This document is a draft until it is cleared by the Department of Interior
and transmitted to the United States Congress. This site will be updated when this occurs.

Click here for a printable version.

1. Introduction

This is the final document for the Crossroads of the American Revolution Special Resource Study and National Heritage Area Feasibility Study. It includes an introduction, the public comments with their individual National Park Service responses, and a Finding of No Significant Impact.

The Introduction section briefly reviews the public process, identifies the Preferred Boundary Alternative - previously referred to as the "red boundary", and summarizes the written comments received by regular and electronic mail during the public comment period.

Following the publication of the Crossroads of the American Revolution: Special Resource Study, National Heritage Area Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (August 2002), a 30-day public comment period commenced (August 6 to September 12, 2002). This comment period provided an opportunity for individuals, organizations and communities to respond to this study. Written comments were collected by Morristown National Historical Park and the Philadelphia Support Office and are part of the official record of the study.

The Public Comment and Response section organizes these public comments into broad categories, summarizes each comment, and provides a response by the National Park Service. It also includes a Corrections sheet for the report.

The Preferred Alternative Boundary map of the National Heritage Area (NHA) is included at the end of this section of the report. This boundary map represents the boundary recommendation forwarded to the Director of the National Park Service by the Director of the Northeast Region of the National Park Service.

The last part of this document is the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) section. It identifies the proposed action, summarizes the preferred alternative and other alternatives considered and provides an assessment of its impact, a description of the public process, and the decision. This recommendation is forwarded to the Director of the National Park Service by the Director of the Northeast Region of the National Park Service.

1.2 Public Meetings

There has been an active outreach effort during this entire project. Interviews with individuals and elected leaders, conversations with organizations and public agencies, and public meetings have played an integral part in framing the recommendations identified in the FONSI.

The Crossroads of the American Revolution: Special Resource Study, National Heritage Area Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment was distributed by mail and at public meetings across the state during the month of August 2002 as requested. Since then, it has been available from the National Park Service (Morristown National Historic Park and the Philadelphia Support Office) and at the website www.nps.gov/crossroads.

Three sets of public meetings have been conducted to solicit public input regarding a national heritage area in New Jersey focusing on the American Revolution.

The first set of public meetings (April 2001) and the second set (July 2001), consisting of a total of eleven meetings, were held in ten different locations throughout the fifteen county study area. A discussion of these meetings is included in Chapter 10 of the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey: Special Resource Study, National Heritage Area Feasibility Study, and Environmental Assessment (August 2002).

The third set of public meetings was held in August 2002, after the publication of the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey: Special Resource Study, National Heritage Area Feasibility Study, and Environmental Assessment (August 2002). The meetings were held at four different locations: Morristown National Historical Park (August 12), Fort Lee Historic Park (August 14), Edison College in Trenton (August 19) and the Rohrer Memorial Library in Westmont (August 20). The conclusions of the special resource study and the national heritage area feasibility study were shared with the public at these meetings.

Press releases that announced the study and the meeting dates were sent to the major New Jersey newspapers, radio stations and television stations, and subsequently, several newspapers produced articles on the projects and the meetings.

A formal public comment period was identified from August 6 through September 12, 2002. The National Park Service has received 143 individual public communications via post and electronic mail at Morristown National Historical Park and the Philadelphia Support Office. Additionally, the National Park Service staff met with organizations and communities who requested further information or clarification of the report.

It is useful to review the comments submitted to the National Park Service before the public comment period (listed in Chapter 10 and Appendix E in the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey: Special Resource Study, National Heritage Area Feasibility Study, and Environmental Assessment). They provide a context for the comments discussed in this report.

1.3 Summary of Comments

The National Park Service would like to thank everyone for their insightful comments. These have shaped the final recommendation of the study team and have indicated the level of support for NHA designation.

During the public comment period, 143 separate communications were sent comments to the National Park Service in the form of letters, postcards, resolutions, petitions, faxes and emails. This represented 313 individuals, organizations, communities, elected officials and public agencies. Some of these communications focused on a single topic, but most commented on several topics.

To facilitate our understanding of these public comments, they were organized by topic. Nine broad topics were identified.

• support for the preferred boundary proposal and/or NHA designation,
• expanding the preferred boundary proposal,
• inclusions within the preferred boundary,
• blue boundary alternative,
• potential management entity,
• headquarters location,
• inclusion of additional historical information or listing of historic resources in the report,
• corrections to text and map, and
• miscellaneous comments.

Each of the comments is listed under the appropriate category. In those cases where tan author comments on several categories, each separate comment is listed. While support for the effort or a boundary proposal could be inferred in a number of letters, only the ones that explicitly stated support were included in the first category.

Overall, the report has been well received and letters of support have been received from individuals, organizations, township and city elected leaders, and local, county and state agencies. A brief summary of the categories and the number of comments follow.

Support for the Preferred Boundary Proposal and/or National Heritage Area Designation
Two hundred forty-one public comments supported the Preferred Boundary Proposal (referred to as the Red Boundary in the public comments) and/or designation as a NHA.

• 119 supported the Preferred Boundary Proposal,
• 216 expressed support for designation and
• 1 comment favored designation, but opposed taxpayer funding for education and heritage celebration.

These comments included formal letters of support from township and city government (25), county government (6), state government (6), and nonprofit organizations and foundations (18) - including the Governor of New Jersey, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and the Mayor of Trenton. Additional 185 signatures on petitions were received from individuals and/or organizations.

Requests for Expansion of the Preferred Boundary Proposal
Thirteen comments requested expanding the Preferred Boundary to include addition sites.

• 4 requested expansion to include additional parts of 3 counties,
• 3 requested expansion to include 2 additional townships, and
• 9 requested expansion to include 11 specific additional historic sites.

