A702 • Appendix 5-1 APPENDIX 5-1 PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 4(F) CONSIDERATION Appendix 5-1, Properties Excluded from Section 4(f) Consideration, details the properties initially considered, but determined as not qualifying for protection under Section 4(f). A brief description of each property is provided, followed by reasons for the determinations. Appendix 5-1 w ill follow the Ten Percent Rule (Estergard, 2005) . RSO' s primary purpose is habitat restoration, not recreation; therefore, it is not eligible for Section 4(£) consideration under this criterion. Legend 4(1,1 Prope!lj' Yloalarn S.clion Altotnotivea c::J 5tuc% Area - W55 W71 - W WIWFR - W101W99 - W101CPR W1~1 WPA Publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges are also eligible for consideration under Section 4 (£); however, RSO has not been o fficially designated as such by a federal, state, or local agency and therefore, is not eligible for Section 4(£) consideration under this crite non (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). Recreation and Public Purposes Act Parcel Wt01CFR Description W101EPR W101EFR Eaa1.rn SectlonAIInnative El N A o mtt SIK:Uon 411) 1 nd 6(1) Ro port Rio Salado Oeste Western Section On May 18,2004, the C ity of Phoenix received a Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPPA) Lease from the Bu reau of Land Management (BLM) for a 159.32-acre parcel of land located in the Salt River channel between 67th and 59th avenues (Figure A -2). The legal location of this parcel is N 1/ 2 , SE1!4, NE1!4, SW 1!4, and Lot 3 of Section 30 of T ownship 1 North, Range 2 East (BLM, 2004d). The RPPA parcel was leased to the City of Phoenix as an addition to the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project (BLM 2004a & 2004b). According to the Environmental Assessment undertaken by the BLM for the lease, the C ity of Phoenix would use the land fo r restoring native vegetation, environmental education, and recreation. The City would improve and manage the land in accordance with the p lan of development and management submitted b y the C ity titled, Proposed Rio Salado Oeste H abitat Restoration Project (BLM, EA 2004c) . Impacts MARICOPA COUNTY south Mo unt• in Fl89way Transportation Corridor Study DRAFT: June 2006 &:u..ft .~=.tn na::spa.l•!.:nt:a«rr TRAC8N4. 2_X!!.. .w! C~'H.!7~ C::!.!. ~f;'~~~~'!L' FigURl A-1 Plllle A-2 The WSS A lternative would cross the Salt River and would thus directly affect the RPP A parcel. Section 4(f) Eligibility Upon review, the RPPA parcel, as a part ofRSO, should not be considered a Section 4(£) property under eithe r designation for reasons explained below. The EA indicates that RSO would include multi-use trails, scenic overlooks, wildlife viewing blinds, interpretive signage, environmental education facility w ith outdoor classrooms, water wells and reservoirs, irrigatio n system, park maintenance facility, intermittent stream, native riparian habitat and erosion contro l structures. Since the RPPA parcel would include multip le uses within the context of the RSO, the USACE Ten Percent Rule would apply and recreation, as defined by Section 4(£), would not be the sole or primary use of the property. Therefore, RPPA parcel as part of RSO wou ld not be afforded Sectio n 4 (£) consideration. The RPPA parcel has not been designated as a wildlife and waterfowl refuge by a federal, state, or local agency and therefore, is not eligible for Section 4(£) consideration under this criterion (U.S Fish and W ild life Service, 2005). • A703 A704 • Appendix 5-1 Legend 4;'f) Propeny wea-e m Seeton All!met~l RECJ=I:9 iTKH & PU3LI: PUR?OSE ACT lANO - \V55 The RPPA of 1954, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869, et seq-) autho rizes the sale o r lease of public lands for recreational or public purposes to state and local governments o r qualifying nonp rofit o rganizations. Examples of typical uses under the RPPA are historic monument sites, campgrounds, schoo ls, fire stations, municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, and parks (BL M, 2004d). Roads, unless within a State Park, are not an authorized public purpose under the RPPA (43 U .S.C Title 23, §2741. 7), therefore, none of the SMTC alternatives and options would be an acceptable use under the RPP A W71 Salt River Project 99th Avenue Lateral W IOl~ - WIOli\FR - Wi 01M9 - W101C?R Description \'Y101CfR w m t S'R W~Ota:R E.allemseedon A'hei'IVItrvt El N A The Salt River Project (SRP) 99 th Avenue lateral is a segment of open, un lined SRP canal that extends from Lower Buckeye Road for 0.5 miles along the east side o f 99th Av enu e (Figure A-3). The SRP system is recognized as N RHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the dev elopment of irrigatio n agriculture in the Salt River Valley. Earthen canals such as the 99th Avenue lateral, were once common irrigation features throughout the Salt River Valley, but are becoming increasing rare as they have been lined and piped underground to accommodate urban development (Brodbec k and Touchin, 2005) . Impacts Dmft 5ectlon 4(1) • nd G(l) Ropon Rio Salado Oeste and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act Parcel MARICOPA COUNTY South Mounta in F""'way Corridor Study Tronspotta~on ORA.FT: JUM20015 FigUIII A-2 PageA-4. The W101WPR, W 101W FR, and W 10 1W99 options would result in an actual use of the SRP 99th Av enue lateral (Figure A-3). Section 4(f) Eligibility The SRP 99th Avenue lateral is eligible for consideration as an historic property. H owever, the SRP 99th Avenue lateral should not be considered a Section 4(£) property for reasons explained below. The SRP 99th Av enue lateral 1s be ing converted to an underground pipe m response to urban dev elopment. The south half of the canal is in the process of being p1ped underground as part of the Pecan Promenade dev elopment proJeCt on the northeast co rner of 99th Avenue and Lowe r Buckeye Road. The north half is slated to be piped underground as part of the City of Phoenix's Estrella District Park (see Property Number 28 - Estrella District Park, Western Sectio n) . Estrella District Park' s completion date is dependent upon the results of the March 2006 Bond Election Q. Anderson, pers. comm., 28 March 200 5). The bonds passed in March 2006; ho weve r, there is currently no information as to timing and dispersal of funds. To date, the City of Phoenix has not requested SRP pipe the northern portio n of the 99th Av enue lateral (B. Sampson, pers comm., 16 Sept. 2005). The SRP 99th Avenue lateral is being converted to an underground pipe in response to urban development. The south half of the canal is in the process of being p iped as part of the Pecan Promenade dev elopment project on the northeast corner of 99 th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road. The north half is slated to be piped undergro und as part o f the City of Phoenix's E strella District Park (see Property No.15 Estrella Park). SRP and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are currently in the process of p reparing a report for the canal Appendix 5-1 d ocum e nting it s history and engineering as a form of mitigatio n. Upon completion o f these projects, the 99th Avenue lateral w ill no longer be co nside red a contributing component o f the overall eligibility of the SRP irrigatio n n etwork. The timmg o f the piping of th e north p o rtion of the 99th