of its course by a complex patchwork of federal or state ownership of the land or by rights-of-way. The NPS and the State of New Jersey own land within the Refuge that would be crossed by the proposed re-route of the Trail.

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

This project is needed to address safety, accessibility, and aesthetic issues on the Trail and within the Refuge. The portion of the Trail that this project proposes to realign lies between New Jersey and New York. Starting in New Jersey, the Trail crosses Lake Wallkill Road and travels west approximately 0.5 mile where it enters the Refuge. It follows Liberty Loop Trail for approximately 1.4 miles, eventually intersecting Oil City Road, a two-lane road with little to no shoulder. The Trail turns west onto Oil City Road and follows it for approximately 0.5 miles where it crosses the Wallkill River using an existing bridge with no shoulder. This is one of the longest sections of the Trail that co-aligns with a public roadway. The Trail then turns south and follows Carnegie Road for approximately 0.2 mile. The length of the Trail proposed for realignment is approximately 1.3 miles.

The purpose of the project is to provide Trail and Refuge visitors a safe and more aesthetically pleasing alternative for crossing the Wallkill River that is in keeping with the desired experience for those hiking the Trail. This portion of the Trail, which is co-aligned with a public road, does not provide maximum outdoor recreation potential, one of the objectives for National Scenic Trails, as stated in the National Trails System Act (16 USC 1241-51). As development in the surrounding area continues to increase, the number of cars on Oil City Road is likely to increase, causing additional safety concerns to hikers. In addition, Oil City Road and the Trail currently experience floods and overland flow, which affects the safety and accessibility for trail and refuge visitors.

For over 25 years, various agencies involved with managing the Trail and Refuge resources have partnered and collaborated on the safety issue associated with this project (HRG 2011). These project partners have agreed that there is a need to identify options for providing safe and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant accessible passage through the Refuge and across the Wallkill River. These options would also ensure a primitive trail and wildlife refuge experience. Chapter 2 presents the proposed action, the preferred alternative, and alternatives considered in this process but dismissed from further analysis. The agency partners include:

. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge . National Park Service, Appalachian National Scenic Trail . New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry . NY-NJ Trail Conference . Appalachian Trail Conservancy

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 4 Purpose and Need

Figure 1. Appalachian Trail along Carnegie Road

Figure 2. Oil City Road Bridge that spans the Wallkill River

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 5 Purpose and Need

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS

Issues are used to define which environmental resources may experience either negative or beneficial consequences from an action. They do not predict the degree or intensity of potential consequences that might result from an action. Issues identified during internal scoping and during agency consultation include improving visitor safety and protecting resources, especially wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. A summary of the issues and their associated impact topics that are considered and either retained or dismissed from further analysis is provided below, along with the rationale for their inclusion or dismissal.

IMPACT TOPICS ANALYZED

The following impact topics have the potential to be affected by the proposed project and are evaluated in detail in this EA:

. Floodplains and Wetlands – Executive Order 11990 “Protection of Wetlands” and Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management” direct all federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, both long- and short-term adverse impacts to wetlands and floodplains, respectively. All federal agencies are required to avoid building permanent structures within the 100-year floodplain unless no other practical alternative exists. In the absence of such alternatives, agencies must modify actions to preserve and enhance floodplain and wetland values and minimize degradation. The study area is located within the 100-year floodplain of the Wallkill River and through lands that contain emergent and forested wetlands and vernal pools. . Species of Special Status – The Refuge provides habitat for many wildlife and plant species that are federally or state-listed as endangered, threatened, special concern, or priority species (USFWS 2009). Within the study area, the project could affect federally listed bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) and state-listed wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta), bronze copper butterfly (Lycaena hyllus), and aquatic species. The Service will engage in an intra-Service Section 7 consultation to determine the presence or absence of these species within the study area. Mitigation measures, such as time of year restrictions on tree removal, would be employed to avoid direct impacts on these species.

. Visitor Use and Experience –The Trail is one of 11 Congressionally designated National Scenic Trails, which should “provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass” (16 USC 1241-51). As stated above, the portion of the Trail proposed for realignment, is one of the longest remaining roadwalks of the Trail, detracting from the enjoyment of the surrounding natural area for visitors. The adjacent Refuge could provide an opportunity to align this portion of the Trail with the goals of the National Trails System Act.

. Public Health and Safety – The study area is one of the longest remaining roadwalks on the Trail. As development in the surrounding area continues to increase, the number of cars on the road adjacent to the Trail would also increase, causing a continued safety hazard to hikers. The portion of Trail along the road currently experiences floods and overland flow, which also compromises the safety of hikers.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 6 Purpose and Need

. Infrastructure – Moving the Trail off the road and onto the Refuge is expected to attract more visitors and result in a need for additional parking facilities. There are two parking areas from which visitors can access the Trail in the Wallkill area. Together these parking areas can accommodate approximately 20 vehicles. Currently, these existing parking areas are used to capacity on busy weekends. If visitation increases with the new boardwalk and bridge, existing parking may not be adequate. This issue will be analyzed under the “Public Health and Safety” section in chapter 4.

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The following topics were initially considered but were ultimately dismissed from detailed analysis. In most cases, there would be no impacts on the resources or the impacts would be very small and would not drive the decision. Any resources with different rationales for dismissal are noted below.

. Cultural Landscapes and Historic Structures – A cultural landscape reflects human adaptation and use of natural resources and is often expressed in the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built. The character of a cultural landscape is defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values and traditions. The NPS initiated the process for formally listing the Appalachian National Scenic Trail on the National Register of Historic Places in November 2012. A Multiple Property Documentation Form Submission (NPS 2016), which evaluates resources that share a common history or historic context or are related geographically or thematically has been prepared and is under review by State Historic Preservation Offices. The NPS has determined that the Trail comprises a continuous linear historic district and historic structures. (The Trail, including the treadway, is considered a historic structure/contributing feature to its National Register eligibility.) The Multiple Property Documentation Form allows for listing of segments of the Trail as they are inventoried, evaluated and documented. This inventory and evaluation process is underway for several states and New Jersey is scheduled to begin in 2018. The Trail also passes through a variety of cultural landscapes that reflect human interactions with the land. Temporary construction activities would impact the Trail cultural landscape through machinery noise, visual obstruction, and air quality during construction. Following construction, the Trail would be permanently realigned. However, the route of the Trail has been in constant flux ever since its construction began in 1922 and is likely to continue to change in response to natural forces and developmental pressure. Slight relocations like the one proposed to improve visitor safety and experience will protect the Trail’s integrity as a continuous long-distance hiking trail and not result in an adverse impact. . Archeological Resources – A previous historical and archeological reconnaissance of the Wallkill River Valley identified 25 archeological sites within the refuge boundary, representing both prehistoric and historic periods (USFWS 2009). In a letter dated August 10, 2017, the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJ HPO) concurred that the proposed construction within the floodplain would have no adverse effect on archeological resources. Further investigation in February 2018 determined that there are no archeological sites present in the proposed trail alignment in upland areas. Based on these surveys, it can be concluded that the activities required for re-routing the Trail through the Refuge would not increase existing impacts or introduce new impacts. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA. Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA is being handled through ongoing consultation with the NJ HPO.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 7 Purpose and Need

. Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. Specifically, each agency must identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The intent is to prevent minority and low-income populations from being disproportionately affected by adverse human health and environmental impacts of federal actions. Residents near the study area could include low-income and minority populations. However, these populations would not be particularly or disproportionately affected by realigning the Trail through the Refuge. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA. . Indian Trust Resources – Secretarial Order 3175, “Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources,” requires that any anticipated impacts on Indian trust resources from a proposed project or action by Department of the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents. Departmental responsibilities are identified in 512 Departmental Manual section 2. The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal and allotted lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights; it represents a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. The lands within the study area are not held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians; therefore, the impact topic of Indian trust resources was not retained for further analysis.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 8

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were chosen for detailed evaluation in this EA: the no-action alternative and the central alternative. The chapter also describes other alternatives that were initially considered but dismissed from detailed analysis; presents mitigation measures for the action alternative; and lists required federal and state permits, licenses, certifications, and assessments.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative is analyzed in the NEPA process for the review and comparison of feasible alternatives to the existing baseline conditions. Under the no-action alternative, the Service and the NPS would not reroute the Trail, develop a new bridge crossing over the Wallkill River, or create an elevated walkway through wetlands and floodplains near the river. This section of the Trail would stay as one of the longest remaining road-walkways. Under the no-action alternative, use of the Trail on Oil City Road would continue under the current management with no changes. ADA compliance would not be met as required by the new guidelines for trails.

CENTRAL ALTERNATIVE (PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

The proposed action, the central alternative (figure 6), would eliminate a paved portion of the Trail and re-route it along a forested footpath at grade, along an elevated boardwalk (to minimize wetland and floodplain impacts), and across a new pedestrian bridge over the Wallkill River. The central alternative would head south from the existing Trail near the western limit of the study area and would remain in an upland forest for approximately 0.5 mile. This alternative would then head east by crossing the emergent wetland floodplain and forested wetlands for 0.3 mile to the Wallkill River. This alternative passes through a disturbed riparian corridor along the eastern drainage ditch to the point where it connects with the existing Trail at the eastern edge of the study area. The central alternative would address accessibility issues through compliance with the ADA in accordance with new guidelines for trails.

Boardwalk Construction – The elevated walkway, or boardwalk, would be composed of timber decking, and support joists supported by steel helical piles/piers. The boardwalk would be 43.5 inches in width for the entire length. Helical piers consist of a shaft with helix-shaped plates attached (figure 5). These support structures are designed to achieve necessary load-bearing capacity in soils that can be installed without the need to excavate soils and remove spoils from the site (Fournier 2012). The use of helical piers reduces soil displacement, thus reducing impacts on natural resources. The piers would be wound into the soil like a screw using portable gas-powered hydraulic tools until the turning resistance meets a stable load-bearing soil layer (Proudman and Critton 2016). The piers would be the foundation upon which the boardwalk would be constructed. The elevation of the boardwalk would be higher than the 100-year flood level and the piers would be cut at this elevation. Steel support brackets would be added to the cut piers for the joists and the timber boardwalk would be built upon these joists (Proudman and Critton 2016). Source: Foundation Technologies 2017 Figure 5. Examples of Helical Piers

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 9 Description of the Alternatives

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 10 Description of the Alternatives

The boardwalk would be constructed by a combination of NY-NJ Trail Conference volunteers, staff, and seasonal workers in conjunction with partners where possible. Completion would take approximately 2 to 3 years, depending on weather, seasonal fluctuations, and availability of trained volunteers.

Upland Trail – The boardwalk would end at the extent of the floodplain (figure 6). At this point, the Trail would change to a dirt trail. To create a trail footpath through the upland area, vegetation would be cleared within the prescribed Trail corridor prism of 4-feet wide and 8-feet tall, avoiding trees where possible.

Footbridge Design and Construction – A timber suspension bridge design would be used for the footbridge over the Wallkill River. Figure 7 presents an example of a timber suspension bridge.

Source: HRG 2011 Figure 7. Example of a Timber Suspension Bridge

This bridge type was recommended for several reasons. The design is lightweight, making transport of the materials and constructability of the bridge easier. The materials are relatively small and could be transported to the site using light construction vehicles. This design also offers the option of assembling portions of the decking (or walkway) off-site and transporting them to the site for erection. If the sections are assembled off-site, a light to medium capacity crane would be capable of moving the deck sections into place. The use of lighter-weight construction equipment would limit impacts on natural resources.