This report identified the resources required to make a special resource study and a national heritage area determination. As these comments show, there are many additional resources and interested communities that were not identified and could enrich the visitor experience. A complete inventory of historic sites would be one step in the next planning phase -- should a national heritage area be designated by Congress.

An assessment of these requests for boundary expansion has shown that the existing boundary adequately meets the criteria and provides adequate opportunities for resource protection, public education, and heritage celebration of the themes identified in the study. However, in light of the limitations of the study, the report recommends that the management entity -- should it be authorized --seek out the managers of the sites identified for future collaborative efforts.

Requests for Inclusions within the Preferred Boundary
Two comments were submitted that identified additional sites that already exist within the preferred boundary. All resources within the proposed boundaries would be included as part of a congressionally designated National Heritage Area.

Comments Related to the Blue Boundary Alternative
Thirteen comments were received concerning the lack of physical continuity and limited scope of the sites included within the Blue Boundary alternative.

• 8 requested expansion to include 5 additional township,
• 4 requested expansion to include 8 additional sites,
• 2 requested expansion to include broad landscape features,
• 4 were concerned that the boundary was not contiguous, and
• 1 requested an altogether different plan.

The fundamental tenet of this proposal was to identify the minimal area and essential resources that would meet NHA criteria and are capable of illustrating the themes and providing positive visitor experiences. Subsequent analysis has not modified the Blue Boundary alternative because the types of resources identified in the public comments are already adequately represented within the boundary.

Comments Related to the Potential Management Entity
Ten comments related to the proposed management entity.

• 2 supported the potential management entity,
• 0 opposed the potential management entity,
• 3 focused on the need to ensure that the proposed management entity represents all interests within the region, does not allow a single interest to dominate their discussions, and will be representative of the geographic scope of the proposed National Heritage Area, and
• 4 requested the entity ensure that the focus would be on the entire area, rather than on any individual sites(s).

The National Park Service agrees that representation of interests and area is essential to the success of the future heritage area. The potential management entity was judged to be capable of representing the variety of interests and locations within the region.

Comments on the Headquarters Location
Twelve public comments concerned the location of a headquarters for the proposed national heritage area.

• 9 suggested Trenton,
• 2 suggested the Van Horne House in Bridgewater, and
• 1 suggested Morristown National Historical Park.

The National Park Service does not involve itself with the location of offices of any management entity associated with a NHA. Office locations are determined by designated management entities or by authorizing legislation.

Requests for Inclusion of Additional Historical Information or Listing of Historic Resources in the Report
Ten comments requested the inclusion of additional information or a historic site.

• 6 requested additional history of 6 townships, 1 large landscape feature and 1 county, and
• 6 requested inclusion of 12 additional sites, 5 township inventories and 1 state park.

The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.

Numerous individuals and organizations submitted information during the course of the study regarding local Revolutionary War resources. The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet NHA criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources.

Requests for Corrections to Text and Map
Twenty-eight public comments proposed corrections to the history section of the report, Appendix B and/or C, and to the historical maps.

• 63 requested additions to the history section,
• 30 requested corrections to the text,
• 25 requested changes to the maps,
• 7 requested additions to resource listing in Appendix B, and
• 2 requested additions to resource listing in Appendix C.

Corrections to the report are contained in the Corrections sheet for this document - 4 corrections of spelling, 5 clarifications of locations or legends for charts, and 10 corrections of dates, names or locations. It is important to note that the maps are intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions, particularly of the march to Monmouth, are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the projects administrative record.

Miscellaneous Comments
Three comments discussed miscellaneous topics.

• 1 discussed a proposal for the Trenton Historical District,
• 1 pointed out the need for discussion with agricultural interests and landowners as the process continues, and
• 1 identified the need for a logo.