Av enu e lateral is dependent upon the March 2006 Bond E lection. T o d ate, the timing and dispersal o f funding h as no t been dete rmined. It is a n ticipated that the 99th Av enue lateral w ill not be eligible for Section 4(£) protection for the follow ing reasons: 1) T he piping is planned as part of Estrella District P ark; o nce piped the lateral w ill no longer be NRHP-e ligible; and 2) SRP and the B OR are in the process of m itigating the canal. City of Phoenix Trails System Description The City of Phoenix General Plan 2001 shows an extensive network of existing and planned trails throughout the city (Figure A-4). According to the General Plan, "the trail alternatives a nd crossmg locations are conceptual an d must remain flexible to acco mmo d ate future d evelopment'' (City of Phoe nix, 2005) . Impacts The Eastern and Western Section action alternatives and options would result in a direct use of several City of Phoenix trails. Section 4(f) Eligibility T he C ity of Phoenix Trails would be eligible for consideration as recreation areas. Howev er, these trails should not be considered Section 4(£) resources for reasons explained below. A ccording to Goal 4 in the Circulation E lem e nt of the General P lan, "Since a pproximately 40 percent of a ll trips a re less than two miles in length, bicycling and walking can help relieve roadway congestion. Bicycling an d walking can be practical fo r all types of trips, su ch as to the grocery store, t he v ideo rental store and school. These trips can be made either o n roads o r off roads o n separate paths" (Phoenix, 2005c). This statement in the General Plan mdicates that pedestrian t rails maintained by the C ity o f Phoenix are u sed for transportation and thus are n o t p rimarily recreational. Legend Draft Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report D 4 (f) Property ~ W1 01WPR tZZ' 1 W1 01W99 V/'?J W1 01WFR Salt River Project Unpiped Portion of the 99th Avenue Lateral Aeri al Photography Date: Winter 2005 DRAFT: June 2006 Figure A-3 ! Page A -6 ~~:;;~~~:;.;_~.;~~·'_:: - _j T he R ecreation E lem e nt of the General Plan further indicates that the City, in cooperation with privat e d evelopers is w o rking t o prov id e trails. If trails are built on p rivate land and m aintained by the dev elop ers, the trails wou ld not b e subject to Section 4 (£) protection. O w nership information is curren tly unavailab le from the City of P hoenix. The C ity of Phoenix has received Transpo rtatio n Enhancement Activ ities (fE A) Funds for d evelopment/ improvem en t of their trails. T EA funds are not available for trails that are solely recreationa~ therefore these trails would not be considered Se ction 4(£). • A705 A706 • Appendix 5-1 City of Phoenix Trails are not considered Section 4(f) properties, however, the City has requested that regardless of the selected alternative, the existing and proposed trails be accommodated by providing wider bridges, pedestrian-equestrian tunnels, and other accommodations to preserve proposed and established trails network (City of Phoenix, 2005). These requests are not addressed under Section 4(f)_ Logend _ • •, GRiCBoud:rt c:J SWo/A.., ~Coin:; T..U. SogMnt ~ On;. -&.nOte» Tr&.'l WtO, V.? R - Eqtt-S:n OdoM r i41p11. Trd.s . . WIOWiFR - KN·:Sw. C"~t~:-.'IUO:c:p• Tl'liJD ~ Rl\o'S:. Public schools whose recreation areas are accessib le to the public for walk-on activity a re WIO~'it"99 - S"~y ~Gr;mci Cand - Schools Excluded from Section 4(F) Consideration W71 Sw.,.Sa'!Cbd'.a~ Tr.da S"alf NN-Roo:awtl C• MI Wt OICPR WIOICFR WlOIEPA r.ttNn Staloi ,_NM '" j) &.000 i_ t!III:I~ IIIQJ.:II' 1 Fh 1 !2.1XOII111I ~~ Sectio n 6(£) o f the Land and W ater Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) prohib its the conversion of property acquired or d eveloped with grants from the LWCF to a nonrecreational purpose withou t approval from the N ational Park Service (NPS) and the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC) . Draft sectiOn 4(1) and 6(1) Ropon City of Phoenix Trails System SOuth Mountt ln FI99Way ll'ansportauo n corridOr Stu. o. nox .1980. . Jl.~toenix, . 1\Z. . . ·. Pl!riLic S.E!tVTCB CO~IPA~W OF·. NC.W NEXICO~ i.l : p. . ·: .. ·. ··_ 85001 . Nc~ ~exicb corpo~ation o~ Bo~ 2267 · · · · . Albuqucr~ue, NM . 87103 .. ' ·.. .. -~ IN REPLY REFER TO: 27 40 ( 931) April 20, 1989 Mr. John L. Louis, P.E. Urban Highway Section Arizona Department of Transportation Highways Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 · Dear Mr. Louis: ·. : .EL. l1 ASO ELECTRJC COMPANY, :. n ·-r:cx11S r..:orrtorat'lon ·· · P.• o. nox 982 .. f;l ·~'nso, ·rx· :/.9 999 STI\TE or ftfllZONA} Cilul'll); 3; i;i :l ri.up , ss . . . .' IINP.~i .r.el I·[·· that ·Hm wilh111 mn. ,·:·~, : .·::ts ii.e1 aud rc· · COIG{;~ or s~ Knud!o n )l~t--"'11btlf Rio:f, 7.o-....te><:ki u~ bct Administration }Jorio t. M ~t1eoni, Ed .O. Svpori1'116t.dent Yid orio To~lor, Ph.D. Auhlonl ~y~lln.ttndfll\t H..,rr.on l(cY.) t~rce ~rtic<:l lorry 1ottorfiold As'id onl SuporimondO:I'I~ Svpfl¢11 St n.\<.sr. Oo'li<.f Schovor, Ed.D. Audrey, Audrey. !tao~ Mdoatl , Following is the information you requested. Groups that have access to these school facilities include any outside organization (e.g., athletic leagues, churches, home owner's associations, universities, recreational programs) that requests and is granted the use of the facilities. Each organization's use of the facility varies in frequency and duration. Estrella's use is approximately 7000 hours per year; Lagos's use is approximately 31 00 hours per year. In each hour of use, I would estimate there are 100 people present. "'"'""""' Amenities at each school are accessed by parking and walking on to campus (both interior and exterior facilities). Lagos' parking lots are accessed off of 341h Way or Lakewood Parkway. Estrella's parking lots are accessed from Liberty Lane. Both schools have on-site security that monitor the locking of perimeter doors and redirect organizations who have not received approved use of the facility (not individuals) off campus. Both schools have available for use library, ramada, multipurpose room, outdoor fields and courts, and multiple classrooms. ~- Aul,ton! $vJ>6"'"''\l"d(lnt Following is the Information you requested. Groups that have access to these school facilities include any outside organization (e.g., athletic leagues, churches, home owner's associations, untversitles, recreational programs) that requests and is granted the use of the facilities. Each organization's use of the facility varies in frequency and duration. Estrella's use is approximately 7000 hours per year; Lagos's use Is approximately 3100 hours per year. In each hour of use, I would estimate there are 100 people present. Admfnlmltlon M.wle>L~ bi.ll. Amenities at each school are accessed by par1OM £.