The timber suspension bridge would have a span of 145 feet, a width of 8 feet, and a height of approximately 30 feet at the towers. The catwalk leading to the bridge and the bridge decking would match the boardwalk, as described in the previous section. The bridge would have side railings for pedestrian safety. The support structures for the bridge would be two A-framed support towers on each

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 11 Description of the Alternatives

end of the bridge. These towers would be made of weathering steel to reduce the amount of maintenance needed and reduce the potential of damage from vandalism, arson, insect infestation and moisture deterioration. The legs of the towers would be founded on concrete footings supported by helical piers and encased in a concrete pier wall. Catenary cables would be hung between the towers and suspender cables would extend from the catenary cables to the end of each timber floor beam. Catenary cables are steel and hang in an arch from attachment points on the towers. The suspender cables are also steel; these cables are of varying lengths along the curve of the catenary cables and support the weight of the bridge along its length. The catenary cables would extend beyond the towers and would be attached to anchorage points (steel helical anchors) approximately 70 feet from the ends of the bridge. See figure 8 for a diagram of these bridge features.

Modified from HRG 2011

Figure 8. Features of a Typical Timber Suspension Bridge

Construction methods and equipment are detailed in the Footbridge Type, Size, and Location and Trail Location Study (HRG 2011). Construction of the timber suspension bridge would require the following equipment and materials:

. Small excavator for shallow foundation excavation . Track-mounted skid loader for helical pier installation . Dump truck or hand operated buggies for spoil removal and stone delivery . Concrete bucket, concrete pump, or powered buggies . Crane for tower erection and cable pulling

Construction of the bridge would take approximately 2 months and would be completed using a combination of the following construction methods:

. Construction Access from East – This construction method would use an existing utility road on the dike system of the east shore and a temporary roadway (specific to this project) along the drainage canal to the river. The utility road, which originates from Oil City Road, is located approximately 600 feet east of the Wallkill River. Using this utility road, light construction vehicles would be used to transport small equipment and workers on a temporary roadway, which

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 12 Description of the Alternatives

would be constructed on top of the existing berm. The roadway would be a minimum of approximately 16-feet wide and may require some tree or shrub clearing. Timber mats, geotextile and crushed stone, or other suitable materials would be placed directly on the herbaceous vegetation to adequately support the expected construction vehicle loads. At the river, a crane would be needed to erect the towers for the bridge and for pulling cables. A crane pad would be constructed to support the crane and would be approximately 75- by 100-feet. At the conclusion of the project, the materials used to construct the temporary roadway (e.g., geotextile, stone, timber mats) would be removed to allow the area to naturally re-seed and return to normal. This construction method would be used in conjunction with either a barge/powered boat or access from the west, as described in the following paragraphs. . Construction Access from West – Access from the west of the study area would require a temporary roadway similar to that described in the preceding paragraph. This roadway would traverse through emergent wetlands of the Refuge. This construction method would be performed in the winter months to minimize impacts on the wetlands. The roadway would consist of timber mats, geotextile fabric and crushed stone, or other suitable materials and would be at approximately 16-feet wide to accommodate construction equipment. A crane pad would be constructed on the west side of the Wallkill River and would be approximately 75- by 100-feet. As previously stated, the temporary roadway materials would be removed to allow the area to naturally re-seed and return to normal at the conclusion of the project. . Barge/Powered Boat on Wallkill River – This construction method would use a barge and powered boat on the Wallkill River to transport material, equipment, and workers to and from the worksite from the nearest roadway crossing (Oil City Road) from the project location. This method would use a crane to hoist the barge and powered boat from Oil City Road into the river, using the road in place of a crane pad. Permits would be required to enter the waterway for this method. Frequent roadway closures would be required at the crossing when placing the barge and powered boat in the river and when loading construction equipment and materials onto the barge for transport to the site. These closures would also require permits and would impact local traffic. Use of the barge would be dependent on suitable water depths, which could delay the project should water depth drop below the required depth necessary for barge traffic.

Figure 9 presents the components of the three potential construction methods. The locations of the western temporary access road and the crane pads are approximate, as the project has not reached the design phase.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 13 Description of the Alternatives

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 14 Description of the Alternatives

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED

A number of alternatives were initially considered but were dismissed from further analysis. The bullets below include a description of the dismissed alternatives and justification for dismissal:

• The Northern Alternative – The northern alternative would head southeast from the existing Trail in the northwest portion of the study area through upland forest to the top of a small highpoint for approximately 0.02 mile and then head southeast in a serpentine path, traversing forested and emergent wetlands for approximately 0.4 mile. The northern alternative would then cross the Wallkill River. After crossing the river, this alternative headed southeast for approximately 0.10 mile through a disturbed upland riparian corridor along the eastern drainage ditch to the point where it connects with the existing Trail at the eastern edge of the study area. This alternative was dismissed because of the proximity to private land with development potential to the north, which would diminish visitor experience.

• Southern Alternative – The southern alternative would head south from the existing Trail in the same location as the central alternative and remain in an upland forest, passing by a small peninsula of upland scrub/shrub near the western limit of the study area before it traverses the emergent wetland floodplain. The route would then travel through a forested floodplain wetland to the point where it crosses the Wallkill River, just south of the proposed Northern Alternative bridge crossing. After crossing the river, it crosses through forested floodplain wetlands to the point where it connects to the existing Trail. This alternative was considered because it included the shortest crossing of the New Jersey Highlands forested area. However, this alternative route would travel nearly parallel to a tributary of the Wallkill River and would require tree removal in the riparian area associated with this tributary. The Southern Alternative would also be located close to an off-road vehicle track south of the study area. If the Trail were moved to this location, the presence and noise of the off-road vehicles would diminish visitor experience.

. 1985 Gar Chew Lai Phase I – Pre-Design Study Alignment – The Gar Chew Lai alternative would begin heading southeast from the existing Trail at the same location as the Northern Alternative. The route would then travel approximately parallel to the northern study area boundary through forested and emergent wetlands, across the Wallkill River, and additional forested wetlands on the east side of the river. This alignment was considered but not evaluated because various stakeholders concurred that the alignment is predominantly located on New Jersey State Land (not on federal Service lands as was preferred). This alignment would have moved the Trail in close proximity to the “Old Carnegie” Industrial facility and not deep enough into the Refuge to achieve the desired visitor experience for this project. This alignment crossed the greatest width of forested wetlands on the eastern shore of the Wallkill River. . Additional Alternative – The Service and considered the inclusion of an additional alternative that would cross Service lands that contain leased agricultural haying fields. This alternative was dismissed during internal scoping because the re-routed trail would interfere with the current farming of the land and would obstruct the viewshed of the grassy hillside field. . Different Path Types – During the planning stages of this project, a walking path known as a “turnpike” was considered instead of an elevated walkway. A “turnpike” consists of placing logs on either side of a proposed pathway and placing aggregate between the logs. Since this installation would have affected floodplain function and hydraulics, it was not considered further. Additionally, a turnpike would expose Trail visitors to the 10-year storm, increasing issues associated with flooding and visitor safety. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 15 Description of the Alternatives

. Different Bridge Types – In addition to the selected suspension bridge, four additional bridge types were considered during the planning stages of this project. Two types, the timber cable- stayed bridge and the typical girder bridge, did not meet one or more of the project’s constructability requirements and were not considered viable options (HRG 2011). The prefabricate steel truss bridge met the requirements; however, transporting and erecting the bridge sections would require heavy construction equipment, which would adversely impact natural resources. The prefabricated suspended timber arch bridge also met the constructability requirements, but because timber structures are susceptible to acts of vandalism, fire, water damage, and infestation, this bridge type was rejected, as the maintenance level would be too high over the life of the bridge.

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation, according to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), includes:

. avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action . minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation . rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment . reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action . compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the adverse effects of the action alternative. An appropriate level of monitoring would be implemented throughout any construction activities to ensure that protective measures are being properly implemented and are achieving their intended results.

. The Trail would remain open to visitors throughout the construction period so that use of the Trail could continue. . The removal of a minimal amount of vegetation would result in exposed soils during construction, presenting the possibility for erosion at the proposed study area. To minimize impacts, best management practices (BMPs), such as silt fences, would be used to prevent or reduce soils from erosion and to avoid soil from entering Wallkill River due to erosion. . Construction activities would be restricted to daylight hours to reduce impacts from noise. . To minimize the impacts to vegetation, following the construction activities, the study area would be re-vegetated with native plants. . To minimize impacts on special-status species (bog turtle, wood turtle, Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat), vegetation clearing would be limited to November 16 through March 31. . To avoid damage to maternity colony/roost trees used by Indiana or northern long-eared bats, a pre-construction survey would be conducted and any maternity colony/roost trees would be flagged and avoided during construction activities. . A survey would be conducted in upland areas to determine the presence or absence of small whorled pogonia prior to construction. If the pogonia were identified along the proposed route, the alignment would be altered to avoid the plants.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 16 Description of the Alternatives

. Alternatives to standard pressure treated lumber for the boardwalk would be researched, as treated lumber could leach contaminants into the environment. If a suitable alternative is identified, it will be incorporated into the design of the boardwalk. . Any water vessels used for construction (i.e., barge or powered boat) would be decontaminated prior to use in the Wallkill River so they are free of any vegetation, animals, mud, and any other organic material that is not native to the river. . Mitigation measures for archeological resources will be determined after receipt of agency letters from SHPO. . To reduce the risk of injuries to Refuge and Trail visitors, the study area would be blocked off or barricaded from public access during construction. . To minimize impacts to traffic delays and within the waterway, barricades would be placed around the active construction site. If closures are necessary, detour signage would be used at the site.

REQUIRED FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS, LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS

The following are a list of required federal and state permits needed for the proposed project:

. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 Permit . Wetland permit from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection through the State Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, which satisfies the requirements of the USACE Section 404 Permit . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Rule . Other necessary permits to be identified during detailed impacts analysis and after receipt of agency letters

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 17 Description of the Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 18

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The “Affected Environment” chapter describes the resources that could be affected as a result of implementation of either of the alternatives. The descriptions of the resources provided in this chapter serve as an account of the baseline conditions against which the potential effects of the proposed actions considered in this environmental assessment are compared. The resource topics presented in this chapter and the organization of the topics correspond to the resource impact discussions contained in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter. The general project setting has been included to provide the background information necessary to understanding the resources and environmental setting of the Refuge. The following resources are included in this chapter: floodplains and wetlands; special-status species; archeological resources; human health and safety; visitor use and experience; and infrastructure.

FLOODPLAINS

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels were reviewed to determine the floodplain within the study area. Approximately 138 acres of the 190-acre study area lie within Zone AE (figure 10), which is determined to be an area subject to a 1% or greater annual chance of flooding in any given year (FIRM panels 34037C and 36071C for Sussex County, New Jersey and Orange County, New York).

Natural values of floodplains contribute to ecosystem quality, including groundwater recharge, water quality maintenance, erosion control, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitats, recreational opportunities, as well as societal resources, such as harvest of agricultural, aquacultural, and forest products, and scientific study (Wright 2007). In the Refuge, floodplains serve to slow and store water during flooding. The Wallkill River floodplain provides habitat for migrant waterbirds. When the river floods, it brings an abundance of invertebrates, fish, and plants that provides food for resting and feeding migrant waterfowl (Jasch n.d.).

WETLANDS

Characterization of the wetlands within the study area of the Refuge came from several sources, including National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, aerial photography, and field surveys conducted during 2014 (ATC 2014). The USFWS NWI produces information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats. Wetlands on the maps are based on the Cowardin wetland definition and classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetlands depicted on NWI maps were ground-truthed during the field surveys, and areas that appeared to be wetlands from aerial photography or were areas of known wetlands within the study area were visited in the field.