2. Public Comments, Responses and Preferred Boundary Proposal Map

2.2 Requests for Expansion of the Preferred Boundary Proposal

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Jennifer Feldman, Town of Clinton Historic Preservation Committee	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include in one additional township.	Thank you for identifying additional Revolutionary War resources. The preferred boundary already includes similar resources which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites -- like those in the Town of Clinton and Clinton Township, but outside of the preferred boundary.
James F. Hall, Palisades Interstate Park Commission	Requests listing additional historic routes and resources.	The study team believes that the British Hessian landing route and the beginning of the American retreat can be interpreted from those Fort Lee resources already included within the boundary.
Timothy G. Hart, Stafford Township Historical Society	Objects to the omission of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail areas and the Pinelands National Reserve within Ocean County.	A fundamental tenet of these heritage area proposals was not to include already federally designated areas within a boundary, where a federal or state agency has responsibility for resource protection, public education and heritage celebration. The report suggests that the designated management entity could partner with the federally designated New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission to protect and interpret Revolutionary War sites, buildings and landscapes in Ocean County and other associated locations.
Laurie Insel, Clinton Historic Preservation Committee	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include the entirety of one county.	Thank you for identifying additional Revolutionary War resources. The preferred boundary already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites, that are in Hunterdon County -- and especially Clinton and the Bonnell Tavern -- but outside of the preferred boundary.
Doug Kiovsky, Hunterdon County Department of Parks	Requests the expansion of the boundary proposal to include one additional site and an additional township.	Thank you for identifying additional Revolutionary War resources. The preferred boundary already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites, that include Union Furnace and sites in Union Township, Hunterdon County, but outside of the preferred boundary.
Lisa Macioci, Office of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.	Requests the expansion of the boundary proposal to include one additional site.	The Dey Mansion -- in Wayne, New Jersey -- is one of a number of headquarters sites used by General Washington and homes of notable New Jersey patriots that lies outside the preferred alternative boundary. This site is an additional example of a resource type already represented within the boundary, rather than a new type of resource not currently represented within the boundary. Consequently, the report suggests developing expanding programmatic relationships with the designated management entity of the potential national heritage area, rather than expanding the physical boundary.
Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders	Requests the expansion of the boundary proposal to include one additional site.	See comment above.
Passaic County Historical Society	Requests the expansion of the boundary proposal to include four additional historic sites.	The Dey Mansion, Schuyler-Colfax House, Ringwood Manor, and Long Pond Iron Works lie varying distances outside the preferred alternative boundary. These four sites are additional examples of resource types already represented within the boundary, rather than new types of resources not currently represented within the boundary. The report suggests developing expanding programmatic relationships with the designated management entity of the potential national heritage area.
Jim Raleigh	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include one additional county and the entirety of another one.	A fundamental tenet of these heritage area proposals was not to include already federally designated areas within a boundary, where a federal or state agency has responsibility for resource protection, public education and heritage celebration. The report suggests that the designated management entity could partner with the federally designated Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission to protect and interpret Revolutionary War sites, buildings and landscapes in Sandy Hook, Monmouth County and along Toms River and other sites in Ocean County.
Stephanie B. Stevens, Hunterdon County Cultural and Heritage Commission	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include the entirety of one county.	Thank you for identifying additional Revolutionary War resources. The preferred boundary already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites -- like those in Hunterdon County, but outside of the preferred boundary.
Township of Raritan	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include one additional historic site.	Thank you for identifying additional Revolutionary War resources. The preferred boundary already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites -- like the signal tower in Clinton -- but outside of the preferred boundary.
Kevin Tremble, Citizens Advisory Council, Palisades Interstate Park	Requests the inclusion of all, not representative segments, of historic resources.	The heritage area resources are representative in nature and do not necessarily include the entirety of any resource. This is true for these two resources in the northern end of the boundary proposal -- Fort Lee Historic Park and its environs represent the military landscape associated with Revolutionary War era Fort Lee and the southern end of the New Jersey section of the Palisades Interstate Park represents both the park and the route of the 1776 British and Hessian invasion.
	Requests listing of additional recreational and historic resources.	The New Jersey section of the Palisades Interstate Park does connect to other stories and sites that had an influence on the people and events of the Revolutionary War. The management planning process will provide the opportunity to identify related stories and discuss opportunities for collaborative action.
Township of Wayne	Requests the expansion of the boundary proposal to include two additional historic sites.	The Dey Mansion and the Schuyler-Colfax House lie outside the preferred alternative boundary. These two sites are additional examples of resource types already represented within the boundary, rather than new types of resources not currently represented within the boundary. Consequently, the report suggests developing expanding programmatic relationships with the designated management entity of the potential national heritage area, rather than expanding the physical boundary.
Michael Wing, Paterson Historic Preservation Commission	Requests the expansion of the boundary proposal to include one additional historic site.	The Dey Mansion lies outside the preferred alternative boundary. This site is an additional example of a resource type already represented within the boundary, rather than a new type of resource not currently represented within the boundary. The report suggests developing expanding programmatic relationships with the designated management entity of the potential national heritage area, rather than expanding the physical boundary.

2.3 Requests for Inclusions Within the Preferred Boundary Proposal

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Christopher "Kip" Bateman, Assemblyman	Requests the inclusion of all, not representative segments, of resources.	The entire Millstone River and Millstone Borough is included in the preferred boundary, but not the entirety of the Millstone River Valley Historic Scenic Corridor. Any place where the King's Highway crosses the Millstone River would also be included in the preferred boundary. These portions of the resources are capable of representing the resource and providing a viable visitor experience.
Jeanette K. Muser, Town Historian for Rocky Hill	Requests the inclusion of all, not representative segments, of resources.	See comment above.