-.e<).:•tM: lXred01" Sfudr.nt Sot"·k~s A727 March 8, 2005 March 8, 2005 Roo Vloto.u • 'Organized' after-hours activities must be scheduled in advance by requesting use of the facility on district-provided forms (which are submitted to the school at least 10 days in advance of the requested use). You may want to read the details of the reservation process at vvww.kyrene.org/facilitiesuse. Ooi'W1loi wr"'~ • After~hours activities must be scheduled in advance by requesting use of the facility on district-provided forms (which are submitted to the schoot at least 10 days in advance of the requested use). You may want to read the details of the reservation process at www.kyrene.org!facilitiesuse. (-...,..,.._ s~sw... lf I can be of further assistance, please reach me at bpomus@kyrene.org. If I can be of further assistance, please reach me at bpomus@kyrene.org. ~ Bonni Pomush Assistant Director Auxiliary Student Services Kyrene SchDOI District • 8700 South Kyrene Rood • Tempe, Arizona 85284-2197 • 480-783-4000 • Fox 480-783-4141 • www.l-yrene.org Bonni Pomush Assistant Director Auxiliary Student Services \ • ... • 1 ' , • • ; 1 1 ~~ ) , '•· •, , • ~ • - Pt "', 1 • •... r t -, ~, • 1 1.. -. ' '· : , ~ - • ••l: ... ,.:; -< : ~ ~.. • .. .J • ; -< ,- ·, , 1 ·, • t • , , , ..-- r ..-- , •J A728 • Appendix 5-2 ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 9419 West Van Buren Street Tolleson, Arizona 85353 623.478.400 I FAX 623.936.5048 WEB www.tuhsd.org City of Phoenix GOVER.t"'ING BOARD OF EDUCATION Kimberly A. Owens, President Cindy Swan, Vice President Sandra Davis, Member Barbara Maddux, Member Mike Watson, Member SUPERINTENDENT Kino V. Flores, Ed. D. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT June 22, 2005 February 24, 2005 Audrey Unger HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Ms. Maria Deeb-Roberge Arizona Department of Transportation Intermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Dear Ms. Unger: Dear Ms. Deeb-Roberge: Re: South Mountain Transportation Corridor, ADOT Tracs No.: 202 MA 054 H5764 OIL, Project No.: RAM-202-C-200 The Tolleson Union High School District #214 established a community and school partnership with the City ofTolleson dating back to FY1983. The partnership makes all facilities and playing fields available to all community members before and after school hours, weekends and holidays and most of the summer months. These facilities include, but are not limited to, the school's indoor gymnasiums, tennis and racquetball courts, baseball and softball fields and both game and practice football fields. A functional network of urban trails is planned throughout the city that is multipurpose, easily accessible, and convenient, connects parks, major open spaces, and village cores. Multipurpose recreational trails are intended to serve equestrians, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The City, in cooperation with private developers, is working to create or construct multi-use trails. These natural-surface recreational trails are intended to accommodate a variety of nonmotorized uses. These trails are primarily used for recreation and are located in pedestrian easements adjacent to public rights-of-way, and in privately owned open spaces. They are vital nonmotorized links within the community. Regardless of which transportation corridor is selected by ADOT, the existing and proposed trails should be accommodated by providing wider bridges, pedestrian equestrian tunnels, and other accommodations to preserve the proposed and established trails network. Sincerely, The groups that have access to these facilities include Pop Warner Football leagues, Little League Associations that range from minor leagues to Babe Ruth, men and women softball leagues, girls youth softball leagues, church leagues, basketball leagues, adult and youth tournaments, annual City of Tolleson events that may include carnivals and games, as well as, all athletic tournaments. Recreational amenities can be accessed through the City ofTolleson Complex during non-school hours or Tolleson Union High School during school hours. An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) by the city and school district was created in 1985 and is approved on an annual basis to work collaboratively to provide constituents with parking lots for both entities. A telephone call is normally all that is necessary to make streets and parking lots available to school and city sponsored events. All school grounds are locked and secured by school personnel. School staff clean and maintain the facilities and fields and the City of Tolleson pays for lights and water for the facilities. The district requests that all after school activities be scheduled one week in advance. If you need additional information, please call me at 623-478-4001. · 4cw~lb~(f Boyd C. Winfrey (/ Landscape Architect II cjp/S:\2005 Carolyn Files\Boyd\Audrey Unger 062205.doc Kino V. Flores, Ed.D., Superintendent KVF/lcl cc: Mr. Ralph Velez, City Manager City of Tolleson c: Ralph Ellis, ADOT James Burke, PRO Mr. Harold Crenshaw, Principal Tolleson Union High School THE MISSION OF THE TOLLESON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT IS TO GUARANTEE HIGHER LEVELS OF LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS 200 West Washington Street, 16th Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-161 1 • 602-262-6861 • FAX: 602-534-3787 or 602-495-3606 Recycled Paper Appendix 5-2 f(l ~DOT Jacobs August 31,2005 Page 2 of 12 Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Sam Ellers state Engineer August 31,2005 The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (E1, W55, W71, WlOlWPR, WlOlWFR, W101W99, WlOlCPR, WlOlCFR, W101EPR, and WIOlEFR) that extend from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-1 0 in west Chandler south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) ~ide and rang~ from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: Dr. David Jacobs State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA H5764 01 E South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Addendum Class I and Class III Survey Reports • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy ofthe report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). " A Class Ill survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Mmicopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on going. To date, Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain fi:om Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undeJiaking subject to Section 106 review. Land jurisdiction for the altemative alignments includes private land (5, 160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Conununity, the Che1nehuevi T1ibe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fm1 Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui T1ibe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Conununity, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southem Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. concuiTence responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Bureau of Recl~ation (El~is, July 12, 2005), Bureau of Land Management (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoemx (Bostw1ck, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quewakia, July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class IIJ survey to address the expansion ofthe overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report is titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Class 1 Oven,iew Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona. The Class III report is titled An Addendum Cultural Re~ources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Anzona. Both reports are enclosed for consultation and discussed below. Addendum Class I Overview Results The addendum Class I overview, titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005), identified 27 previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, five historical-period linear sites, and 129 