At the time of the field survey, the area of review consisted of 161.4 acres of land, in a rectangular shape, located in the northern extent of the Wallkill River NWR. The study area boundary has since been expanded slightly to the west; however, the added area contains upland habitat that is devoid of wetlands. The area of review contains open grasslands as well as forested portions. The Trail currently enters the area of review in the northern corner and along the southeast edge.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 19 Affected Environment

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 20 Affected Environment

Scientists identified ten wetlands (Wetlands A through J and six potential jurisdictional Waters of the U. S. (WUS) (WUS-1 through WUS-6) within the study area during the field survey (figure 10). Overall, 116.5 acres of emergent and forested wetlands and 6,541 linear feet of WUS were delineated. It was determined that only 4 wetlands (A, C, I and J) and two WUS (4 and 6) had the potential to be impacted by the project. Descriptions of these features are summarized in the following paragraphs. Additional details can be found in Wetland Delineation Report for Appalachian National Scenic Trail Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk at Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge (ATC 2014). It is important to note that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Department of Land Use Regulations is the agency that determines the official jurisdictional status of wetlands/waterways within New Jersey. To determine the jurisdictional status of the identified features within the area of review, a request for a Letter of Interpretation will be submitted to the Department of Land Use Regulations office.

. Wetland A – Wetland A encompasses the majority of the Wallkill study area. This wetland is characterized as an emergent wetland (PEM1) located entirely within the floodplain of the Wallkill River. The portion of wetland that lies within the study area totals 53.5 acres. Wetland A extends directly to the Wallkill River along some of its limits, and along other edges it transitions into forested wetland. The vegetation at the site is predominantly herbaceous. It is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), and several species of sedge are also present. . Wetland C – Wetland C is characterized as a forested/emergent wetland (PFO1/PEM1). It is located on the west bank of the Wallkill River, transitioning between the river and Wetland A. The portion of wetland that lies within the study area totals 9.7 acres. Wetland C meets all three necessary parameters (soils, hydrology, and vegetation) to be classified as a wetland. The site is dominated by river birch (Betula nigra). Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and red maple (Acer rubrum) also make up the canopy and reed canary grass is present in the understory. The silver and red maple trees were planted in a line as part of a previous homestead. . Wetlands I and J – Wetlands I and J are characterized as forested wetlands (PFO1). They are located on the eastern side of the Wallkill River. Wetland I is south of the berm that extends between the Trail and the Wallkill River. Wetland J is north of this berm. Although the berm is elevated from the surrounding wetlands, it still has the soil, hydrological features, and vegetative features of a wetland. Wetland J continues off the eastern edge of the project site as an emergent wetland. The portion of wetland that lies within the study area for Wetland I totals 14.0 acres, and Wetland J totals 29.1 acres. In Wetland I, silver maple and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) dominate the canopy. Several species of sedge, as well as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and spotted ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria), are also present. In Wetland J, silver maple dominates the canopy. Sensitive fern and lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus) are present as well. Stinging nettle, spotted jewelweed, and Nepalese browntop dominated the berm vegetation. . WUS-4 – WUS-4 is the Wallkill River, extending for a length of 2,712 linear feet in the project site. It is a wide perennial river that flows from the southern region of the project site to the northeastern region, bordered by Wetland A on its west bank and Wetlands I and J on its east bank. . WUS-6 – WUS-6 is a perennial stream that is bordered by Wetland J to the north and Wetland I to the south. It flows beside the berm separating the two wetlands. It has a length of 549 linear feet.

Wetland functions are physical, chemical, and biological processes or attributes of wetlands that are vital to the integrity of a wetland system, while wetland values are attributes not necessarily important to the integrity of a wetland system but perceived as valuable to society. In addition to the standard wetland

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 21 Affected Environment

delineation methods, a Function and Value Assessment of the wetlands delineated within the study area was performed. The methodology from the New England District of the USACE for Wetland Functions and Values: A Descriptive Approach was used (USACE 1995).

Generally, the wetlands delineated onsite have the function of groundwater recharge/discharge, flood flow alteration, nutrient removal, sediment/shoreline stabilization, and wildlife habitat. Each wetland at this site has potential educational value because of their location in a national wildlife refuge. Additionally, due to the potential presence of state listed threatened and endangered plant species, some of the wetlands are believed to have values associated with these plant species presences.

Table 1. Wetlands Functions and Values

Wetlands Functions and Values A C I J Functions Groundwater Recharge/Discharge * Flood Flow Alteration * * ** ** Fish and Shellfish Habitat Sediment/Toxicant Retention * Nutrient Removal * * * Production Export Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization ** ** * * Wildlife Habitat * * * * Values Recreation Educational Value * * * * Uniqueness/Heritage Visual Quality/Aesthetics * Endangered Species Habitat * * * * * Function/Value Present ** Principle Function/Value

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

This section describes the presence of federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species and potential habitat to support these species. No critical habitat has been designated within the study area at this time. Presence data were compiled as a result of agency consultation, the collection of existing electronic data layers, the review of natural resource reports, and the results of field surveys conducted within the study area. A complete list of federally and state-listed species is presented in appendix A.

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii): The bog turtle is listed as endangered in New Jersey. The bog turtle is one of smallest turtles in North America and is separated taxonomically into two geographically distinct populations. Bog turtles in New Jersey belong to the federally threatened northern population, which ranges from Massachusetts to Maryland. The turtles occupy areas that are a mosaic of

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 22 Affected Environment

microhabitats that include dry pockets, saturated areas, and periodically flooded areas. Seeps or spring-fed emergent wetlands associated with streams, often at or near the headwaters of streams or small tributaries, are the bog turtle’s primary habitat. The diversity of microhabitats provides this species with areas for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, shelter, and other needs. Individuals also use more densely vegetated areas for hibernation. Unlike other turtle species, the bog turtle’s range is small, with the turtles rarely leaving the marsh for upland foraging. Surveys in Maryland and Pennsylvania identified home ranges from under an acre to 7.7 acres (USFWS 2001).

The bog turtle is highly susceptible to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Individuals were formerly known to be present in 18 counties in New Jersey; they now are found in 13 in New Jersey (USFWS 2001). The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge is one of only three national wildlife refuges where the bog turtle is known to inhabit. Within the Wallkill River refuge, there is one active bog turtle site on Service-owned land, one active site on private land within the current acquisition boundary, and an estimated 10 suitable sites within the current acquisition boundary, some of which are on Service- owned lands. One of the highest priorities of the Refuge is the preservation, enhancement, restoration, and management of bog turtle habitat, as well as research and monitoring of bog turtle populations (USFWS 2009).

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis): The Indiana bat is federally listed as endangered and is also listed as endangered in New Jersey. The Indiana bat is an insectivorous migratory bat that hibernates in mines and caves in winter and spends the summer in woodlands. In spring, reproductive females migrate to wooded areas and form maternity colonies, where they bear young. Males and nonreproductive females usually stay close to hibernation sites (hibernacula) but may migrate to summer roosts. Summer roosts are typically found behind exfoliating bark of large, often dead, trees. Both males and females return to hibernacula in late summer or early fall to mate and enter hibernation (USFWS 2007).

Surveys for Indiana bat have found juvenile, post-lactating and female bats on the Refuge, and maternity colonies have been documented both on and off Refuge lands. The Refuge contains habitat that is used by Indiana bats for roosting and foraging, namely riparian, forested, and upland habitat. Further, the entire refuge is encompassed within the bats’ summer focus area, the area where bats could potentially occur between April 1 and September 30 (USFWS 2009).

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis): The northern long-eared bat is found across much of the eastern and north central United States and its range includes 37 states. White-nose syndrome, a fungal disease found to affect bats, is currently a threat to this bat, especially throughout the Northeast where the species has declined by up to 99% from pre-white-nose syndrome levels at many hibernation sites (USFWS 2015a). During the summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees; they may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines (USFWS 2015a). They emerge at dusk to feed on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in flight using echolocation and by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation and water surfaces (USFWS 2015a). Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula, and breeding begins in late summer or early fall when males begin swarming near hibernacula (USFWS 2015a). Pregnant females migrate to summer areas where they roost in small colonies and give birth to a single pup (USFWS 2015a).

Northern long-eared bats were captured during mist netting efforts at the Refuge in 2015. Scientists fitted a reproductive female with a transmitter and were able to determine her roosting location. Through these monitoring efforts, scientists were able to determine that at least five bats were residing together, confirming that the Refuge supports at least one maternity colony of northern long-eared bats (USFWS 2015b).

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 23 Affected Environment

Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon): The dwarf wedgemussel is considered critically imperiled and listed as federally and state (New Jersey) endangered. The dwarf wedgemussel is a small freshwater mussel that requires muddy sand, sand, and gravel/pebble substrates in rivers and creeks with slow to moderate currents, good water quality, and little silt deposition (USFWS 1993). Glochidial (larval) host fish include tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), and juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (NJDEP 2002). The dwarf wedgemussel once lived in 15 major drainage basins along the Atlantic slope, including 3 in New Jersey: the Delaware, Hackensack, and Passaic rivers (NatureServe 2017). There are only two known active dwarf wedgemussel areas remaining in Sussex County, New Jersey: Flat Brook and Little Flat Brook (NJDEP 2002).

The Refuge includes potential habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel. Surveys of the Wallkill River did not detect dwarf wedgemussels or their shells, but one of the mussel’s host fish, the tessellated darter, and four freshwater mussel species that are often associated with dwarf wedgemussel occurrences were observed during the survey (USFWS 2009; Endangered New Jersey 2009).

Small-whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides): The small-whorled pogonia is listed as federally threatened, as well as state-listed by New Jersey as endangered. This species, a member of the orchid family (Orchidaceae), is sparse but widely distributed, with a range extending from southern Maine and New Hampshire to northern Georgia and southeastern Tennessee. The small-whorled pogonia occurs on upland sites in mixed deciduous or mixed deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally second- or third- growth successional stages. Habitat characteristics include sparse to moderate ground cover, relatively open understory, and proximity to features that create long-persisting breaks in forest canopy (USFWS 1992). Deer browsing, fragmentation, and possibly alterations in soil moisture were identified as threats to the small-whorled pogonia. Species within the northern range emerge from leaf litter in May and flower in June. An individual plant may stay in flower from 4 days to nearly 2 weeks (USFWS 1992). Two confirmed extant sites of the plant are in New Jersey, both in Sussex County, where the Refuge is located (USFWS 2009).

STATE LISTED SPECIES

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta): The wood turtle is listed in New Jersey as threatened. The wood turtle uses habitats that include both wetlands and uplands. Aquatic habitats are required for mating, feeding, and hibernation, while terrestrial habitats are used for egg laying and foraging. Freshwater streams, brooks, creeks, or rivers with good water quality within undisturbed uplands such as fields, meadows, or forests are preferred habitat areas. Open fields and thickets of alder (Alnus spp.), greenbrier, or multiflora rose are favored basking habitats. Lowland, mid-successional forests dominated by oaks, black birch, and red maple may also be used (NJDEP 2010). This species may also be found on abandoned railroad beds or agricultural fields and pastures (NJDEP 2010). Similar to the bog turtle, wood turtle now occurs in distinct populations along particular drainages within its former range, including the Wallkill River in Sussex County.

Bronze copper (Lycaena hyllus): The bronze copper is a small butterfly that is listed as endangered in New Jersey. This species is sexually dimorphic. Males have dark forewings with purple iridescence and the females’ forewings are orange with dark spots. The hindwings of both sexes have a band of orange around the edges and the underside of the wings are orange and gray with dark spots (NABA 2017). The bronze copper is often found near dock plants (Rumex spp.) in both larval and adult stages (NABA 2017). Bronze coppers inhabit open wet habitats, including disturbed and agricultural areas. In Sussex County, the bronze copper has been found in, or very near, floodplains in the Wallkill River drainage (NABA 2017). There are several small populations of this butterfly on the Refuge with the closest located east of the study area.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 24 Affected Environment

Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa): The brook floater is listed as endangered in New Jersey. The brook floater is a small mussel found only in streams and rivers with consistently flowing clean water, where it prefers areas of riffles and substrates with gravel or a mix of sand and gravel. Potential hosts for the brook floater include blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis) (PNHP 2010a). In New Jersey, low numbers of brook floaters have been reported in the Stony Brook, Musconetcong, Raritan, Lamington and upper Delaware Rivers (Conserve Wildlife 2018a). The brook floater has not been documented in the study area, but the Wallkill River does offer potential habitat for this species.

Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta undulata): The triangle floater has been listed by the state of New Jersey as threatened. This mussel is small with a roughly triangular shape. The triangle floater is a geographically widespread species found from Nova Scotia to Florida. Considered a habitat generalist, the triangle floater can be found in a variety of aquatic habitats and is more tolerant of standing water conditions found in ponds, lakes, and canals than other Alasmidonta species. However, it prefers low- gradient rivers with sand and gravel substrates (PNHP 2010b). Triangle floater has a variety of larval host fish species, including blacknose dace, longnose dace, fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), common shiner (Notropis cornutus), largemouth bass (Micropt erus salmoides), pumpkinseed, slimy sculpin, and white sucker (Ameiurus catus) (PNHP 2010b). Although widely distributed in New Jersey waterways (Conserve Wildlife 2018b). The Wallkill River offers potential habitat for triangle floater; however, the species has not been observed in the study area.

Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa): The yellow lampmussel, a bright yellow, medium-sized freshwater mussel, is a federal species of special concern, and it is listed as threatened in New Jersey (NJDEP 2002). Benthic substrates preferred by the yellow lampmussel consist of sand/silt. The host species for this mussel has not been identified; however, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) is the suspected host (NJDEP 2002). The yellow lampmussel prefers large rivers with large watersheds and ranges from Canada to Georgia. In New Jersey, the yellow lampmussel is restricted to the Delaware River from Mercer County in the south to Sussex County in the north (Conserve Wildlife 2018c). The yellow lampmussel has not been documented in the study area, but the Wallkill River does offer potential habitat for this species.

Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata): The eastern lampmussel is a medium to large mussel with an elliptical shape, that ranges along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to South Carolina, as well as the Great Lakes. Eastern lampmussels occur in a wide variety of habitats including streams, rivers, and lakes with sand or gravel substrates (PNHP 2018). They are considered stable throughout their range, but are listed as threatened in New Jersey, where they are known to occur in the northern portion of the state including the Ramapo, Pequannock, Wallkill, and Whippany rivers as well as several lakes (Conserve Wildlife 2018d). Larval host fish include a variety of sunfish (Centrarchidae), including pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and black crappier. Other documented hosts include white perch, yellow perch, bluntnose minnow, and sand shiner (PNHP 2018). The eastern lampmussel has not been documented in the study area.

Eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta): The eastern pondmussel is listed as threatened in New Jersey. Greenish yellow to brown, elongate mussel. Eastern pondmussels occur from the St. Lawrence River Basin in Canada to North Carolina. In New Jersey, they are found in the Delaware River and its tributaries (Conserve Wildlife 2018e). Larval host fish species are not known (NJDFW 2018). The eastern lampmussel has not been documented in the study area, but the Wallkill River does offer potential habitat for this species.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 25 Affected Environment

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

WALLKILL RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge provides hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation for the public. Visitation to the Refuge has been growing each year as more visitors discover the recreational opportunities available to them. In fiscal year 2005, there were 31,085 visitors to the Refuge (USFWS 2009).

Wildlife observation is available on the Wood Duck Nature Trail, the Liberty Loop Nature Trail and Dagmar Dale Nature Trail, and by motorized boat, canoe, kayak, or rowboat along the Wallkill River. There are several fishing and watercraft launch sites along the Wallkill River. Refuge staff and volunteers occasionally lead interpretive walks on the nature trails on the Refuge. The Refuge is open for fishing along the Wallkill River in accordance with New York and New Jersey fishing regulations, though the Refuge does not allow the removal of frogs or turtles. The part of the Refuge that lies in New Jersey is also open for all state deer hunting seasons, spring and fall turkey hunting, and all migratory bird hunting except for crows. In New York, hunting is allowed on the Winding Waters tract north of Oil City Road.

Within the study area, visitor activities consist of wildlife observation, wildlife photography, river activities, and hunting (on the west side of the Wallkill River only). The Liberty Loop Nature Trail is a 2.5-mile loop around a grassland/wetland habitat complex. About two-thirds of the Liberty Loop Nature Trail coincides with the Trail (USFWS 2009). Additionally, a fishing and watercraft launch site is located at Oil City Road (USFWS 2009), along the existing path of the Trail just north of the study area.

APPALACHIAN TRAIL

Delineated in the 1920s, the Appalachian Trail was the first designated national scenic trail in the United States. The Trail extends along the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from Springer Mountain, Georgia, to Katahdin in Baxter State Park, Maine, traversing 2,174 miles through 14 states and various jurisdictions. This project focuses on approximately 1.3 miles of the Trail within the Refuge. The Trail is a unit of the national park system, but is managed cooperatively by the NPS, the ATC, the Service, and other federal and state agencies. The ATC is a nonprofit organization, which oversees 31 independent hiking clubs that maintain and improve the Trail. The hiking club that maintain the Trail in the Refuge is the NY–NJ Trail Conference.

Visitation to the Appalachian Trail is difficult to count or estimate due to the numerous uncontrolled access points. From 2014 to 2016, ATC ridgerunners collected visitor numbers in New Jersey. These counts were taken from May to August in 2014 and 2015 and May to October in 2016. Visitation range from approximately 4,830 to 6,580 people on the Trail, including day hikers, overnighters, thru hikers, and other visitors (ATC 2017). The numbers reported here represent visitors encountered by 3 ATC ridgerunner volunteers across 72 miles of the Trail and most likely underreports actual visitation. Other visitor activities on the Trail within the study area could include scenic viewing, photography, and wildlife viewing.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Trail is co-aligned with a state road and bridge (Oil City Road) to cross the Wallkill River in southern New York. The road-walk is currently required because it is the only way across the Wallkill River, and it is one of the longest remaining road-walks on the Trail. Trail visitors must walk on a narrow road without shoulders and with limited sight distances of oncoming vehicles. As with many areas of the densely

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 26 Affected Environment

populated east coast, the amount of traffic on the road increases every year, causing a continued safety hazard to hikers. In addition to the traffic, the portion of the Trail along the road currently experiences floods and overland flow, which also compromises the safety of hikers.

INFRASTRUCTURE

There are limited parking options within the study area. Within the Refuge, one trail, the Liberty Loop Nature Trail, coincides with the Trail. The Winding Waters Trail is located north of the Trail. Both of these Refuge trails have parking areas associated with them. The Liberty Loop Nature Trail parking lot is located on Oil City Road in Warwick, New York (USFWS 2009). There are small parking lots associated with the fishing and watercraft launch site located at Oil City Road and the Winding Waters Trail. Together these parking areas can accommodate approximately 20 vehicles. There is one additional parking area west of the river near where the Trail crosses the road, along the shoulder of the road, but there is only enough room for 2-3 cars. This parking area is outside of the Refuge. On busy weekends, the existing parking areas are used to capacity; if visitation were to increase, the existing parking areas may not be adequate. Infrastructure will not be analyzed as a separate resource topic in chapter 4; the parking limitations are discussed in the “Public Health and Safety” section.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 27 Affected Environment

This page intentionally left blank

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 28

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This “Environmental Consequences” chapter analyzes both beneficial and adverse impacts that would result from implementing either of the alternatives considered in this EA. This chapter also includes methods used to analyze impacts. The resource topics presented in this chapter, and the organization of the topics, correspond to the resource discussions contained in the "Affected Environment" chapter.

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING IMPACTS

The analysis of impacts follows CEQ guidelines and incorporates the best available scientific literature and data. Overall, the Service and the NPS based the impact analyses and conclusions on the review of existing literature, information provided by experts within the Refuge, the Trail, and other Service and NPS personnel, other agencies, professional judgment, and public input. For each resource topic addressed in this chapter, the applicable analysis methods are discussed.

CEQ regulations that implement NEPA require the assessment of three categories of effects in the decision-making process for federal projects: direct, indirect, and cumulative. Direct impacts are those impacts that happen in the same place and at the same time as the federal action; indirect impacts are those that happen later in time or farther removed from the area of the federal action. Impacts are described as being beneficial or adverse. A beneficial impact is an impact that would result in a positive change in the condition or appearance of the resource. An adverse impact is an impact that causes an unfavorable result to the resource when compared with the existing conditions.

The impacts of the alternatives are assessed using the CEQ definition of “significantly” (40 CFR § 1508.27), which requires consideration of both context and intensity.

Context is the setting, situation, or circumstances surrounding a particular resource (40 CFR § 1508.27(a)). Context provides a backdrop against which the intensity of impacts can be compared to understand their relative importance. Context is also resource-specific, in many cases involving things such as laws directed at the preservation of a resource, Service policies regarding preservation or management of specific resources, whether the resource is fundamental to the Refuge, etc. Context also includes duration.

Intensity is the severity or magnitude of the impact. Considering intensity means looking at different aspects of the affected resource that might make an impact more or less important (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)). For example, if the affected resource is rare or unique, an adverse impact might be considered more severe than if the resource is common and widespread; if the alternative has elements that have never been implemented before or whose impacts cannot be reasonably predicted, then the impacts of the alternative might be of greater magnitude than if the alternative consists of routine actions whose impacts are well-understood.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative impacts must be analyzed in terms of the specific resource, ecosystem, and human community being affected and should focus on impacts that are truly meaningful. Efforts were made to identify other actions that might contribute a detectable effect on resources affected by the re-alignment of the Trail through the Refuge, but none were identified. Therefore, there would be no additive or

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 29 Environmental Consequences

interactive effects from other projects and the proposed actions under either alternative that would constitute significant cumulative effects on the resources of the Refuge.

FLOODPLAINS

Methodology and Assumptions. To determine impacts, the scope of the proposed actions within the floodplain was considered and the area of proposed ground disturbance in the floodplain was determined. Predictions of short-term and long-term impacts were based on an assessment of floodplain functions and values, professional judgment, and similar projects.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, use of the Trail on Oil City Road would continue under the current management with no changes. The impacts to floodplains from the use of the Trail under the no-action alternative would remain unchanged. The floodplain would continue to slow and retain floodwaters, providing ideal habitat for migratory waterfowl to rest and feed.

Conclusion: There would be no additional adverse effect to the 100-year floodplain under alternative 1 because existing conditions would remain unchanged.

CENTRAL ALTERNATIVE: PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The central alternative would require approximately 600 pairs of piers to support the approximately 0.3 miles of boardwalk that would be constructed in the floodplain. The piers would be inserted approximately every 10 feet. These piers would result in approximately 0.1 acre of fill; however, this amount of fill is not anticipated to affect floodplains functions. The floodplain would continue to slow and retain flood waters, and therefore, would continue to provide high-quality habitat for migrating waterfowl.

Construction of the bridge would require the use of the existing berm east of the Wallkill River and either a barge/power boat on the Wallkill River or a temporary access road from the west of the site to transport equipment and materials. Vegetation would be removed for the placement of the temporary access roads and fill material would be placed to widen the berm on the eastern side of the river and create a roadbed west of the river (if western access were used). Vegetation helps to reduce floodflow velocities, thus reducing erosion potential, and causes water to spread higher on the floodplain. Removing vegetation could increase the potential for localized erosion and increase sedimentation effects downstream during flood events. Vegetation removal should be minimal; therefore, these impacts are expected to be slight. The placement of piers and footers could impede floodflows. The temporary access roads would be used in the winter when flood events are less likely and the fill material would be removed following construction; therefore, the fill material used for the access roads would not have an adverse impact on floodplains. The use of construction equipment within the floodplain would result in short-term impacts within the floodplain due to soil compaction, which can result in decreased infiltration and increased erosion and sedimentation. The impacts are expected to be slight because the construction would occur in the winter when the ground would be frozen and because the design of the bridge would allow for use of lighter-weight construction equipment to transport materials. Using a barge or powered boat to transport and construct the bridge would not adversely affect the floodplain.