2.4 Comments on the Blue Boundary Alternative Proposal

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Charles Dieterich, Kingston Greenways Association	Does not favor the Blue Boundary as it excludes historic resources and is not continuous.	A fundamental tenet of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal was to include the minimal number of resources that would meet national heritage area criteria and would illustrate the themes by providing a positive visitor experience. It was expected that this would result in a noncontiguous boundary proposal and would not include many Revolutionary War resources across the study area. Clearly, the Kingston area does include many resources, organizations and individuals that embrace resource protection, public education and heritage celebration and would enhance any effort initiated by future heritage area management entities.
Corrington Hwong, Kingston Historical Society	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include five additional "essential sites".	Thank you for identifying other Revolutionary War resources. The 25 essential sites are the minimum required to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. If there were additional themes or sub-themes identified during the management planning process, other sites could be designated as essential sites and those you identified could be considered. At this point the specific meaning of "essential sites" is that themes could not be illustrated without these sites at a minimum. Other sites would enrich the experience and could prove to be of equal or greater interest to the public. The inventory of sites and definition of their relationship with the potential management entity, heritage programs and other sites has yet to be identified. This is one of the first tasks in the management planning process that would occur if the Crossroads were designated as a national heritage area.
Wendy L. Mager, Friends of Princeton Open Space	Does not favor the Blue Boundary as it excludes historic resources and is not continuous.	A fundamental tenet of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal was to include the minimal number of resources that would meet national heritage area criteria and would illustrate the themes by providing a positive visitor experience. It was expected that this would result in a noncontiguous boundary proposal and would not include many Revolutionary War resources across the study area. Clearly, there are many resources along the D&R Canal not identified in this proposal; however, the preferred boundary already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites -- like the D&R Canal -- but outside of the boundary.
Sondra L. Moylan, Montgomery Township Committee	Does not favor the Blue Boundary as it excludes historic resources and is not continuous.	A fundamental tenet of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal was to include the minimal number of resources that would meet national heritage area criteria and would illustrate the themes by providing a positive visitor experience. It was expected that this would result in a noncontiguous boundary proposal and would not include many Revolutionary War resources across the study area. Clearly, there are many resources in Montgomery Township not identified in this proposal; however, the preferred boundary already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with landowners, organizations and communities that are interested in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts on related sites -- like those in Montgomery Township -- but outside of the boundary.
Joseph Nemeth	Proposes diamond plan -- Morristown NHP at the top, Monmouth Battlefield SP on the bottom, and other sites fan out east and west.	The diamond plan identifies essential resources that are included in both the Preferred Boundary and Blue Alternative Boundary proposals; however, it does not include resources that are capable of illustrating the broad range of themes identified in the report. Therefore, the two boundary proposals include a number of other sites in addition to those identified in the diamond plan. The determination where information centers will be is part of the management planning process and is not identified in this report.
Bonnie C. Sovinee, Meadows Foundation, Skylands Tourism Region	Requests expansion of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal to include a township.	Since the fundamental tenet of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal is to include the fewest number of resources that are capable of illustrating the themes, some of the Revolutionary War resources in Monmouth County were not included in this proposal. Clearly, these communities do contain many resources, organizations and individuals that could enhance any future resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts that would be initiated if the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal were designated. Franklin Township is included in both the Blue Alternative and Preferred Boundary proposals.
Township of Franklin	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include a township.	Franklin Township is included in both the Blue Alternative and Preferred Boundary proposals.
Township of Franklin, Historic Preservation Commission	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include a township.	See comment above.
Township of Montgomery	Requests expansion of the boundary proposal to include a township.	Since the fundamental tenet of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal is to include the fewest number of resources that are capable of illustrating the themes, the Revolutionary War resources of the Township of Montgomery were not included in this proposal. Clearly, these communities do contain many resources, organizations and individuals that could enhance any future resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts that would be initiated if the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal were designated.
Township of South Brunswick	Requests expansion of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal to include a township.	Since the fundamental tenet of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal is to include the fewest number of resources that are capable of illustrating the themes, the Revolutionary War resources of the Township of South Brunswick were not included in this proposal. Clearly, these communities do contain many resources, organizations and individuals that could enhance any future resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts that would be initiated if the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal were designated.
Township of West Amwell	Requests expansion of the Blue Alternative Boundary proposal to include a township.	Since the fundamental tenet of the Blue Boundary Alternative is to include the fewest number of resources that are capable of illustrating the themes, the Revolutionary War resources of the Township of West Amwell were not included in this proposal. Clearly, these communities do contain many resources, organizations and individuals that could enhance any future resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts that would be initiated if the Blue Boundary Alternative were designated.
Anne Zeman, Joint Township Advisory Committee for the Village of Kingston	Requests a contiguous boundary proposal and expansion to include an additional 5 essential sites.	A fundamental tenet of this boundary proposal was to include the minimal number of resources that would meet national heritage area criteria and would illustrate the themes by providing a positive visitor experience. It was expected that this would result in a noncontiguous boundary proposal and would not include many Revolutionary War resources across the study area. The five sites in the Kingston area do not represent new themes or resource types not already included in the original 25 essential sites. Clearly, the Kingston area does include many resources, organizations and individuals that could enhance any future resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts that would be initiated if the Blue Boundary proposal would be designated.

2.5 Comments on the Potential Management Entity

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Charles Dieterich	Concerned that management plan is biased and favors representation from state and county.	The management plan would be developed by the potential management entity that reflects the interests and geographic range of the heritage area. It is in the interest of this organization to represent all groups fairly and not allow a single interest to dominate the discussion.
Donald N. Esposito, Cultural & Heritage Commission of the County of Somerset	Supports the management entity.	Thank you for your comment.
Township of Franklin	Primary goal should address interests of the entire heritage area's development rather than the development of particular sites, with possibly a joint commission of state and county representatives.	The goal of the management plan is to support resource preservation, public education and heritage celebration throughout the entire heritage area. It is likely that the type of activity and level of involvement will vary among sites depending on their capacity to participate and articulate their needs. It is in the interest of this organization to represent all groups fairly and not allow a single interest to dominate the discussion.
Marion O. Harris, Morris County Trust for Historic Preservation	Offers suggestions with respect to the implementation of a grant program.	This level of detail is not part of this study and would be part of the management planning process in any future designated heritage area. Your suggestion will be passed along to the potential management entity for consideration in the management plan should the heritage area be designated.
Township of Montgomery	Primary goal should address interests of the entire heritage area's development rather than the development of particular sites, with possibly a joint commission of state and county representatives.	See comment above.
John Rigolizzo Jr., New Jersey Farm Bureau	Concerned that the management entity does not have firsthand knowledge of the realities of farming and farmland preservation.	The management plan would be developed by the potential management entity that reflects the interests and geographic range of the heritage area. It is in the interest of this group to include individuals, organizations and public agencies that do have firsthand knowledge of farming and farmland preservation. Your suggestion will be passed along to the potential management entity for consideration in the management plan should the national heritage area be designated.
Township of South Brunswick	Primary goal should address interests of the entire heritage area's development rather than the development of particular sites, with possibly a joint commission of state and county representatives.	The management plan would be developed by the potential management entity that reflects the interests and geographic range of the heritage area. It is in the interest of this organization to represent all groups fairly and not allow a single interest to dominate the discussion.
Township of West Amwell	Primary goal should address interests of the entire heritage area's development rather than the development of particular sites, with possibly a joint commission of state and county representatives.	See comment above.
Anne Zeman, Joint Township Advisory Committee for the Village of Kingston	Management entity should be fully independent and more geographically representative.	See comment above.