historic building properties (see attached Table A). In addition, historical maps indicate that several prehistoric canal aligJmlents pass through the study area. For the archaeological sites, five are considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D, five sites are not eligible, nine sites have not been evaluated for eligibility, and the eligibility status of eight sites is unknown due to a lack of available infmmation. Historically • A729 A730 • Appendix 5-2 Jacobs August 31, 2005 Page 3 of 12 documented prehistoric canals in the area are viewed as potentially eligible resources that should be investigated if encountered. Jacobs August 31,2005 Page 4 of12 • The Class I study revealed five historical-period linear sites in the study area. The linear sites are considered eligible overall under Criterion A with contributing and non-contributing segments. Of the 129 historic building properties, 25 have been previously recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and/or C, 37 have been recommended as not eligible, and 67 have not been evaluated. Seventy-one historic building properties are in the Capital Redevelopment Area in Phoenix, an unnominated residential area with an abundance of historic building properties. Eighteen of the historic building properties are in the Villa Verde Historic District, which is listed on the Phoenix Register of Historic Places. Although the Villa Verde properties were previously reconm1ended as not eligible to the NRHP, they should be re-evaluated within the context of an early Phoenix suburban neighborhood. The vast majority of cultural resources identified in the addendum Class I study area will not be affected by any of the proposed alternative alignments. Cultural resources in the W55 and W71 alignments include AZ T:ll :26 (ASM), AZ T:l2:4 (MNA), AZ T:l2:5 (MNA), AZ T:l2:10 (ASM) (Los Colinas), AZ T:12:38 (ASM), and AZ T:12:178 (ASM) (Los Aumentos). Cultural resources in the WlOl alignments include AZ T:7:167 (ASMJ (Grand Canal), AZ T:10:83 (ASM) (Roosevelt Canal), AZ T: 11:26 (ASM), AZ T: 12:4 (MNA), and AZ T: 12:178 (Los Aumentos). Commercial Properties " Mother's Restaurant at 5760 West Buckeye Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack historical significance and integrity. The original gas station is heavily modified as a result of i~s con~ersi?n to a restaurant ~ the 1970s. It no longer retains integrity of workmanship and design. H1stoncally, the gas stat10n was in a mral agricultural setting along a two-lane highway. Today, the property has lost its integrity of setting and feeling, as it is in a modem industrial zone with old US 80 (West Buckeye Road) widened to a five-lane urban thoroughfare. • The Jarvis J;iarine Repair Shop at 5800 West Buckeye Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due 1ts age and lack of architectural significance. • The Hudson Fann located at 9300 South 59th Avenue is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Crite~on A as an.ex~eptional example of a historic farm~tearl in Laveen. It retains a complete suite of agncultural bmldmgs and structures from the period of significance that are in good condition and well preserved. f11 addition, the fannstead does not have any intrusive modem buildings or structures that would detract from its historic setting and feeling (other than a large satellite dish which could be easily removed). The farmstead's combination and overall layout of older buildings and sn:uctures, along with other contributing elements such as the mature landscaping, palm tree-lined dnveways and entrance gates, provides an inclusive picture of what a worlcing farmstead was like in Laveen duri_ng the agiicultural era period of significance. The property retains integrity of location, workmanship, materials, design, and association. Furthermore, the sunounding agricultural field provides the contextual fi·amework within which the property conveys its historic character as a fannstead. Thus, the agricultural field is an important contributing component that defmes and preserves the fannstead's integrity of setting and feeling. It is recommended that the entire 38-acre parcel is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as an exceptional example of a historic-period Laveen fa1mstead. Additionally, the pair of stave silos are recognized as individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion C, as rare exan1ples of a once common architectural forn1 that was a fundamental component of Laveen's historic ag~icultural landscape. Addendum Class III Survey Results An addendum survey of shifted alternative alignments, defined in December 2004, and agricultural fields that had been plowed in early 2005 since the time of the initial Class Ill survey conducted by the GRIC (Darling 2004), was conducted by HDR Engineering, Inc. {HDR). In addition, the addendum Class III survey included documentation of21 historic sites not included in the initial Class III survey (Darling 2004). The results are reported in a report titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L!DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2005), v.'hich is enclosed for yourreview and comment. One archaeological site and 21 historic sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached Table B). The archaeological site is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D. Two historic sites are recommended as eligible under Criterion A. Tluee historic sites are recommended as eligible under Criterion C. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criteria A and B. One historic site is recmmnended as eligible under Criteria A and C. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criteria A and D. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criterion A but non-contlibuting within the proposed alternative alignments. Twelve historic sites are recommended as not eligible. Archaeoloeical Sites • A'Z T: l 2:221 {ASM) is a prehistoric Hohokam artifact scatter. The site is reconunended as eligible to the l\TRIIP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important infonnation on prehistoric settlement and land use in the lower Salt River Valley near the confluence of Gila and Salt rivers. The SRP 99th Avenue Lateral, located on the east side of South 99th Avenue and north of Lower Buckeye Road, is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A as a rare irrigation fe~ture that was once cornn1on in the agricultural landscape of the Salt River Valley. The lateral is bemg converted to an underground pipe in response to the Pecan Promenade and City of Phoenix development projects. SRP and Reclamation are currently in the process of preparing a report for the canal that documents its history and engineering, as a form of mitigation. Upon completion of these projects, the 99th Avenue Lateral will no longer be considered a contributing component of the overall SRP irrigation network. Appendix 5-2 Jacobs August 31,2005 Page 5 of 12 Jacobs August 31, 2005 Page 6 of 12 • The Quinonez House at 9131 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance and dinlin.ished integrity of workmanship, design, and materials • The Sachs-Webster Fannhouse at 7515 West Baseline Road was previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion Cas an outstanding example of the Pyramid Cottage or NeoClassical bungalow style house. Not only is the house a rare example of a once