Construction of the bridge would result in and long-term impacts from placement of bridge footings. The bridge has not been fully designed yet; therefore, the dimensions of the tower bases are not available. Typically, the legs of one tower is encased in a concrete pier wall, which is founded on concrete footings

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 30 Environmental Consequences

and supported by helical piers. The piers, footings, and walls of the towers would be placed on either side of the river, which would replace soil with fill and increase impervious surface in the floodplain. As stated, the placement of fill obstructs floodflows. Additionally, the fill would reduce floodwater storage and conveyance.

To minimize adverse impacts on floodplain values, appropriate stormwater management techniques, including approved BMPs would be used during construction activities, and the study area would be allowed to recover naturally or the site would be revegetated with native plants.

Once constructed, operation of the Trail would entail visitor use of the new bridge and boardwalk through the floodplain. Because these elements would be constructed above the 100-year flood level, the operation of the Trail would not have adverse impacts on floodplains.

Conclusion: Under the central alternative, the 100-year floodplain would be adversely affected during construction of the project. Short-term adverse impacts on the floodplain are anticipated due to vegetation removal and soil compaction during the construction of the timber suspension bridge and elevated boardwalk. Long-term adverse impacts on the floodplain would occur from placement of the bridge footings and helical piers. Overall, construction activities would have minimal impacts on floodplains. There would be some increased erosion, reduction in floodwater storage and drainage, and obstruction of floodflow. However, the natural floodplain values would not be altered, as the floodplain would continue to slow and retain floodwaters and to providing suitable habitat for migratory waterfowl. Operation of the re-aligned trail would not impact the floodplains.

WETLANDS

Methodology and Assumptions. Impact analysis and the conclusions for possible impacts on wetlands were based on review of existing literature and studies, information provided by Refuge staff and other agencies, and on-site investigation. Locations of wetlands were overlain with the central alternative to determine impacts on wetlands.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, use of the Trail on Oil City Road would continue under the current management with no changes. The existing conditions of the riverine systems and forested and emergent wetland areas under the no-action alternative would remain unchanged.

Conclusion: There would be no additional adverse effect to wetlands within the study area under alternative 1 because existing conditions would remain unchanged.

CENTRAL ALTERNATIVE: PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The central alternative would cross through approximately 1,300 linear feet of emergent wetlands and 1,010 linear feet of forested wetlands. These totals are approximate, as the alternative alignment is not yet in the design stage of development and could change. To prevent long-term impacts to wetlands, the elevation of the boardwalk would be raised higher than the 100-year flood level to avoid obstructing water flow. The use of helical piers to support the boardwalk would affect approximately 0.1 acre of soil; therefore, minimizing potential erosion and sedimentation. During construction of the boardwalk, volunteers would access the site by foot. This could result in adverse impacts from trampling of the wetland vegetation; however, these short-term impacts would be minimal due to the narrow area of coverage and small volunteer crews.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 31 Environmental Consequences

Construction of the bridge would require the use of the existing berm east of the Wallkill River; and a temporary access road from the west of the site could also be used to transport equipment and materials. The temporary access roads for the construction of the bridge would be created and used during the winter months when vegetation is dormant, and wetland areas would be protected from damage by using timber mats or other suitable materials. Additionally, the ground would be frozen, which would further reduce impacts.

The construction of these temporary roads would require removal of vegetation and placement of fill material. Vegetation removal in wetlands can cause habitat changes. Removing vegetation can reduce shade and increase temperatures, thus changing the conditions for the plants and animals that use the wetland. It could also allow for the establishment or further spread of non-native species. Vegetation removal and damage to existing vegetation should be minimal; therefore, these impacts are expected to be slight and habitat conversion would not occur. The placement of fill material in wetlands has the ability to change hydrology, which could alter the functions and values of the wetlands. The temporary access roads would be used in the winter when flood events are less likely and the protective geotextile and fill materials would be removed following construction; therefore, the fill material used for the access roads would not have an adverse impact on wetlands. The use of construction equipment during the construction and use of access roads, would contribute to the compaction of soil in and near wetland areas. Compaction can cause a host of changes in wetlands, including damage to soil structure, which can lead to reduce vegetation growth, increased runoff and soil erosion, and changes in wetland functions and possibly wildlife use of the wetland. Since construction would occur in the winter when the ground would be frozen and the design of the bridge would allow for use of lighter-weight construction equipment to transport materials, the use of construction equipment is not expected to cause meaningful impacts to wetlands.

Construction activities could also impact the Wallkill River, a perennial river, and the perennial stream that borders the berm east of the river, which would be expanded for use as an access road. The use of this temporary access could adversely affect the riverine wetland through erosion and sedimentation, increased turbidity, and through potential spills of fluid related to construction equipment. Similarly, the use of a barge or powered boat for transporting materials and constructing the bridge could increase turbidity and would be susceptible to contamination from accidental spills. This construction method would not affect emergent and forested wetlands because the use of the barge or boat would be limited to the Wallkill River. These riverine impacts would adversely affect water quality and thus aquatic species. Impacts would be minimized by BMPs for sediment and erosion control and through an approved Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plan.

Construction of the bridge and boardwalk would result in permanent loss of wetland; however, the total area of wetland lost would be minimal, resulting from removal of vegetation for the placement of footings for the bridge and helical piers for the boardwalk and potentially some larger vegetation (shrubs and trees) for placement of the boardwalk through forested wetlands. Removal of trees of significant size would be avoided to the extent possible to avoid impacts to natural resources and because the root systems make it difficult to drive the piers into the ground. Following construction of the bridge and boardwalk, disturbed areas would be allowed to recover naturally or revegetated with native plant species.

Following construction, visitors would have continued access to wetland areas where there are currently no formal trails. Although there could be some foot traffic in the wetlands, most visitors would be concentrated on the boardwalk, resulting in minimal impacts to wetlands.

Conclusion: Project components of the central alternative could adversely affect emergent and forested wetlands, as well as a perennial river and a perennial stream. Impacts from construction activities would be adverse but minimal as construction in wetland areas would be performed in winter months when the

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 32 Environmental Consequences

ground is frozen and wetland vegetation is dormant and fill material would be removed following construction. Long-term impacts to wetlands would occur from vegetation removal and placement of piers and footings; however, the proposed design of the boardwalk and bridge would require little ground disturbance, minimizing these impacts. Despite some long-term adverse impacts, the central alternative would not alter the functions and values of the wetlands within the study area.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Methodology and Assumptions. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates all federal agencies to determine how to use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the Act to aid in recovering listed species, and to address existing and potential conservation issues. Section 7(a)(2) states that each federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. In this section, special- status species (rare, threatened, and endangered species) include wildlife and plants that are federally- or state-listed, proposed, or candidates for listing, and other species of concern within proposed study area that are rare or otherwise merit special consideration.

The impact analysis for special-status species included a determination of species likely to inhabit the area, a determination of habitat types that would be affected, and a discussion of other potential direct and indirect effects. Impacts on special-status species were assessed in terms of changes in the special-status species habitat, the integrity of the habitat and populations, and the potential for increased/decreased disturbance. No critical habitat has been designated within the study area at this time.

Special-status wildlife species at the Refuge that have the potential to be affected and are analyzed in this chapter include the federally listed bog turtle, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, dwarf wedgemussel, and small whorled pogonia and the state-listed wood turtle, brook floater, triangle floater, eastern lampmussel, yellow lampmussel, and eastern pondmussel. Due to the similarities in range and preferred habitat, the two bat species and the six mussel species have been grouped in this chapter.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Determination of Impact. The terminology below is used in the ESA to assess impacts to federally listed species and is used in this section to be consistent with federal regulations.

No effect: When a proposed action would not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat.

May affect / not likely to Effects on special-status species are discountable (i.e., extremely adversely affect: unlikely to occur and not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or are completely beneficial.

May affect / likely to When an adverse effect to a listed species may occur as a direct or adversely affect: indirect result of proposed actions and the effect either is not discountable or is completely beneficial.

Is likely to jeopardize The appropriate conclusion when the NPS or the USFWS identifies proposed species / adversely situations in which PWC use could jeopardize the continued existence modify proposed critical of a proposed species or adversely modify critical habitat to a species habitat (impairment): within or outside park boundaries.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 33 Environmental Consequences

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under alternative 1, no additional effects to special-status species are expected within the study area, as conditions would remain unchanged. No construction activities would occur, and the Trail would remain on its existing alignment along Oil City Road. Hikers would continue to use the Trail, which follows dirt and paved roads and runs adjacent to emergent, scrub shrub, forested, and modified (agricultural) palustrine wetlands as well as forested and mowed upland areas. Visitors could venture off the Trail, as well as other designated trails in the Refuge, creating small impacts through trampling of the habitat; however; these impacts would be negligible. Special-status species and their habitat would continue to function naturally and populations would not be affected.

Section 7 Conclusions: Operation of the Trail under current conditions would not adversely affect bog turtle, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, dwarf wedgemussel, or small-whorled pogonia in the study area; therefore, alternative 1 is not likely to adversely affect these federally critically imperiled, threatened, and endangered species.

Conclusion: The no-action alternative would have a negligible effect on special-status species at the project site due to visitor activities.

CENTRAL ALTERNATIVE: PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Overall, the bridge and boardwalk designs and placements were selected to avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources including special-status species. Construction and operation activities for the action alternative has the potential to impact the five federally and 7 state-listed special-status species of concern identified in the “Affected Environment” chapter.

Small-whorled pogonia: Small-whorled pogonia habitat could be adversely affected in the short-term by the western temporary access road. The use of heavy construction vehicles would cause soil compaction in upland habitats preferred by small-whorled pogonia. Soil compaction is the physical compression of soil particles through applied force, which reduces porosity, water and air infiltration, and hinders root penetration by plants. The changes in soils as a result of compaction can affect plant growth and survival, although the effects are highly variable and dependent upon existing conditions (Kuss 1986). Because construction activities associated with the bridge would occur over a two-month period in the winter when the ground is likely to be frozen, impacts from bridge compaction during construction activities would be negligible.

To create the dirt trail for each alternative in the upland areas, vegetation would be cleared and the ground would be scraped. Once constructed, operation of the Trail would consist of visitors walking the Trail. These actions would keep the Trail free of vegetation, resulting in long-term impacts to vegetation and the ground beneath the Trail. Small whorled pogonia has not been documented in the study area. The Service would conduct a pre-construction survey to determine presence or absence of the species, and modify the route if necessary to avoid the plant. Therefore, the potential for impacts to small-whorled pogonia and its habitat are expected to be negligible.

Section 7 Conclusion: Construction and operation of the upland portion of the Trail under the central alternative could have adverse impacts on potential small-whorled pogonia and its habitat in the study area. Because the Service would re-route the Trail to avoid this species based on the results of a pre- construction survey, the central alternative may affect but are not likely to adversely affect this federally endangered species.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 34 Environmental Consequences

Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat: Summer habitat and foraging habitat for these two bat species are present in the study area and could be affected by the removal of trees, which may contain roost sites or maternity colonies, during clearing and construction activities. As nocturnal foragers, bats feed mainly in the forest canopy, grabbing flying insects, and may concentrate in the open space of trails or over wetlands and water bodies that provide travel and foraging corridors. Construction of the boardwalk would be expected to have few impacts on bat foraging habitat. The foraging activities of special-status bats would not be affected unless construction activities occurred at night. If construction occurred at night, noise and activity could deter foraging; however, the use of lights could attract bats to the arc of lighting in order to feed on insects attracted to the light. Due to potential impacts on summer habitat for special-status bat species, conservation measures would be implemented to ensure that the project would not be likely to adversely affect Indiana bat or the northern long-eared bat. Seasonal restrictions would be followed to reduce and avoid any unforeseen disturbance or injury to roosting bats from the construction of the project. Seasonal restrictions for the cutting of potential roost trees would prohibit cutting between April 1 and November 15, when the bats could be present.