2.6 Recommendations on the Location of the Headquarters

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Randy Baum, Trees for Trenton	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	The decision for the location of the headquarters will be determined by the potential management entity or by the authorizing legislation.
Randy Baum, Baum Land Designs, Inc.	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Francis E. Blanco, Department of Recreation, Natural Resources and Culture, City of Trenton	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
David E. Collier, Trenton Historical Society	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Donald N. Esposito, Cultural & Heritage Commission of the County of Somerset	Proposes the Van Horne House in Bridgewater Township be used as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Cathy Frank-White, Greater Mercer County Chamber of Commerce	Proposes the City of Trenton and Morristown NHP as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Mea Kaemmerlen	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Donna Lewis, Mercer County Planning Division	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area and house a visitor center.	See comment above.
Brian Navatto, Somerset County Planning Board	Proposes the Van Horne House in Bridgewater Township be used as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor, City of Trenton	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
M. M. Pernot, The William Trent House	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.
Jean Shaddow, Department of Recreation, Natural Resources & Culture, City of Trenton	Proposes the City of Trenton as headquarters of the national heritage area.	See comment above.

2.7 Requests for Listing Additional Sites or Including Additional Historical Information

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Jack Alter, Mayor, Borough of Fort Lee	Requests listing additional historic resources.	The Borough of Fort Lee is included in the Preferred Boundary proposal; therefore Fort Lee Monument Park would also be included in the Preferred Boundary proposal.
Helen Barrett	Requests inclusion of additional history.	Thank you for identifying Union Township's and Pittstown's influence on the Revolutionary War and the remaining Revolutionary War resources. The Preferred Boundary proposal already includes similar resources, which are able to illustrate the themes and provide a positive visitor experience. The report suggests that the designated management entity for the potential heritage area collaborate with managers of additional sites outside of the Preferred Boundary proposal for resource protection, public education and heritage celebration efforts.
Ursula Brecknell, Historian of Montgomery Township	Requests listing additional historic resources.	Montgomery Township is included in the Preferred Boundary proposal; therefore Montgomery Township's historic roads would also be included in the Preferred Boundary proposal.
Belleville Historical Society	Requests inclusion of additional history and listing of additional historic resources.	Belleville Township is included in the Preferred Boundary proposal; therefore the Dutch Reformed Church Cemetery in Belleville, which contains the graves of 60 Revolutionary War soldiers, would also be included in the Preferred Boundary proposal.
William Brahms, Historian of Franklin Township	Requests inclusion of additional history.	Thank you for your information on Franklin Township's Revolutionary War history. The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
Bob Donohue, The Fort Lee Historic Sites, Structure, Cultural and Landmarks Committee	Requests listing additional historic resources.	Fort Lee Monument Park and Museum are included in the Preferred Boundary proposal; therefore this resource would also be included. The report is not meant to include a comprehensive listing of resources. It investigated an appropriate number and quality of resources necessary to determine adherence to national heritage area designation criteria.
Timothy G. Hart, Stafford Township Historical Society	Requests inclusion of additional history.	Thank you for your information about the Revolutionary War history of Ocean County. The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
Carol Lutchen, Historian of Leonia Borough	Requests inclusion of additional history and listing of additional historic resources.	Leonia Borough is included in the Preferred Boundary proposal, therefore the Cole-Byd House, the sculpture in front of the Leonia Presbyterian Church, the painting at Anna C. Scott school, a historic marker, and the Moore House would also be included. The report is not meant to include a comprehensive listing of resources. It investigated an appropriate number and quality of resources necessary to determine adherence to national heritage area designation criteria.
Sondra L. Moylan, Montgomery Township Committee	Requests listing additional historic resources.	Montgomery Township, Hopewell Township and Delaware and Raritan State Park are included in the Preferred Boundary proposal, therefore the Crossroads Trail from Hopewell Township (through Montgomery Township) to Delaware and Raritan State Park (as shown in the Montgomery Township Master Plan); the farmstead of John van Dike as listed in the Montgomery Township Open Space Plan; and the historic marker for "Washington Well" and CR 518 (Georgetown-Washington Turnpike) and Scenic Byway CR 533 (River Road) for their important Revolutionary War roles would also be included within the boundary proposal.
Jane Tousman	Requests inclusion of additional history.	The Battle of Short Hills is recognized in the report and a representative location included in the Preferred Boundary proposal. The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.