common Territorialperiod architectural style, it is also exceptional in that few homes built in Phoenix in the Pyramid Cottage style possess as many of the hallmark attributes as does the Sachs-Webster House. Farmsteads • .. The Anderson Farm Tenant Residences at 9901 and 9903 West Van Buren Road are recommended as not eligible to the 1\TRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. The Cuter Farmstead at 7201 and 7215 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the N-ru:IP. The fannstead has lost too many of its primary elements to convey a good sense of its historic character. While it provides a picturesque rural setting, it does not provide an accurate portrayal of its historic composition. The Cecil and Mary Colvin Farmstead located at 5139 West Estrella Road is recommended as not eligible to the :NKHP because it has lost too many of its period elements to convey its historic character. The fannhouse is the only primary element remaining from the historic period; however, it lacks integrity and architectural distinction. • .. • The Dad Farmstead at 6102 West Dobbins Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a Jack of historical significance, architectural merit, and integrity. Individually, the farmhouse and bam have been modified and lack architectural distinction. Overall, the property fails to convey its original historic character as a working farmstead. .. • The Dean Farmstead at 9445 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance and diminished integrity of workmanship, design, and materials. The farmhouse is heavily modified tlrrough additions and is in a general state of disrepair. The Maddux House at 9115 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. • Farmsteads with Dairy Components The Colvin-Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy located at 6159 West Dobbins Road is recommended as not eligible to the l\lRHP as a whole because of a lack of integrity and historical significance. However, the dairy "head-to-toe" bam is recommended as individually eligible under Criterion C as a rare example of a once common architectural form that was a characteristic feature in Laveen's historic landscape and an integral component of its local economy. It is one of the few standing family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. It is also recognized as in1portant within the broader context of the Salt River Valley's dairy industry as a surviving example of a dairy head-to-toe bam used during the height of its agricultural era. The Hackin Fam1steadJDairy at 10048 South 59th Avenue is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP because of a lack of integrity and historical significance. However, the dairy "flat" bam, is recommended as individually eligible under Criterion C as a rare example of a once common fonn that was a characteristic feature in Laveen's historic landscape and an integral component of its local economy. It is one of the few remaining family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. It is also important within the broader context of the Salt River Valley's dairy industry as a surviving example of a dairy flat bam used during the height of its agrir:1lltural era. Feedlots The Parker Farmstead at 3606 South 83'd Avenue is recommended as not eligible due to a lack of historical and architectural si!ffiificance. None of the farmstead's historic period buildings and structures remain, except for the familiouse built in 1950, which is heavily modified with additions and generally lacks integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. .. The Pitrat Farmstead at 5901 West Elliot Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of architectural integrity and historical significance. The historical layout of the fam1stead has been lost as a result of property subdivisions and new construction. The house is heavily modified from its original form through multiple additions. Although the property is consistent with a rural agricultural landscape, il1 its current condition, it no longer conveys an accurate representation of its historical period character. Highways • The C.O. Pitrat & Sons Feedlot in the 6100 Block of West Elliot Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP because of a lack of historical and architecture significance. The feedlot is 50 years old; however, most of its operation occurred in modem times. The structures and buildings are poorly preserved and generally lack integrity. US 80 (AZ FF:9: 17 [ASM]) is considered eligible to the NRHP under Cliterion A at the national level as one of the first designated transcontinental routes and for its association with the development of the U.S. il1terstate transportation network. The segment within the study area has been widened and mode1nized and no longer retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Furthermore, its integrity of setting and feeling are lost with most of the surrounding landscape • A731 A732 • Appendix 5-2 Jacobs August 31 , 2005 Page 6 of 12 • • The Quinonez House at 9131 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a Jack of historical and architectural significance and diminished integrity ofworkmanship, design, and materials The Sachs-Webster Farmhouse at 7515 West Baseline Road was previously recommended as eligible for the :1'-rRHP under Criterion Cas an outstanding example of the Pyramid Cottage or NeoClassical bungalow style house. Not only is the house a rare example of a once cmmnon Territorialperiod architectural style, it is also exceptional in that few homes built in Phoenix in the Pyramid Cottage style possess as many of the hallmark attributes as does the Sachs-Webster House. Jacobs August 31, 2005 Page 7 of 12 transformed from rural agricultural to urban commercial/industrial. It is recommended that the segment in the study area is not eligible to the :NRHP as a non-contributing component of US 80. Historic Townsites The hlstoric Santa Marie Townsite, located at the southwest comer of Lower Buckeye Road and 83'd Avenue, is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Crite1ia A and B. The unincorporated townsite is a living example of an historic, rural Hispanic agricultural community in the Salt River Valley. Communities such as Santa Maria had an important role in the development and operation of the Valley's agricultural industry throughout the 20th century. In addition, the townsite has an association with Khattar Joseph Nackard, an Arizona businessman who had an influential role developing and shaping the State's economic and commercial future. As such, it is recommended that the Santa Marie Townsite is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and B. Farmsteads with Dairy Components • • The Calvin-Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy located at 6159 West Dobbins Road is recommended as not eligible to the :NRHP as a whole because of a lack of integrity and hlstorical significance. However, the dairy "head-to-toe" bam is recommended as individually eligible under Criterion C as a rare example of a once common arcrutectural form that was a characteristic feature in Laveen's hlstoric landscape and an integral component of its local economy. It is one of the few standing family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. It is also recognized as important within the broader context of the Salt River Valley's dairy industry as a