Operation of the Trail under the central alternative would bring visitors through an area of the Refuge that does not currently have hiking trails. However, the boardwalk would deter visitors from creating social trails that could impact foraging habitat. Most visitation would be during daylight hours when bats are roosting. Therefore, operation of the Trail would have negligible impacts on the bats.

Section 7 Conclusion: The implementation of mitigation measures would minimize adverse effects to the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat; construction and operation of the rerouted Trail under the central alternative may affect but are not likely to adversely affect Indiana and northern long-eared bats.

Bog turtle: In general, projects in and adjacent to bog turtle habitat can cause habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation. Construction of the bridge and boardwalk would result in permanent loss of wetlands; however, this loss would be small, resulting from the placement of footings for the bridge and helical piers for the boardwalk.

The temporary access roads for construction would be created and used during the winter months when bog turtles are not active and wetland areas would be protected from damage by the use of timber mats or other suitable materials. Some trees and shrubs would be removed to create the roads; however, vegetation removal would be minimized to the extent possible. Vegetation removal could adversely affect bog turtle habitat by decreasing microhabitat diversity needed for foraging, nesting, basking, and hibernating. The central alternative would cross through emergent and forested wetlands, and some vegetation removal for construction of the temporary access roads, crane pads, and bridge footings would be necessary. Due to the timing, the use of protective materials, and the small amount of vegetation removal, adverse impacts from construction and use of the temporary access roads on bog turtle habitat are expected to be minimal.

Construction of the boardwalk would be completed in spring or fall months. Volunteers would access the site by foot, which would result in adverse impacts from trampling of the wetland vegetation. Because the boardwalk would be elevated, it would not fragment the potential bog turtle habitat. Following construction of the bridge and boardwalk, disturbed areas would be allowed to recover naturally or revegetated with native plant species.

Upon completion of the bridge and boardwalk, visitors would have access to wetland areas where there are currently no formal trails. Although there could be some foot traffic in the wetlands, most visitors would be concentrated on the boardwalk. Impacts on bog turtle habitat from use of the rerouted Trail under the central alternative would be minimal.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 35 Environmental Consequences

Due to potential impacts on bog turtle habitat within the study area, conservation measures would be implemented to ensure that impacts to the habitat are avoided or minimized to the extent possible. As stated, pre-construction surveys would be completed. In addition, seasonal restrictions on construction between April 1 and October 15 would be implemented to further protect bog turtles and their habitat.

Section 7 Conclusion: Although bog turtle habitat could be adversely impacts from construction and operation of the rerouted Trail under the central alternative, impacts would be minimal. Due to the absence of bog turtles in the study area and the implementation of mitigation measures, the central alternative may affect but are not likely to adversely affect bog turtles.

Wood turtle: Construction activities in the wetland areas, as described for the bog turtle, would also affect wood turtle habitat. Direct impacts to wood turtles would be avoided, as the seasonal restrictions for bog turtles would coincide with the active period of the wood turtle. Therefore, construction activities in wetland areas for the bridge, including development of the temporary access roads, would have no direct impacts on wood turtles and only negligible impacts on wood turtle habitat.

The possible use of a barge for construction of the bridge has the potential to affect wood turtle habitat, as these turtles mate in aquatic habitats. However, because the bridge construction would be completed during winter months, these impacts would be avoided. To further reduce the risk of mortality during the winter months when wood turtles are in hibernation along streambanks, the use of barrier fencing along the Wallkill River could be implemented during construction to keep the turtles from entering construction sites.

Wood turtles use upland habitats for nesting. The areas of upland habitat that would be cleared for the Trail under the central alternative would represent a loss of potential nesting habitat for wood turtles. Approximately 2,450 linear feet of upland habitat would be converted to bare earth.

The completed bridge and boardwalk would offer opportunities for visitors to enter wood turtle habitat. It is anticipated that most visitors would remain on the boardwalk; therefore, operation of the Trail under the central alternative would create minimal impacts on wood turtle.

Bronze copper: Construction of the boardwalk over emergent wetlands under the central alternative would occur in spring and/or fall, outside of the time of year restrictions for the bog turtle; therefore, impacts to the bronze copper are considered unlikely. Additionally, the permanent loss of emergent wetland habitat would be associated with placement of the helical piers only, resulting in a negligible impact on bronze copper habitat.

Operation of the realigned Trail under the central alternative would consist of visitors using the Trail through emergent wetland habitat. There is an opportunity for visitors to leave the Trail and walk through the wetland habitats, but it is anticipated that most visitors would remain on the boardwalk. Impacts from visitor activities on the bronze copper would be negligible.

Dwarf wedgemussel and five state-listed mussels: These six mussel species could be affected by any activity in the Wallkill River, including use of a barge to transport bridge material and vegetation removal and construction along the banks of the Wallkill River. Impacts on the mussels from increased sedimentation, including turbidity and suspended solids in the water column, could alter and thereby reduce bottom habitat, smother mussels as well as the eggs and larvae of bridle shiner, and interrupt the feeding, respiration, or reproductive activities. The use of construction equipment could result in the introduction of contaminants such as fuel or oil to surface waters due to leaks or spills, which could result in acute or chronic effects on mussels including decreased growth, disturbed reproductive cycles, or mortality.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 36 Environmental Consequences

These impacts would be mitigated through best management practices, which could include use of silt fences and straw bales to reduce erosion and sedimentation, preparing a spill prevention and response plan, and performing inspections along the river banks for signs of erosion. By implementing these mitigation measures, adverse impacts on these six mussel species would be negligible.

No impacts would be expected for mussels from operation of the Trail under the central alternative.

Section 7 Conclusion: Dwarf wedgemussel has not been documented in or downstream of the study area; however, the Wallkill River is considered potential habitat. Implementation of mitigation measures would minimize adverse impacts, such as bank erosion and increased turbidity; therefore, the central alternative may affect but are not likely to adversely affect dwarf wedgemussel.

Conclusion: The central alternative could impact four federally listed and seven state listed wildlife species and one federally listed plant species. The impacts associated with construction and operation of rerouting the Trail through the study area would result in some vegetation removal and water quality changes during bridge construction activities and some short-term vegetation impacts from trampling during construction of the boardwalk. Permanent habitat loss would be minimal and only associated with helical pier and bridge footing placement and creation of the dirt trail in upland areas. Disturbed areas would be allowed to naturally recover or would be replanted with native vegetation. When mitigation measures, such as time of year restrictions on construction and vegetation removal and sediment and erosion controls, are implemented, the potential for adverse impacts on special-status species is greatly reduced.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Methodology and Assumptions. The construction and operation of the proposed alternatives were examined to determine if these alternatives are compatible or in conflict with the purpose and visitor experience goals of the Refuge and the Appalachian Trail. Changes in visitor use and / or experience for each alternative are described.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the Trail would remain along its current alignment. No construction activities would occur, and there would be no change to the Trail or the Refuge. Day hikers, overnighters, and thru hikers on the Trail and other visitors would continue to cross the Wallkill River via the Trail on Oil City Road. As described in chapter 3, these visitors are subject to walking on a two-lane road without a true shoulder. Walking along a road is not the desired experience for hikers on the Trail and diminishes their experience. As the area becomes more developed, the number of cars on Oil City Road would also increase and the adverse impact to visitor experience would increase, as this would further detract from a primitive Trail experience. The experience of Refuge visitors would remain unchanged.

Conclusion: There would be no new impact on visitor use and experience under the no-action alternative. There would be continued adverse impacts on Trail visitors due to the Trail being co-aligned with Oil City Road, with hikers having to hike alongside vehicular traffic at times. Visitor experience for Refuge visitors would be unchanged.

CENTRAL ALTERNATIVE: PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Under the central alternative, the Trail would be realigned to avoid Oil City Road. Since the Trail would remain open during the construction period, Trail visitors would be minimally impacted by construction.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 37 Environmental Consequences

Noise from construction may reach Trail users, but the sound from construction would likely be less than that of Oil City Road, resulting in minimal impacts to Trail users.

Refuge visitors, both hikers and river users, may experience the noise and visual intrusion of construction activities. Construction of the bridge, which would have the more noticeable impacts from machinery, would occur in winter when Refuge visitation is lower. Construction of the boardwalk would be done by volunteers with minimal machinery, lessening the impact to Refuge visitors.

Following construction, visitor experience for Trail users would improve. Trail visitors would hike through the Refuge, enjoying the sights and sounds of a natural setting. This would be an improvement compared to the current experience hiking along Oil City Road. For Refuge visitors, the removal of select trees and vegetation for construction and the presence of the new bridge and boardwalk would alter the experience. The addition of Trail users along with the addition of a boardwalk and footbridge would increase the number of visitors to the Refuge. For example, after the completion of the bridge and boardwalk at the Pochuck River, that portion of the Trail increased in popularity for Trail visitors. For these reasons, the experience of visitors seeking solitude within the Refuge could be adversely impacted, however there are other areas of the Refuge where visitors can find solitude. For other Refuge visitors, the new trail, bridge and boardwalk would be a beneficial experience. New visitors to the Refuge would benefit from the experience and availability the action alternative.

Conclusion: Short-term adverse impacts on visitor use and experience would occur during construction activities, due to disruption in use of the Refuge. Long-term impacts to Trail users would be beneficial, hiking across the Refuge would be an improvement to the experience compared to the current experience along Oil City Road. The permanent structures may cause long-term adverse impacts for some Refuge visitors, but access to new areas of the Refuge would be beneficial. It is important to note that both short- term and long-term impacts would be localized to a small section of the refuge, approximately less than 1 mile in length, and that visitors would only experience impacts as they traverse the study area.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Methodology and Assumptions. The analysis of human health and safety was determined by examining the potential effects of construction activities and operation of the Trail on the health and safety of Trail and Refuge visitors and staff.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the Trail would remain along its current alignment. Day hikers, overnighters, and thru hikers on the Trail and other visitors would continue to cross the Wallkill River via the Trail on Oil City Road. This roadwalk would continue to present dangers to visitors and Refuge and Trail staff due to vehicular traffic, especially as development in the area, and therefore traffic, increases. The Trail along Oil City Road would continue to be subject to floods and overland flow under the no- action alternative, subjecting visitors to safety concerns associated with these events.

As stated in chapter 3, visitors to the northern part of the Refuge and the Trail in this area have access to two parking lots that can accommodate approximately 20 vehicles (figure 2). Although visitors who use the Liberty Loop parking lot can access the Trail via the Liberty Loop Trail without walking on any roads, the Winding Waters Trail parking lot requires that visitors walk approximately 0.25 mile on Oil City Road to reach the off-road section of the Trail. This presents safety concerns for these visitors related to potential strikes by vehicles.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 38 Environmental Consequences

Impacts to human health and safety under the no-action alternative would be adverse due to potential conflicts with vehicular traffic and flood waters.

Conclusion: Under the no-action alternative, there would be no additional effects on human health and safety for visitors and staff of the Refuge and the Trail. There would be continued adverse impacts on visitors due to the Trail being co-aligned with Oil City Road and visitors that are required to park across Oil City Road at the Winding Waters Trail parking lot.

CENTRAL ALTERNATIVE: PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

By realigning the Trail to avoid Oil City Road, the central alternative would create long-term beneficial impacts on the safety of Trail users and Refuge and Trail staff, as the Trail would traverse the Refuge without the risk of vehicular traffic. The central alternative would eliminate one of the longest sections of the Trail that co-aligns with a public roadway. Additionally, the boardwalk and bridge would both be built above the 100-year floodplain, which reduces potential impacts on visitor safety from flooding.