2.8 Requests for Corrections to Text and Maps

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Maynett C. Breithaupt, Princeton Township Historic Preservation Commission	Requests three corrections to maps (pp. 18, 23, and 26).	The maps were intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the record of the report. This explanatory statement is included in the Corrections sheet.
	Requests changes to Appendix B chart (p. 95).	This King's Highway Historic District listing was intended to reflect all of the towns and counties included within this national heritage area designation and all are included in the Preferred Boundary proposal.
Margaret C. Carlsen, Rockingham State Historic Site	Requests three corrections to text (pp. 15, 42, and 52).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests inclusion of additional history and resources (pp. 8, 15, and 92).	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
Charles Dieterich	Requests three corrections to maps (pp. 18, 23, and 26).	The maps were intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the record of the report.
City of Lambertville	Requests listing of additional historic resources in text and Appendix B chart (pp. 93 to 98).	Thank you for your information about Revolutionary War resources in the Lambertville area. The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet national heritage area criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources.
Kathy Fisher, Montville Historical Society	Requests addition of a key to Appendix B chart (pp. 93 to 98).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
Jennifer Feldman, Town of Clinton Historic Preservation Committee	Requests one addition to Appendix B chart (pp. 93 to 98).	Thank you for your information about the Bonnell Tavern. Your information will be passed on to the potential management entity.
Edward E. Fox, III	Requests clarification on how other areas will protect Revolutionary War resources (p. 7).	The potential management entity will develop resource conservation, interpretation and celebration partnerships with other public agencies and sites -- especially the state parks at Washington Crossing, Princeton Battlefield and Monmouth Battlefield, the Pinelands Commission, and the National Park Service units at Morristown, Sandy Hook and the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. The New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry and the National Park Service have legislative mandates to protect resources and provide for public education about the Revolutionary War at their sites. The Pinelands Commission administers regulations to protect all cultural resources within the Pinelands National Reserve, including those related to the Revolutionary War.
	Requests changes to text (p. 47).	The Hillman Hospital National Heritage Area designation is part of the National Register of Historic Places files at the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office. Your information will be passed along to the potential management entity for their consideration during the management plan should the heritage area be designated.
	Requests additions to the list of essential sites (p. 50).	The Indian King Tavern does not provide a resource type or opportunity for interpretation of the theme not currently represented by the 25 essential sites. Your information will be passed along to the potential management entity for consideration during the management plan should the heritage area be designated.
	Requests clearer symbols to denote large protected areas, such as the Pinelands National Reserve.	Your concern will be forwarded to the potential management entity for their consideration when developing future resource and implementation maps.
Timothy G. Hart, Stafford Township Historical Society	Requests two corrections to Appendix B chart (pp. 92 and 97).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests inclusion of additional history and listing of historic resources.	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
Corrington Hwong, Kingston Historical Society	Requests corrections to maps (pp. 18, 23, and 26).	The maps were intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the record of the report.
	Believes boundaries indicate a "Princeton Bias" to honor Princeton for history that did not occur there.	There is no attempt to present a biased history.
Corrington Hwong, Kingston Historical Society	Requests correction to Appendix B.	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document. The appendix section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Disappointed by inaccuracies and insufficient research in history.	Thank you for your comment.
Dorothy P. Guzzo, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office	Requests six corrections to text (pp. 16, 17, 20, 32, 47, and 52).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests inclusion of additional history and listing of historic resources (pp. 19, 25 and 48).	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Requests clarification of use of image (p. 22).	It is not the intent of this study to propagate false historical narrative and the study team agrees in the importance of relying on historical fact. However, there is a role for the Molly Pitcher story in this effort and she is recognized by the state of New Jersey in other commemorative efforts.
Patricia Knobloch, Salem County Cultural & Heritage Commission	Requests correction of Appendix C first chart (p. 99).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
David C. Munn, Historical Consultant	Requests inclusion of additional history and listing of historic resources.	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
Jeanette K. Muser, Historian for Town of Rocky Hill	Requests two corrections to Appendix B chart (pp.52 and 97)	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests inclusion of additional history and listing of historic resources.	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
Joseph Nemeth	Requests one correction to two maps (pp.72 and 73)	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
Elizabeth Ann Palius, Millstone Valley Preservation Coalition	Notes the recent National Heritage Area designation of the Millstone Valley as Scenic/Historic Byway	The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet national heritage area criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources.
Spencer Peck	Believes that Hunterdon County is underrepresented and requests listing of additional historic sites.	The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet national heritage area criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources.
Nancy Piwowar, Cultural & Heritage Commission, City of Plainfield	Requests expanding history section and interpretive themes regarding women and African Americans and requests inclusion of additional history.	The study team recognizes the important role played by women and minorities in the Revolutionary War and believes that these important historic stories are included within the Rendezvous for Rebellion theme.
Jim Raleigh	Chronology should begin at an earlier date than identified in the report.	Chronology begins at date generally accepted to be beginning of the Revolutionary War. Connections to earlier stories and sites that had an influence on the people and events of the Revolutionary War will be recognized during the management planning process.
	Requests the addition of the role of France and Spain in international commerce, the importance of Lafayette to the Revolution and the importance of maritime trade as interpretive themes.	These are all-important themes to the American Revolution in New Jersey. As the themes for the national heritage area are defined, these may be considered.
	Roads are part of known sacred recognized Indian sites in New Jersey and should be discussed in more detail.	Sacred sites are identified by federally recognized Native American tribes and the National Register of Historic Places as places that are sacred "by virtue of their established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion." While roads are were critical to the life and well-being of Native Americans and later European settlers, they are not in and of themselves considered sacred sites. In addition, transportation and the road system are recognized in the Revolutionary Landscape theme.
	Cover art should reflect history rather than legend.	It is not the intent of this study to propagate false historical narrative and the study team agrees in the importance of relying on historical fact. However, there is a role for the Molly Pitcher story in this effort and she is recognized by the state of New Jersey in other commemorative efforts.
Ralph Siegel	Requests that the Battle of Trenton be more directly acknowledged.	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Requests that interpretation take top priority as the chief mission of the national heritage area.	Interpretation is a critical element of a heritage area; however, it is not the only goal of a heritage area. It is equally important to encourage resource conservation and the celebration of heritage.
E.A. Smyk, Passaic County Historian	Requests corrections to text (p. 49).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
Township of Raritan	Requests the addition of the "Old Hunterdon County" map.	Thank you for your comment. The proposal will be passed on to the potential management entity.
Kevin Tremble, Citizens Advisory Council, Palisades Interstate Park	Requests two additions to text.	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Requests 16 additions to the report.	The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet national heritage area criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources. Similarly, affected environment section of the report identified that there were an adequate number of regional agencies capable of working in the area and actively interested in the topic. This was not intended to be a comprehensive listing. The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Requests one correction (p. 47).	Correction is noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests clarification of the Appendix B chart (p. 93).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
Kevin Tremble and Robert Griffin	Requests 22 additions to text.	The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether national heritage area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Requests two corrections (pp. 13 and 47).	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
Union County Division of Cultural & Heritage Affairs	Requests one correction to Appendix B chart (p. 97).	Correction is noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests one correction to maps (pp. 72 and 73).	The maps were intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the record of the report.
	Requests two additions to text.	The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet national heritage area criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources.
Robert von Zumbusch	Requests multiple corrections to text.	The study team in its analysis determined that the number of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places sites were by themselves sufficient to meet national heritage area criteria relating to a sufficient assemblage of resources. The history section of the report was intended as an overview to permit evaluation of the events in New Jersey for the purposes of determining whether National Heritage Area criteria could be met. It was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the people and events of that period.
	Requests one correction to map (p. 18).	The maps were intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the record of the report.
Anne Zeman, Joint Township Advisory Committee for the Village of Kingston	Requests that the names of meeting participants be listed in Chapter 10.	Listing of the meeting participants is on record in the Philadelphia Support Office.
	Requests five corrections of maps (pp. 17, 18, 23, 26 and 72).	The maps were intended to be illustrations of the general movements of the American and British armies, not exact routes. More accurate depictions are in the possession of the National Park Service and are part of the record of the report.
	Requests seven corrections to text (pp. 42, 51, 52, 54,)	Corrections are noted and included in the Corrections sheet in this document.
	Requests clarification of map (p. 72) and township listing (p. 100).	Franklin, Piscataway, and Perth Amboy are listed in the township listing because they contain an essential site, but they are only identified on the map with a star and a blue circle because the entire township is not included in the boundary.