surviving example of a dairy head-to-toe bam used during the height of its agricultural era. The Hack.in Fam1stead/Dairy at 10048 South 59th Avenue is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP because of a lack of integrity and historical significance. However, the dairy "flat" bam, is recommended as individually eligible under Criterion C as a rare example of a once common fonn that was a characteristic feature in Laveen's hlstoric landscape and an integral component of its local economy. It is one of the few remaining family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. It is also important within the broader context of the Salt River Valley's dairy industry as a surviving example of a dairy flat barn used during the height of its agricultural era. Feedlots • The C.O. Pitrat & Sons Feedlot in the 6100 Block of West Elliot Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP because of a lack of historical and architecture significance. The feedlot is 50 years old; however, most of its operation occurred in modem times. The structures and buildings are poorly preserved and generally lack integrity. Highways • US 80 (AZ FF:9: 17 [ASM]) is considered eligible to the NRHP under C1iterion A at the national level as one ofthe first designated transcontinental routes and for its association with the development of the U.S. interstate transportation network. The segment within the study area has been widened and modernized and no longer retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Furthermore, its integrity of setting and feeling are lost with most of the surrounding landscape Railroads • The Southern Pacific Railroad Wellton-Phoenix-EloyMain Line (AZ T:10:84 [ASM]) is recommended as eligible to the N'RHP for its association with the development of Arizona's railroad network. The railroad has been maintained and upgraded over the years and remains an important component of Arizona's transportation network. Streetscapes • The 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape is recommended as eligible to the NRBF under Criteria A and D as an example and reflection of the lower Salt River Valley's agricultural past. In contrast to a more common, barren rural streetscape defined by a two-lane road passing between broad, open agiicultural fields, the 6100 Block contains a suite of rural agricultural elements that convey a strong sense of what rural life was like in Arizona in the early to mid 1900s; (i.e., it captures more of the human element). Rural streetscapes are becoming increasingly rare in the lower Salt River Val1ey, as agricultural communities are replaced by urba11 development. It is recommended that the 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape is eligible to the NRHP under Critelia A a11d D, not only for its association with Arizona's early agricultural development, but more so for its infonnation potential to provide future Arizonans with an idea of what rural agricultural life was like in the lower Salt River Valley during the early yea1·s of statehood. All sites are located on p1ivate land, except for the Sachs-Webster Farmhouse (7515West Baseline 1 Road)- Flood Control District Ma1icopa County; SRP 99 h Avenue Lateral- Bureau of Reclamation/Salt River Project; US 80/ AZ FF:9:17 (ASM)- City of Phoenix, and the 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape- City of Phoenix. FHWA/ADOT is concurrently consulting with these agencies regarding the eligibility of these sites located on their land. C/.l 0 0 ~· g C/.l ~ s -c:Jtr:l S':,_.g~t-< s-E.. ~ <: 2: 0 ~ 00 0 () o;::Ef-Po 0 o ~ ~ ~ g g ~ 5 0 0 ]::l tr:l -· () Vli=!""oo ~~~~s- ~~~sa ° wNrn t:;;a tr:IQ ~ '"' :;o.n >- 0" [ ~ '8. ~ Q .,:O-p;-' c::: (') Ill O-i-"1$)' (1) ~ "' a. 0 0 V1 O~\fOgo"'~§ ,-.;:Jn::><;"':Et::l~:~cr (JQ..,I:f) o ~~:Ho n ~"SS§;:I:':!~n rn"S-<:tr~Ef@ ~~~ 0 oo ooo..o'' P' < ~­ 0.. 8 s: 0 8 ff~gS:::ig~ ~ s s·~ b s· a: o cr c:::. o o. a; . ., s 8 s· o. .g g~~aO'CI.le;0.. ,..... c:r' 0 "" ::1 Ill 8 ;:l ~ ;::l 0 ...... Q_ -. (/) ~ g- Jg - f S? .g 2: O::l cr"' Jl; n:::;::! 0 ~>':;)(]) ;~Roa·o 2!:::"' ~~ '>;:) :< s· ~ ~ rn ~ r!. N-.1.-<-"'Pl o C/.l p:: t (/) )-ol. ('l m ,_. (1) (1) 'D 1<:1 ~ ;::. 0.. tr:l jl) ;::t. ::J .-+ c~.-.P'o t:T .....,. 0.. ~ ~- ;::t (1) ~ ~ ~· 0 1-'(j 0 ..-.ool:l..,O\CI.l ...,,..., 1:1 " ' 0 ('l 0 (il ~. ~ ~ :'5. 2 §:. (1) (rq ...... 0. ..... ~t:JE?C'DoVl~ t:l ~Ill lllo.g.;::., ~>'2''(3o .... "'o Pl ;:t I=! .... ::: r;·::l .... c::: CD 1-f p ,....,. a·~ a 0"'1 ~· i-' o & t""tJ 0 e: ~=~ [ll • OCI.lt::!im.,_."t:l ~ ;::~" t;-J.gg<=t~;:r~ -.J~-'<~e;g t::;s~8· rn~ 'O"'P"'""'ti-4~PJ ,_,.,'< O'\(])o 0 N ,_, 1:71 0 '<: $. '0 o-.NS:::Jo.,..., 0'\o"'nc:::.c:o 0 0 - c::: th <.; =· '"'0>-c:J:::JS;::r~ §> cp 8glo.o •.-. S~o;5jo;::rg:::;: ~. '<: Pl 0 Q, ~ '8 a. "' n (ll I:J" P' f!l, 0 ~ :::t. qg :::1. 0. o (') ·". ! 1f~~::~ il ~~ (') (ll ~ o ::;:$ cr 1-1 0 --· C:::~'<:ocn:=: "' ..;z_ "' "' ...... Table A. Addendum Class I Overview Report Eligibility and Management Summary. Alignments -----· W55/W71 Site Type Location Jurisdiction NRHP Eligibility (Criterion) Management Recommendation AZ T:ll :26 (ASM) 1-lohokam Artifact Scatter TlN,RIE, S4 ADOT Not Eligible None AZ T:12:4 (MNA) Hohokam Artifact Scatter TIN, R2E, S6 ADOT, Private Not Eligible None AZ T: 12:5 (MNA) Hohokam Artifact Scatter TIN, R2E, S5 ADOT, Private Not Eligible T2N, R2E, S36; TlN, R2E, Sl, 2, 11 ADOT, Private Eligible (D) Hohokam Village TIN, R2E, S3 ADOT, Private Eligible (D) Hohokam Village TlN, RlE, S2 ADOT, Private Eligible (D) Canal T2N,RIE, 89, IG Reclamation Eligible (A, C) Avoid, or else mitigate adverse cJiects Canal TJN,RIE,S3,4 Private Eligible (A, C) A void, or else tni ligate adverse efTeels AZ T: 11:26 (ASM) Hohokam Artifact Scatter TlN,RIE, S4 ADOT, Not Eligible None AZ T:l2:4 (MNA) Hohokam Artifact Scatter TIN, R2E, S6 ADOT, Private Not Eligible None· AZ T:l2:178 (ASM) Los Aumentos Hohokam Village TlN,RlE,S2 ADOT, Private Eligible (D) Avoid, or else mitigate adverse effects Las Colinas AZT:l2:38 (ASM) AZ T:l2:178 (ASM) Los Aumcntos AZ T:7: 167 (ASM) Grand Canal AZ T:10:83 (ASM) Roosevelt Canal WlOl l I Alignments 1 I Nolle A void, or dsc mitigate Hohokam Village AZT:l2:10 (ASM) - adverse effects Avoid, or else mitigate adverse effects Avoid, or else mitigate adverse effects - 1 ·-Includes alignments WIO!WPR, WtOlWFR, WlOlW99, WIOICPR, WIOICFR, WJOlEPR, WlOlEFR Appendix 5-2 • A733 A734 • Appendix 5-2 Jacobs August 31, 2005 Page 10 of12 Table B. Addendum Class III Survey Report Eligibility and Management Summa•·y. ------·-- Name Type Address AZ T:12:221 (ASM) 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Strcetscape Anderson Farm Tenant Residences C. 0. Pitrat & Sons Feedlot Carter Farmstead Cecil and Mary Colvin Farmstead Colvin-Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy Alignment N W55 Prehistoric Scatter n/a 6100 BlockW. Dobbins Rd. 9901 and 9903 W. Van Bm·cn Rd. 6100 BlockW. Elliot Rd. 7201 and 7215 w. Broadway Rd. 5139W. Estrella Rd. 6159 w. Dobbins Rd. USGS Newly (N)/Previously (P) RccoJ"dcd Township, Range, Section 7.5' Map TIN, R2E, Fowler Ownership NlUIP Eligibility Rccomnmndation Management Recommendation Private Eligible (D) A void, or else mitigate S3l TIS, Rural Strcctscapc N Tenant Residents N Feedlot N W55 R2E, Laveen S6,7 WIOl (all) TIN, RlE, Tolleson .. I Private, Phoenix Eligible (A,D) A void, or else mitigate Private Not Eligible None Private Not Eligible None Private