If a barge is used during the construction of the bridge, it would require multiple road closures on Oil City Road when placing the barge in the river and when loading construction equipment and materials onto the barge for transport to the site. These closures would have an adverse impact on traffic and personnel working on and around the crane. These impacts would be temporary and would only exist during construction of the bridge, approximately two months.

As stated in the “Visitor Use and Experience” section, after the completion of the bridge and boardwalk at the Pochuck River, a nearby project located east along the Trail, the portion of the Trail re-routed to avoid a roadwalk increased in popularity for Trail visitors. As visitation increased at Pochuck, the limited parking became an issue, especially during peak times (weekends with pleasant weather). The parking lots at Pochuck have capacity for up to 70 vehicles, and demand often exceeds these facilities. Visitors sometimes park along the road due to lack of parking spots, and this has caused an issue for law enforcement and increased safety risks for both visitors and law enforcement.

The central alternative would not include expansion of existing parking facilities or creation of new parking lots. The existing parking areas at the Refuge are currently used to capacity on busy weekends. If visitation increases with the new boardwalk and bridge, existing parking would not be adequate. Insufficient parking at the Refuge could cause issues similar to those seen at Pochuck and could result in increased risks to visitor safety, as well as the safety of Refuge personnel and law enforcement that would be required to manage the parking situations. Not only would visitors that use the Winding Waters Trail parking lot be required to cross Oil City Road and risk interactions with vehicles, but some visitors may park along the road. This would make Oil City Road, a two-lane road with blind spots and no shoulders, more dangerous for drivers to navigate, thus increasing the risk for visitors that would need to cross the road. If Refuge managers observe a trend in issues due to the lack of parking, actions would likely need to be taken to add additional parking areas near the Trail.

Conclusion: Short-term adverse impacts could occur to human health and safety as a result of the use of a crane on Oil City Road to lower a barge into the river and loading construction materials onto the barge. Long-term adverse impacts could result from a lack of parking areas, if visitation to the Trail and Refuge increases after the bridge and boardwalk are complete. If these arise, Refuge managers could discuss the addition of new parking areas near the Trail. Long-term beneficial impacts to the safety of trail users who avoid Oil City Road would result from realigning the Trail through the Refuge for the central alternative.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 39 Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 40

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Scoping refers to the effort to involve agencies and the public in determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental document. Among other tasks, scoping determines important issues and eliminates issues determined to be not important; allocates assignments among the interdisciplinary team members and/or participating agencies; identifies related projects and associated documents; identifies other permits, surveys, consultations, etc. required by other agencies; and creates a schedule that allows adequate time to prepare and distribute the environmental document for public review and comment before a final decision is made. Scoping includes consultation with any interested agency, or any agency with jurisdiction by law or expertise to obtain early input and permits needed for implementation. Scoping also includes coordination with the public regarding the proposed project. This section describes events that occurred relating to agency consultation and public involvement.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This environmental assessment will be open for public review for 30 days. Comments received from the public will be reviewed and addressed in the decision document, either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), if appropriate, or a recommendation to prepare an environmental impact statement, if needed. Depending on the comments received, an errata sheet to this EA may also be prepared.

AGENCY CONSULTATION

Consultation letters were mailed to state and federal agencies with this environmental assessment requesting comments regarding the proposed Appalachian Trail re-route. Letters were sent to:

. USFWS – Regional office (ESA, Section 7 consultation) . NJ HPO . NJDEP . The Delaware Nation . Stockbridge Munsee Community

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION

A letter was sent to the New Jersey USFWS Field Office on April x, 2018, summarizing the possible effects of the proposed action on the five federally listed species that may occur in the study area: bog turtle, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, dwarf wedgemussel, and small whorled pogonia. This letter also identified proposed mitigation measures. It was determined that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect these listed species; a concurrence letter has not yet been received. Consultation with the New Jersey USFWS Field Office is ongoing.

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION

A letter was sent to the NJ HPO on July 14, 2017 requesting consultation and comment on the proposed project. In a letter dated August 10, 2017, NJ HPO concurred that the boardwalk segments built using a helical pier system will have no adverse effect on any historic archaeological properties as there is a low potential for human burials.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 41 Consultation and Coordination: List of Preparers

Because the upland portion of the study area has a high potential for archeological resources, further investigations were conducted February 26-28, 2018. These surveys concluded that there are no archeological sites present in the proposed trail alignment in upland areas. A letter was sent to the NJ HPO on March x, 2018 to request concurrence on the determination of no adverse effects on archeological resources in the study area.

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA is being handled through ongoing consultation with the NJ HPO.

LIST OF PREPARERS

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michael Horne, Manager, Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Ken Witkowski, Biologist, Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Amy Wood, Regional Cultural Resource Specialist, Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Margo Brooks, Northeast Regional Office Jacki Katzmire, Northeast Regional Office Wendy Janssen, Superintendent, Appalachian National Scenic Trail Denise Nelson, Compliance Manager, Appalachian National Scenic Trail Keith Stegall, Facility Manager, Appalachian National Scenic Trail James Von Haden, Integrated Resources Program Manager, Appalachian National Scenic Trail

Appalachian Trail Conservancy Karen Lutz, Regional Director, Project Manager Bob Sickley, Trail Resources Manager

New York-New Jersey Trail Conference Peter Dolan, New Jersey Program Coordinator

Herbert, Rowland, and Grubic, Inc. (HRG): Brian Emburg, Project Manager

EA Engineering, Science and Technology Suzie Boltz, Project Manager Tom King, Professional Wetland Scientist Sarah Koser, Professional Wetland Scientist Katie Minczuk, NEPA Specialist Anita Struzinski, NEPA Specialist Eric Yan, GIS Specialist

Gray and Pape Heritage Management Mike Striker, Archaeologist

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 42 REFERENCES

Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC). 2014. Wetland Delineation Report for Appalachian National Scenic Trail Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk at Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge.

Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC). 2017. Compiled New Jersey Road Runners Visitor Statistics. Unpublished data.

Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey (Conserve Wildlife). 2018a. New Jersey Endangered and Threatened Species Field Guide: Brook Floater. Available online: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/Alasmidonta%20varicosa/. Accessed February 2, 2018.

Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey (Conserve Wildlife). 2018b. New Jersey Endangered and Threatened Species Field Guide: Triangle Floater. Available online: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/Alasmidonta%20undulata/. Accessed February 2, 2018.

Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey (Conserve Wildlife). 2018c. New Jersey Endangered and Threatened Species Field Guide: Yellow Lampmussel. Available online: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/Lampsilis%20cariosa/. Accessed February 2, 2018.

Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey (Conserve Wildlife). 2018d. New Jersey Endangered and Threatened Species Field Guide: Eastern Lampmussel. Available online: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/Lampsilis%20radiata/. Accessed February 2, 2018.

Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey (Conserve Wildlife). 2018e. New Jersey Endangered and Threatened Species Field Guide: Eastern Pondmussel. Available online: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/Ligumia%20nasuta/. Accessed February 2, 2018.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Publication FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. December.

Endangered New Jersey. 2009. “Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge.” Available online: http://endangerednj.blogspot.com/2009/09/wallkill-river-national-wildlife-refuge.html. Accessed September 11, 2017.

Fournier, Paul. 2012. “Helical Piers, Porous Pavement, Protect Wetlands.” New England Construction, Vol. 76, No. 11. November 2012. Published by Associated Construction Publications, LLC.

Foundation Technologies, Inc. (Foundation Technologies). 2017. Chance® Helical Piles. Available online: http://www.foundationtechnologies.com/products/chance-helical-piles/. Accessed August 2, 2017.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 43 References

Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. Engineering & Related Services (HRG). 2011. Appalachian National Scenic Trail Wallkill River Crossing, Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge Footbridge Type, Size, and Location and Trail Location Study. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, and New York-New Jersey Trail Conference. July 2011.

Jasch, Mary. n.d. “A Century of Conservation, Freedom Wings.” Available online: http://www.njskylands.com/pkrefuges. Accessed April 11, 2018.

Kuss, Fred R. 1986. “A Review of Major Factors Influencing Responses to Recreation Impacts.” Environmental Management. Vol 10., No. 5, pp 637-650.

National Park Service (NPS). 2016. Draft Multiple Property Documentation Form Submission. September 1, 2016.

NatureServe. 2017. “NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life.” Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed September 19, 2017.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2002. “Mussels.” Available [online]: www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/mussels.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2017.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2010. “Wood Turtle Fact Sheet.” Available [online]: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/woodtrtl.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2017.

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW). 2018. “Freshwater Mussels.” Available online: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/mussels.pdf Accessed January 22, 2018.

North American Butterfly Association (NABA). 2017. “New Jersey Butterflies, Bronze Copper (Lycaena hyllus).” North American Butterfly Association -North Jersey Butterfly Club. Available online: http://www.naba.org/chapters/nabanj/butterflies/bronze_copper.html. Accessed September 19, 2017.

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PANHP). 2010a “Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa).” Available online: www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/12195.pdf. Accessed October 27, 2010.

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP). 2010b. “Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata).” Available online: http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/12194.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2018.

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP). 2018. “Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata).” Available [online]: http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/12218.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2018.

Proudman, Bob and Beth Critton. 2016. “Boardwalks and Bridges: A.T. Passage in Major Wetlands.” The Register, July 2016. Published by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 44 References

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. Wetland Functions and Values: A Descriptive Approach. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement. USACE New England District.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Small-whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan. First Revision. Available [online]: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/921113b.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. Available [online]: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us- species.html. Accessed September 8, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Northern Population Recovery Plan. Available [online]: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/ 010515.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: Fist Revision. April.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. February.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. “Species profile for Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis).” Available [online]: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode =A0JE. Accessed September 8, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015b. “Field Notes Entry: Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge partners with Virginia Tech and others to research the Northern Long-Eared Bat.” Available online: https://www.fws.gov/FieldNotes/regmap.cfm?arskey=36303. Accessed September 18, 2017.

Wright, James M. 2007. Floodplain Management, Principles and Current Practices. The University of Tennessee – Knoxville.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 45 References

This page intentionally left blank

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 46

APPENDIX A Special-Status Species

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 47 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

This page intentionally left blank

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 48 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN SUSSEX COUNTY AND PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE STUDY AREA

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Reptiles Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T X Birds Piping plover Charadrius melodus T Red knot Calidris canutus rufa T Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii E Mammals Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E X Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T(4d) X Invertebrates Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E X Northeastern beach tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis T Plants Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T X Swamp pink Helonias bullata T Knieskern's beaked-rush Rhynchospora knieskernii T American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E Sensitive joint-vetch Aeschynomene virginica T Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T Source: USFWS 2017; NatureServe 2009 E (Endangered Species) – Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T (Threatened Species) – Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T(4d) (4d Rule in Effect) – Threatened species for which a special rule is in effect under Section 4(d) of the ESA, removing certain prohibitions that would otherwise be in place.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 49 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

STATE-LISTED SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN SUSSEX COUNTY AND PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE STUDY AREA

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Reptiles *Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii E X Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina carolina SC Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen SC Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata SC Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta T X Amphibians Blue-Spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale E Fowler’s Toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri SC Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum SC Long-Tail Salamander Eurycea longicauda T Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum SC Birds

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus E-B SC-NB American Kestrel Falco sparverius T Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus E-B T-NB Barred Owl Strix varia T

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis E-B T-NB Black-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus SC-B Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca SC-B

Black-Crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax T-B SC-NB Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens SC-B Black-Throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens SC-B Blue-Headed Vireo Vireo solitarius SC-B Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus T-B SC-NB Broad-Winged Hawk Buteo platypterus SC-B Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum SC-B Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis SC-B Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea SC Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota SC-B Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii SC-B Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna SC

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 50 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area