2.9 Miscellaneous Comments

Name and Organization	Summary of Comment	Response
Jim Raleigh	A logo might be useful in the future for the national heritage area. Use a symbol of success or something related to roads.	Thank you for your comment. This will be passed on to the potential management entity.
John Rigolizzo Jr., New Jersey Farm Bureau	Raised concern that farmland owners may develop opposition to the proposal -- from false assumptions -- if they don't know how the national heritage area designation could affect their agricultural operation, home and community.	It is important that accurate information be distributed to farmland owners and other landowners in the potential heritage area. It will be among the first tasks of the potential management entity to work with organizations, public agencies, and individuals to discuss landowner concerns.
	Raised concern that public access through agricultural fields or changes to Revolutionary War era crops would have a negative financial impact on farm families.	Participation in a national heritage area by property owners is voluntary and should not have a negative financial impact on them.
	NJ Agricultural Society, the NJ Museum of Agriculture, the NJ Farm Bureau Board of Directors, or the NJ Agricultural Experiment Station Board of Managers have an interest in this area and could be partners if contacted.	Thank you for your comment. This will be passed on to the potential management entity.
Ralph Siegel	Offers a proposal for the Trenton Battlefield Historic District.	Thank you for your comment. The proposal will be passed on to the potential management entity.

CORRECTIONS SHEET

PREFERRED BOUNDARY PROPOSAL MAP

The Preferred Boundary Proposal remains the same as depicted on page 73 in the Crossroads of the American Revolution: Special Resource Study, National Heritage Area Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (August 2002). A copy of that map is included here as a general reference.

The National Park Service proposes not to change the existing management of the nationally significant resources within the boundary of Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey by the inclusion of such resources within the national park system. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NPS Director’s Order 12 to determine the extent to which this national heritage area proposal (red boundary) and its alternatives will significantly impact the environment.

Purpose

The purpose of this action is to determine if the study area met the criteria for a new area of the national park system, and if not, whether a national heritage area approach to resource conservation, public education and heritage celebration was feasible.

Context

New Jersey was the crossroads of the American Revolution. Not only was New Jersey the primary north/south land route within the American colonies; but also, it was situated between the British headquarters in New York City and the rebel capital of Philadelphia. Consequently, two winter encampments for Washington and the Colonial Army and for the British Army, four major battles between the American and British armies, and 290 smaller engagements between units of the British army, partisan militias and individuals occurred on New Jersey soil from 1776 to 1781. This occupation by the armies resulted in a continuous civil war between individuals and communities throughout New Jersey who were loyal to the Crown and those who wanted independence for the American colonies from the beginning of the war at Bunker Hill until the British surrender in Yorktown.

The study area is comprised of fifteen counties between Bergen and Passaic counties in the north and Camden and Gloucester counties in the south. It is within this area that most of the Revolutionary War activities occurred in New Jersey and a preponderance of the extant Revolutionary War-era resources exist. This area includes a national park, five state parks, thirteen National Historic Landmarks, and more than 250 other National Register of Historic Places sites and districts all that have resources of the Revolutionary War period and many whose protection is predicated on its importance in the Revolutionary War. This study area has also received the attention of state and federal commissions established to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the 225th anniversary of the American Revolution, as well as, historic societies, schools and museums efforts to support monuments, educational programs, exhibits and publications all relating to Revolutionary War themes. Finally, there is a substantial effort by land trusts, foundations and state agencies to protect open space resources and agricultural landscapes, many of which have Revolutionary War values.

In the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill (Public Law 106-113), the United States Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a special resource study in central New Jersey related to the events of the Revolutionary War. The goal of the study was to determine if the region met the criteria for a new area of the national park system, and if not, whether a national heritage area approach to resource conservation, public education and heritage celebration was suitable and feasible.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered
The National Park Service proposed action is a finding that the study area does not meet the criteria as potential unit of the national park system (see Special Resource Study Determinations section below) and a finding that the designation of a national heritage area using the red boundary proposal (see National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Determinations section below) is suitable and feasible.

Special Resource Study Determinations: The Special Resource Study made four determinations and concluded that there should be no recommendation for designation of a national park. The four determinations are:

1. while nationally significant individual resources exist within the study area, as a whole, the landscape does not meet National Park Service criteria for significance or integrity;
2. since there are similar resources adequately represented in the national park system already, the resources do not meet National Park Service criteria for suitability;
3. due to the encroachment of urbanization, the contiguity of the individual resources, the scale of the study area and the amount of resource protection already provided by the state, land trusts and other organizations, it does not meet the National Park Service criteria for feasibility; and therefore
4. since there are many individuals, nonprofit organizations and county and/or state agencies conserving many of the critical sites and landscapes, there is no need for National Park Service to manage any of the significant Revolutionary War resources, beyond Morristown NHP, within the study area. However, due to the importance of the story, the significance of the resources and the potential for loss from development and deterioration, there is a federal interest in resource protection, public education and heritage celebration of the resources of the study area.