Not Eligible None Private Not Eligib le None Private Farmstead: Not Eligible; Dairy Barn: Eligible (C); contributing elements to 6100 J3lock Strcctscapc A void dairy barn, or else mitigate; avoid portion within 6100 Block SLTeetscapc boundaries, or d•e mitivatc S8 TIS, W71, W!Ol (all) Laveen Fowler TIN, RlE, S25 Laveen R2E, Farmstead N W71 Fannstcad N None R2E, SIS TlS, 1 S20 TIS, Farmstead/Dairy W55 N R2E, Laveen S7 I - a ,,rf! 200~ /l.war~ Rr.dphml Jacobs August 31, 2005 Page 11 of12 Name Address Type Newly (N)/Prcviously (P) Recorded USGS Alignment 7.5' Map Dacl Farmstead 6102W. Dobbins Rd. FamJstcad N W55 Laveen Dean Farmstead 9445 w. Broadway Rd. Farmstead N WlOl (all) Tolleson 100048 s. 59tl• Ave. F armstead/Dairy N None Laveen 9300 S. 59'1' Ave. Farrn N W55 Laveen Conm1crcia! Building N W55 Fowler Farmhouse N WIOI (all) Tolleson Conuncrcial Building N WSS Fowler I-Iackin Fannslcad/Dairy Hudson Farm 5800 w. Buckeye Rd. 9115W. Broadway Rd. 5760W. Buckeye Road Jarvis Marine Repair Shop Maddux House Mother's Restaurant TIS, R2E, S6 TIN, RlE, Ownership NlU-lP Eligibility Recommendation Management Recommendation Private Farmstead: Not Eligible; contributing clement to 6100 Block S trectscape Avoid portion withi11 6100 Block Streetscape boundaries, or else mitigate impacts to I strectscapc Private Not Eligible Avoid S28 2 Parker Farmstead 3606 s. 83'~ Ave. Farmstead N WlOIEPR, WlOlEFR Fowler Pitrat Fam1stcad 5901 W. ElliotRd. Farmstead N None' Fowler i Township, Range, Section TIN, RIE, S7 TIS, RlE, S7 TIN, R2E, S8 TIN, RlE, 28 TIN, RlE, ss TIN, RJE, S22 Private Private Farmstead: Not Eligible; Dairy Bam: Elig.ib!c (C) F am1: Eligible (A); Silos: Eligible (C) A void dairy b am, or else mitigate A void, or else mitigate Private N ot Eligible None Private Not Eligible None Private Not Eligible None Private Not Eligible None Private Not Eligible None TIS, R2E, S18 I - 2001 Awt~rdf..ledPeill Appendix 5-2 J "lvia.naging and conserving nat.ural. cultural, and recr-eational resources" ~ .... '...... , September 19, 2005 ~ \._ .......... ~ ~ Arizona ® State Parks Dr. Ruth Greenspan Historic Preservation Specialist Environmental & Enhancement Group Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Room 213E Phoenix, AZ 85007-3212 RE: Janet Napolitano Governor State Parks 8\lard Members Chair Elizabeth Stewart Tempe .-+.:! William C. Porter Kingman William Cordasco Flagstaff Project No. :NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA H5764 OlE South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation SHP0-2003-1890 (25323) Dear Dr. Greenspan: Thank you for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding plans for the South Mountain Freeway connecting Interstate 10 in west Chandler to I10 in west Phoenix, Maricopa County, Alizona, and submitting cultural resources reports and recommendations for review and comment. Dr. Bill Collins, Deputy SH?O/Historian, and I have reviewed the submitted materials and offer the following comments. Janice Ch ilion Payson William C. Scalzo Phoenix John U. Hays Yarnell Mark Winkleman Stale Land Commissioner Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director Arirona State Parks 1300 W. Washington Phoenix. Pl. 85007 Tel & ID: 602.542.4174 www.azstaleparks.com 800.285.3703 from (520 & 928) area codes General Fax: 602.542.4i80 Diiector's Office Fax: 502.542.4188 The submitted cultural resources reports [An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona and An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona] are adequate. ]3efore responding to the eligibility recommendations, some clarification is needed: 1) Page two of the cover letter states that the Class 1 identified 27 previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; the breakdown of the eligibility status of these sites (i.e., 5 eligible, 7 not eligible, 7 not evaluated and 8 unknown) in the report differs from the characte1ization in the cover letter (i.e., 5 eligible, 5 not eligible, 9 not evaluated, and 8 unknown). 2) The text of the cover letter neglects to mention that the eligible Barnes Dairy Bam and the ineligible Dad Farmstead are part of the eligible 6100 West Dobbins Road Streetscape (although this is part of the listing in Table B to the cover letter). Dr. Collins also commented that the reasoning behind the suggested D eligibility ofthe 6100 West Dobbins Road Streetscape is actually more appropriate to A eligibility, so he disagrees with the recommendation that it is "more" eligible forD than A (see page 7 of cover letter). He agrees that it is A eligible, and did not see D eligibility properly evaluated at alL • A735 A736 • Appendix 5-2 We appreciate your cooperation with this office in considering the potential impacts of development on cultural resources situated in Arizona. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or . . . electronically at di acobs@.pr.state. az.us. Sincerely, ~t: David Jac s Complian e Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic PreserVation Office ~ /.\OCT Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Sam Ellers Govemor VIctor M. Mendez Phoenlx, Arlzona 85007-3213 State Engineer September 29, 2005 .. Director Dr. David Jacobs State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: SEP 2 9 2005 Project No. J\ll:I-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L J\{A 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Addendum Class I and Class III Survey Reports Eligibility Recommendations Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting teclmical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. As part ofthis effort, our office submitted two cultural resources reports on August 26, 2005. The reports were entitled An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005) and An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L!DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2005). In your response letter dated September 19, 2005, you found the report adequate and provided several corru11ents requesting clarification on the following eligibility recmmnendations: • ,: · ' ·1 The first comment noted inconsistencies between the eligibility summary in the consultation letter and the Class I report. We have confmned that a total of 27 previously recorded historic and prehistoric archeological sites were identified in the Class I repmt. Five of the sites were previously determined eligible, 7 were considered not eligible, 7 had not been previously evaluated, and the eligibility status of 8 sites is unknown. • The second comment noted that the consultation letter neglected to mention that the Bames Dairy and the Dad Farmstead are pa1t of the 6100 West Dobbins Road Streetscape. We would like to confum that the Barnes Dairy is recommended as eligible both individually and as a contributing component of the Dobbins Streetscape. In contrast, while the Dad Farmstead is recommended as i1ot eligible as an individual prope1ty, it is reconm1ended eligible as a contributing component of the Dobbins Streetscape. • Third, Dr. Collins commented that the 6100 West Dobbins Road Streetscape is more approp1iately eligible under Critelion A than C1itcrion D. We concur that the Dobbins Streetscape is eligible under A, rather than D. Appendix 5-2 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 Jacobs ARIZONA DIVISION TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL US.Depa1mert September 29, 2005 Page 