Golden-Winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera E-B SC-NB Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum T-B SC-NB Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias SC-B Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina SC-B Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris T-B SC-NB Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus SC Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis SC Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus SC-B Long-Eared Owl Asio otus T Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis E-B SC-NB Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus E-B SC-NB Northern Parula Parula Americana SC-B Osprey Pandion haliaetus T-B Pied-Billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps E-B SC-NB Red-Headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus T

Red-Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus E-B SC-NB Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis T-B Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis E Sharp-Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus SC Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda E Veery Catharus fuscescens SC-B Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus E-B SC-NB Whip-Poor-Will Caprimulgus vociferus SC-B Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes SC-B Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina SC-B Worm-Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus SC-B Yellow-Breasted Chat Icteria virens SC-B Mammals Alleghany Woodrat Neotoma floridana magister E Bobcat Lynx rufus E *Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E Invertebrates American Burying Beetle Nicrophorus americanus E Appalachian Grizzled Skipper Pyrgus wyandot E

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 51 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Arrowhead Spiketail Cordulegaster obliqua SC Bronze Copper Lycaena hyllus E Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa E X Brook Snaketail Ophiogomphus asperses T Brush-tipped Emerald Somatochlora walshii SC Cobra Clubtail Gomphus vastus SC Crimson-ringed Whiteface Leucorrhinia glacialis SC *Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E X Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata T X Eastern Pondmussel Lampsilis nasuta T X Extra-Striped Snaketail Ophiogomphus anomalus SC Frosted Elfin Callophrys irus T Harpoon Clubtail Gomphus descriptus T Harris’s Checkerspot Chlosyne harrisii SC Hudsonian Whiteface Leucorrhinia hudsonica SC Kennedy’s Emerald Somatochlora kennedyi T Maine Snaketail Ophiogomphus mainensis SC Midland Clubtail Gomphus fraternus SC Mitchell’s Satyr Neonympha mitchellii E New England Bluet Enallagma laterale SC Northern Metalmark Calephelis borealis SC Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor SC Sable Clubtail Gomphus rogersi SC Septima's Clubtail Gomphus septima SC Spatterdock Darner Rhionaeschna mutata SC Superb Jewelwing Calopteryx amata T Tiger Spiketail Cordulegaster erronea SC Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata T Two-spotted Skipper Euphyes bimacula SC Williamson’s Emerald Somatochlora williamsoni SC Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa T X Plants Allegheny Mountain Buttercup Ranunculus allegheniensis E American Fly-honeysuckle Lonicera canadensis E American Lotus Nelumbo lutea E American Manna Grass Glyceria grandis var. grandis E American Purple Vetch Vicia americana var. americana E Appalachian Mountain Boltonia Boltonia montana E

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 52 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Appalachian Twayblade Listera smallii E Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis E Scheuchzeria palustris var. Arrow-grass E americana Arum-leaf Arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata E Back's Sedge Carex backii E Balsam Fir Abies balsamea E Barberpole Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus E Basil Mountain-mint Pycnanthemum clinopodioides E Bayard Long's Adder's-mouth Malaxis bayardii E Bear's-foot Smallanthus uvedalius E Blunt-leaf Pondweed Potamogeton obtusifolius E Andromeda polifolia var. Bog Rosemary E glaucophylla Bog Willow Salix pedicellaris E Boreal Starwort Stellaria borealis var. borealis E Bush's Sedge Carex bushii E Buttonbush Dodder Cuscuta cephalanthi E Hieracium kalmii var. Canada Hawkweed E fasciculatum Antennaria howellii ssp. Canada Pussytoes E canadensis Viola canadensis var. Canadian Violet E canadensis Capillary Beaked-rush Rhynchospora capillacea E Carolina Wood Vetch Vicia caroliniana E Cloud Sedge Carex haydenii E Common Water-milfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum E Coupled Sedge Carex laxiculmis var. copulata E Crawe's Sedge Carex crawei E Cream Vetchling Lathyrus ochroleucus E Ranunculus flammula var. Creeping Spearwort E filiformis Creeping-snowberry Gaultheria hispidula E Cyperus-like Sedge Carex pseudocyperus E Carex deweyana var. Dewey's Sedge E deweyana Drooping Wood Sedge Carex arctata E Dwarf Mistletoe Arceuthobium pusillum E Early Buttercup Ranunculus fascicularis E

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 53 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Eel-grass Pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis E Calystegia spithamaea ssp. Erect Bindweed E spithamaea Brickellia eupatorioides var. False Boneset E eupatorioides Fern-leaf Scorpion-flower Phacelia bipinnatifida E Few-flower Spike-rush Eleocharis quinqueflora E Few-fruit Sedge Carex oligocarpa E Fine-nerve Sedge Carex leptonervia E Flat-stem Spike-rush Eleocharis compressa E Foamflower Tiarella cordifolia var. cordifolia E Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea E Glade Fern Diplazium pycnocarpon E Greek-valerian Polemonium reptans E Green Adder's-mouth Malaxis unifolia E Green Violet Hybanthus concolor E Greenish-flower Wintergreen Pyrola chlorantha E Grooved Yellow Flax Linum sulcatum var. sulcatum E Hairy Hedge-nettle Stachys pilosa var. pilosa E Hammond's Yellow Spring Claytonia virginica var. E Beauty hammondiae Handsome Sedge Carex formosa E Heartleaf Twayblade Listera cordata var. cordata E Hemlock-parsley Conioselinum chinense E Hillside Sedge Carex siccata E Hooker's Orchid Platanthera hookeri E Hop-like Sedge Carex lupuliformis E Illinois Pondweed Potamogeton illinoensis E Labrador Marsh Bedstraw Galium labradoricum E Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum E Lake Quillwort Isoetes lacustris E Lake Water-cress Neobeckia aquatica E Large Toothwort Cardamine maxima E Large Water-plantain Alisma triviale E Large-fruit Black-snakeroot Sanicula trifoliata E Large-leaf Holly Ilex montana E Larger Canadian St. John's Wort Hypericum majus E Leathery Grape Fern Botrychium multifidum E Lesser Bladderwort Utricularia minor E

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 54 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Lobed Spleenwort Asplenium pinnatifidum E Muhlenbergia capillaris var. Long-awn Smoke Grass E capillaris Long-head Anemone Anemone cylindrica E Louisiana Sedge Carex louisianica E Low Sand Cherry Prunus pumila var. depressa E Marsh Cinquefoil Comarum palustre E Meadow Horsetail Equisetum pratense E Quercus macrocarpa var. Mossy-cup Oak E macrocarpa Mud Sedge Carex limosa E Narrow-leaf Burr-reed Sparganium angustifolium E Narrow-leaf Vervain Verbena simplex E Northern Blue Violet Viola septentrionalis E Northern Panic Grass Panicum boreale E Cynoglossum virginianum var. Northern Wild Comfrey E boreale Northern Yellow-eyed-grass Xyris montana E Old-pasture Spear Grass Poa saltuensis E Orange Coneflower Rudbeckia fulgida var. fulgida E Pale-laurel Kalmia polifolia E Pear Hawthorn Crataegus calpodendron E Peck's White-tinged Sedge Carex peckii E Prairie Goldenrod Solidago rigida var. rigida E Purple Oat Schizachne purpurascens E Puttyroot Aplectrum hyemale E Red Pine Pinus resinosa E Red Spruce Picea rubens E Rhodora Rhododendron canadense E Rosy Twisted-stalk Streptopus lanceolatus E Round-leaf Orchid Platanthera orbiculata E Amelanchier sanguinea var. Round-leaf Service-berry E sanguinea Carex brunnescens var. Round-spike Brownish Sedge E sphaerostachya Rush Aster Aster borealis E Seaside Arrow-grass Triglochin maritima E Sessile Water-speedwell Veronica catenata E Eriophorum vaginatum var. Sheathed Cotton-grass E spissum

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 55 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Showy Lady's-slipper Cypripedium reginae E Shrubby St. John's-wort Hypericum prolificum E Bouteloua curtipendula var. Side-oats Grama Grass E curtipendula Skunk Currant Ribes glandulosum E Slender Cotton-grass Eriophorum gracile var. gracile E Slender Mountain-rice Grass Oryzopsis pungens E Slender Panic Grass Panicum xanthophysum E Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus E Slender Wood-reed Cinna latifolia E Small Burr-reed Sparganium natans E Small Floating Manna Grass Glyceria borealis E Small Rush-grass Sporobolus neglectus E Small Skullcap Scutellaria leonardii E *Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides E Small Yellow Pond-lily Nuphar microphyllum E Smooth Blackberry Rubus canadensis E Snowy Catchfly Silene nivea E Sphagnum Sphagnum angustifolium E Sphagnum Sphagnum centrale E Sphagnum Sphagnum quinquefarium E Sphagnum Sphagnum riparium E Sphagnum Sphagnum subfulvum E Spiny Coontail Ceratophyllum echinatum E Spreading Globe Flower Trollius laxus ssp. laxus E Squirrel-corn Dicentra canadensis E Stalked Woolgrass Scirpus pedicellatus E Stiff Club-moss Lycopodium annotinum E *Swamp-pink Helonias bullata E Tall Millet Grass Milium effusum E Three-leaf False Solomon's-seal Maianthemum trifolium E Three-toothed Cinquefoil Sibbaldiopsis tridentata E Torrey's Bulrush Schoenoplectus torreyi E Equisetum variegatum var. Variegated Horsetail E variegatum Virginia Bunchflower Melanthium virginicum E Virginia False-gromwell Onosmodium virginianum E Water Lobelia Lobelia dortmanna E Water Sedge Carex aquatilis E

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 56 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

Present or Possibly Common Name Scientific Name Status Present in Study Area Water-marigold Megalodonta beckii E White Adder's-mouth Malaxis brachypoda E Streptopus amplexifolius var. White Twisted-stalk E amplexifolius White-grained Mountain-rice Oryzopsis asperifolia E Grass White-stem Pondweed Potamogeton praelongus E Whorled Nut-rush Scleria verticillata E Winged Cudweed Gnaphalium macounii E Wiry Panic Grass Panicum flexile E Witch-hobble Viburnum lantanoides E Woodland Spear Grass Poa sylvestris E Wood's Sedge Carex woodii E Source: NJDEP 2012, 2014, 2016a, 2016b; Natureserve. 2009 * – Federally listed species E (Endangered Species) – Species whose prospects for survival within the state are in immediate danger due to one or several factors, such as loss or degradation of habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease or environmental pollution, etc. An endangered species likely requires immediate action to avoid extinction within New Jersey. T (Threatened Species) – Species that may become Endangered if conditions surrounding it begin to or continue to deteriorate. A threatened species is already vulnerable as a result of small population size, restricted range, narrow habitat affinities, significant population decline, etc. SC (Special Concern) – Species that warrant special attention because of inherent vulnerability to environmental deterioration or habitat modification that would result in its becoming threatened if conditions surrounding the species begin or continue to deteriorate. B (Breeding Population) – Birds that breed in New Jersey; breeding/non-breeding status is often associated with time of year in which the birds live in the state. NB (Non-Breeding Population) – Birds that live in or migrate through New Jersey but that do not breed in the state; breeding/non-breeding status is often associated with time of year in which the birds live in the state.

Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge and Boardwalk 57 Appendix A: Special-Status Species

REFERENCES

Natureserve. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Available online: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed September 19, 2017. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2012. “NJ Endangered and Nongame Species Program Special Concern – Species Status Listing.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available online: http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/ spclspp.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2014. “Rare Plant Species and Ecological Communities Presently Recorded in the NJ Natural Heritage Database, Sussex County.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available online: http://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/textfiles/sussex.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2016a. “New Jersey's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available online: http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm. Accessed September 18, 2017. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2016b. “List of Endangered Plant Species and Plant Species of Concern.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available online: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/ njplantlist.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. “Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species in New Jersey.” Available online: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/pdf/specieslist.pdf. Accessed September18, 2017.

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Appalachian National Scenic Trail 58