1. the use of existing National Park Service authorities was not acceptable because it would not substantially retard the loss of resources and would not likely lead to a cohesive and readily understandable visitor experience; and
2. a national heritage area approach could provide the opportunity for increased resource protection, a unified and easily understandable visitor experience, and expand the opportunity for education and celebration. Therefore, the study assessed the resources using the interim National Park Service criteria for determining the feasibility of a national heritage area.

1. The blue boundary includes the fewest number of resources and smallest land area that is capable of providing a representative experience for all the themes. It would provide an opportunity to protect the resources most essential to interpreting the themes. This boundary is not contiguous and this proposal had limited opportunity for partnership and for leveraging funds provided by the federal government.
2. The red boundary was identified as the preferred alternative and, following assessment of the public comment, is the selected action. This boundary proposal includes many more resources, represents more potential themes, and includes almost three times the number of local jurisdictions. By being contiguous, it has the potential for being easier for the visitor to understand and to navigate and by including many different types of resources, it has the potential of being a richer experience appealing to a wider audience. This proposal engages many more potential partners and significantly increases the potential for leveraging funds provided by the federal government.

Significance Criteria
Section 1508.27 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires federal decision-makers to consider ten criteria when determining whether the impacts of an action may be significant. Based on these criteria, the proposed action will not have significant effect on the human environment. For this reason, no environmental impact statement needs to be prepared. These criteria, and a brief synopsis of their application to the proposed action with references to the Environmental Assessment, are listed below.

1. Impacts that may have both beneficial and adverse aspects and which on balance may be beneficial, but that may still have significant adverse impacts which require analysis in an EIS. There are no adverse impacts on cultural or natural resources. This proposal has the potential for positive impact by encouraging collaboration among a large number of interested parties, thereby increasing the level of support for conservation, increasing the potential audiences for education and engaging more communities in celebration of our common heritage.
2. The degree to which public health and safety are affected. Public health and safety are not expected to be affected by this proposal.
3. The degree to which any unique characteristics of the area (proximity to historic or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas, wetlands or floodplains, etc.) would be adversely affected. The proposed action would protect unique historic and cultural resources related to the Revolutionary War in New Jersey. No wetlands, floodplains or ecologically critical areas would be adversely affected.
4. The degree to which impacts are likely to be highly controversial. Public comments indicate that this project and its impacts are not controversial. They indicate a high level of support from individuals, organizations and communities interested in the study area.
5. The degree to which the potential impacts are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The potential impacts of this project are fairly predictable and do not involve unique or unknown risks.
6. Whether the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This action involves unique resources and thus does not establish a precedent or represent a decision about a future consideration.
7. Whether the action is related to other actions that may have individual insignificant impacts but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance can not be avoided by terming an action temporary or breaking it down into small component parts. This action stands alone.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect historic properties in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or other significant scientific, archeological or cultural resources. Consultation on cultural resources has been completed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with the following agencies and federally recognized Native American tribes: the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, the New Jersey Archeology and Ethnology Bureau, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Moravian Band of the Delaware Nation, Munsey Delaware Nation, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin and the New Jersey Commission on American Indian Affairs. None of these entities have made a comment on our finding that this project will result in no adverse effect on these types of resources.
9. The degree to which an action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat. Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection identified 11 endangered or threatened species and one species of concern within the study area. Federally and state-protected species are not expected to be adversely affected by this proposal.
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. This project complies with all known federal, state and local laws.

Impairment
The NPS believes that the proposed National Park Service actions or cumulative actions by the National Park Service and its partners that would not result in the impairment of park resources and is consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act. As further actions are identified, more detailed assessment will be undertaken for National Park Service Actions in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, and with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and other laws and policies as soon as possible prior to implementation.

Public Involvement
The public scoping process included scoping letters to more than 500 individuals, organizations and public agencies, public notification of scoping meetings in four regional newspapers and two sets of public scoping meetings (Burlington, Middletown, Trenton, Morristown and Princeton in April 2001 and Elizabeth, Haddonfield, Flemington, Somerset, Allentown and Morristown in July 2001). A website was maintained by the National Park Service and another site was periodically updated with new documents and notices of future meetings and publications. The website also included the draft document, the EA, directions to get hard copies of the draft document, and as a mechanism to receive public written comment.

The draft EA was made available for public and agency comment between August 6, 2002, and September 12, 2002. The availability of the document was announced in regional newspapers and a copy of the document was available online. More than 850 documents were sent to individuals, organizations and public agencies that requested copies.

A third set of public meetings was held in August 2002 (Fort Lee, Morristown, Trenton and Westmont) to summarize the resource assessments and proposed recommendations and to collect public concerns, changes and additions to the draft document. Many comments were expressed during the meetings and 156 written comments were subsequently received by ground and electronic mail. Generally, these comments were supportive of the effort, the boundary and/or the management entity. The written comments were summarized and responded to in the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey Public Comment Document (October 2002).

Decision
The red boundary national heritage area proposal was selected because it provides the greatest opportunity for resource protection, engages the greatest diversity of audiences and provides the broadest range of stories. It also has the potential to interest the largest number of partners, garner the most public support, and therefore have the greatest possibility of success. All other proposals would have a significantly lower opportunity for resource protection, public education and/or heritage celebration.

Based on the summary above, this red boundary national heritage area proposal will not have a significant effect on the human environment. For this reason, no Environmental Impact Statement needs to be prepared. All necessary reviews have been completed and the project can proceed consistent with the description of the preferred alternative in the Environmental Assessment.