2 of2 d la ISPOifotlcn r.deral Highway http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.hlm Admlnbtrotton May 8, 2012 As more i.nfonnation becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section l 06 consultation. If you find the reports adequate and agree with the eligibility recomn1endations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. We also look forward to continuing consultation >vith your office. If you have any questions or concems, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-6266 or e-mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely, In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) C--) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 HS764 01 L South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Section 4(Q Consultation "temporary occupancy of trails" (2»u Mr. Chris Coover, Regional Trail Coordinator Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 6400 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Ruth L Greenspan Historic Preservation Specialist Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 17th Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Dear Mr. Coover: Date cc: SThomas (FHWA) WVachon (FHWA) In coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is preparing an Envirorunental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. The alternatives under study would pass through the cities of Phoenix and Tolleson, and the communities of Laveen and Ahwatukee. As part of the EIS, an analysis of properties eligible for protection under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) must be completed. Section 4(t) properties are any publicly owned parks and recreation areas (including trails), waterfowl and wildlife refuges and historic sites considered to have national, state, or local significance. A number of Maricopa County trails that are eligible for Section 4(t) protection have been identified in the South Mountain Study Area (see attached figure). If the South Mountain Freeway were built, there would be no permanent impacts to the Maricopa County Trails System as a result of the project All proposed build alternatives would span existing and proposed trails to avoid impacts. However, during construction (if a build alternative were selected), trails that would be spanned or would be near potential freeway construction would be closed for Limited periods of time due to safety reasons. Closures would necessitate that trail users detour around construction sites to rejoin trails further along their length. Under 23 C.F.R. 774.13 the various exceptions to the requirements of Section 4(f) are identified. Subsection (d) details that ''temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f)" would be an exception if the following conditions are met: (1) temporary duration and no change in ownership of the land; (2) scope of work must be minor; • A737 A738 • Appendix 5-2 2 (3) there are no Mticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor interferenc-e with the p.rotected activities of the property; {4) the hind being used must be fully restored; and (5) there must be documented.agreeme.nt of the official with jurisdiction over the Section 4(t) resource. ARIZONA DIVISION US. Department of lta1sportation Federal Highway Administration July 21, 2014 In Reply Refer To: FHWA believes that pot.entiall impacts to the traits constitute a tempomry occupancy of this reso·urce and th . refute. qualifies under the Section 4(£) exception because: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) Although the exact d'uration has not yet been defined the duratio·n of c_osures would be short - less.than the duration ·o f freeway construction There would be no change in land ownembip • • 'T'J. "'.:.--~·-·· • • ,.l , --- ---=---~~ If you agree with FHWA~s determination ·that tempoqry closure of portions of tile trails would constitute temporary occupancy and quality for the exception under Section 4(f)~ please indicate your co11currence by s.ismng below. If you have any questions.or ·concerru~, p1·ease feel free to contact Rebecca Swiedd at 602~382-8979' or e~mail Rebeccl.li.Swiecki@.dotgov or Ralph. Elli with ADOT at 602-712~7973 or ·e-mail rellis@azdo, .gov. Sin~erety yours, ~dJ-o -1t"' Karla S. P·etty ~C)?aL:ionA~~~o/z_ Signature for 'MaJiCOi); Coumty Parks and Recreation Departmcmt Concurrence NH~202-D(ADY) Enclosure TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Section 4(t) Consultation "temporary occupancy of trails" vn:...f-t:ailr. There wouJd be ~ ~tici~ted pe~ent adverse..physical impac~ nor would there be interference with the activities or p·urpose of the 1I'ails Although no physicaJ diswrba.nce of the tmils is. anticipa:ted should tbi.s occur. b'aiJs would be returned.to p,r,e-construction condiitions Dat.e 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa. dot. gov/azdiv/index. htm Mr. James Burke, Director City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation 200 West Washington Street, 16th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Dear Mr. Burke: In coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. The alternatives under study would pass through the Cities of Phoenix and Tolleson and the Communities of Laveen and Ahwatukee. As part of the EIS, an analysis of properties eligible for protection under Section 4(t) of the U.S. Department ofTransportation Act of 1966 must be completed. Section 4(t) properties are any publicly owned parks and recreation areas (including trails), waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and historic sites considered to have national, state, or local significance. A number of Maricopa County and City of Phoenix trails that are eligible for Section 4(t) protection have been identified in the South Mountain Freeway Study Area (see attached Figure 1). The City's new Pyramid trail, also eligible for Section 4(t) protection, would be adjacent to the proposed Chandler Boulevard extension (see attached Figure 2). If the South Mountain Freeway were built, there would be no permanent impacts on the Maricopa County trails system or the City's Pyramid Trail as a result of the project. All proposed action alternatives would be adjacent to or span existing and proposed trails to avoid impacts. However, during construction (if an action alternative were selected), trails that would be spanned or would be near potential freeway construction or the Chandler Boulevard extension construction would be closed for limited times for safety reasons. In the case of the Pyramid Trail, the Chandler Boulevard extension would restrict access to the trail head. Closures would necessitate that trail users detour around construction sites to rejoin the trails farther along their length. These impacts to the City's Pyramid Trail would be defined as temporary occupancy under the exceptions of Section 4(t). The various exceptions to requirements of Section 4(t) are identified in 23 Code of Federal Regulations§ 774.13. Subsection (d) details that "temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(t)" would be an exception ifthe following conditions are met: (1) The occupancy is of temporary duration and there is no change in ownership of the land. (2) The scope of work is minor. (3) There would be no permanent changes to the trails. Appendix 5-2 Figure 2. Pyramid Trail • A739 A740 • Appendix 5-2 Figure 1. Recreational Trails System in the Study Area