CENTRAL MESA LRT EXTENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Section 4(f) and 6(f) November 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………3 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 3 1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option ................................................................... 8 1.2.2 Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option ................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Unresolved Issues ........................................................................................ 8 REGULATORY SETTING………………………………………………………………… ..... 15 2.1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION ACT OF 1966 ................................... 15 2.1.1 De Minimis Findings ................................................................................... 16 2.2 SECTION 6(F) OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT ........ 16 2.3 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 .. 17 2.3.1 NRHP Criteria/Considerations for Evaluation: ............................................ 18 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT EVALUATION………………………………………. ...... 19 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) AND 6(F) RESOURCES……………………….. ....... 20 5.0 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION…………………………………………………………… ...... 23 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.0 DIRECT USE OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES .................................................... 23 5.1.1 Parks and Recreation (Non-Historic) Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources ....... 24 5.1.2 Historic Properties ...................................................................................... 26 CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES ..................................... 26 5.1.1 Historic Properties ...................................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Parks and Recreation Resources ............................................................... 26 5.2.2 Refuges and Restriction of Access ............................................................. 27 TEMPORARY USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES ............ 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………… ..... 28 Appendices A: City of Mesa Correspondence B: Maps of NR-eligible and –listed Properties with the APE Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 1 November 2010 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Central Mesa Study Area…………………………………………………………………..1 Figure 2: Locally Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………....4 Figure 3: Build Alternative, Sycamore to Country Club Drive……………………………………..8 Figure 4: Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Country Club Drive to Hobson……………………..10 Figure 5: Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option Country Club Drive to Hobson……………………..12 Figure 6: Pioneer Park and Park-and-Ride Lot…………………………………………………….23 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: LRT Operating Plans……………………………………………………………………...3 Table 2: Stations, Bus Interface, and Park-and-Rides…………………………………………..5 Table 3: Publicly Owned Parks and Recreation Areas Adjacent to Project Alignment ....... 18 Table 4: Historic Section 4(f) Resources Within the Area of Potential Effect of the Project Corridor19 ............................................................................................................. 19 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 2 November 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) technical report is being prepared to support the Environmental Assessment (EA) for high capacity transit improvements being considered in the study area for the Central Mesa Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension. This report begins with a short background of the study and a description of the alternatives being considered in the EA, and then follows with a review of the Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, summary of the effects determination to historic properties per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and concludes with a summary of impacts for the build alternative. 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND The Central Mesa LRT Extension study area is bounded on the west by the Light Rail Starter Line’s eastern terminus at Sycamore/Main Street; University Drive to the north; Power Road to the east; and the Superstition Freeway (U.S. 60) on the south (Figure 1). FIGURE 1: CENTRAL MESA STUDY AREA Source: METRO (2009). A two-tiered alternatives development process was implemented to evaluate the Central Mesa Study Area conceptual alternatives. The first phase (Tier 1) included a conceptual level evaluation that analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the initial list of potential alternatives to address the transportation needs of the study area (see separate Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives Report, October 2007, for more information). The initial alternatives considered both LRT and bus rapid transit (BRT) modes. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 3 November 2010 All alternatives began at the eastern terminus of the recently opened LRT Starter Line Station at Sycamore/Main Street and extended east to the Superstition Springs Center area via Main Street (with 1st Street and 1st Avenue suboptions downtown) and Power Road. Fixed guideway (via LRT or BRT) generally extended east to about Horne (between Mesa and Stapley Drives) with BRT offering limited stop express service further east in existing travel lanes (similar to Valley Metro Link) to Superstition Springs Center. LRT consisted of a dedicated fixed guideway with two tracks (one track in each direction) that ran mostly in the middle of the existing street system. BRT also had a dedicated fixed guideway for a portion of the project as previously mentioned. The initial alternatives were subject to a “fatal flaw’ screening at the Tier 1 phase; the most feasible alternatives were identified and retained for further analysis, and the alternatives deemed unresponsive to Tier 1 evaluation criteria were eliminated from continued study. The alternatives that remained after the Tier 1 analysis and public, agency, and other stakeholder input were then subjected to a more detailed evaluation (Tier 2). The Tier 2 evaluation continued to consider both LRT and BRT build alternatives. The criteria developed to analyze all of the build alternatives in Tier 2 began to quantify ridership potential, capital and operating and maintenance costs, land use and economic development impacts, traffic issues, environmental factors, conceptual engineering, and public preferences. See the complete Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Report, December 2008, which defines the Tier 2 alternatives considered and details the results of the evaluation. Based on the results of the Tier 2 evaluation, public meetings, and agency and other stakeholder input, the recommended build alternative is to advance LRT as the preferred technology and Main Street as the preferred alignment. The locally preferred alternative (LPA) includes a light rail extension on Main Street east to an interim end-ofthe-line near Mesa Drive as Phase 1. See the complete Recommended Alternative Report, Draft June 2009 for discussion of the rationale for selection of the LPA. The Phase 1 project is scheduled to begin operations in 2016 and is the major focus of the EA being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NoBuild Alternative will also continue to be considered as specified by NEPA. The Phase 1 project connects logical termini and has independent utility meaning that the project is a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. 1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE The LRT Main Street Alternative was selected as the recommended LPA for more detailed analysis in the EA. This LPA recommendation was approved by the City of Mesa City Council (May 2009) and the METRO Board of Directors (June 2009). The LPA has two design options for Main Street in the area east of Country Club Drive: 1) 2 Lanes; and 2) 4 Lanes. The design options are described at the end of this discussion. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 4 November 2010 Whether to implement the Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option or the Build Alternative, 4Lane Option will be decided after completion of a series of public workshops, the Draft EA, and receipt of input during the Draft EA public comment period. The Build Alternative, or LPA, is shown in Figure 2. The Build Alternative includes a double-track LRT guideway that would operate in the center of Main Street from just east of Sycamore to just east of Hobson, a distance of 3.1 miles. LRT is electrically powered and receives its power from overhead power lines within the street right-ofway. LRT operations would include a traffic signal priority system (predictive priority), to allow for faster travel times. The light rail vehicles will be the same as the ones currently being used for the LRT Starter Line. Major operating plan features are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1: LRT OPERATING PLANS Headways Number of Vehicles Line-haul Capacity Hours of Operation All day except late evening: 10 minutes Late evening: 20 minutes 42 – LRT Starter Line + Central Mesa LRT Extension 8 – Spare vehicles 50 – Total current fleet 2,700 passengers per peak hour per direction 1 (Based on 3 vehicles per train and 150 passengers/vehicle) Daily = ~20 hours 1 Ultimate capacity. LRT operating plans call for 2-car consists during normal operations with 3-car consists operating only during special events or other high periods of demand. This alternative is an extension of the LRT Starter Line that opened in December 2008 and would provide a seamless connection (no transfer required) from the current eastern terminus of the LRT Starter Line at Sycamore along Main Street to Mesa Drive. Tail tracks would continue east of the station platform a distance of approximately 425 feet east of Hobson. East of Centennial Way to Superstition Springs Transit Center, the existing Valley Metro LINK BRT would connect to LRT and operate in mixed traffic as it does today as a skipstop express service. As a result of the Build Alternative, Valley Metro LINK BRT service would be discontinued along Main Street between Sycamore and Centennial Way to eliminate service duplication, and its operational frequency in the off-peak will increase from 30 to 15 minutes. However, service during peak periods will remain the same as today (15 minutes). Other than that, no other changes to the LINK operations or facilities will be necessary for the Phase 1 LRT extension being evaluated in the EA. LRT stations/LINK BRT stops and park-and-ride locations are identified in Table 2. A new park-and-ride facility would be built near the end-of-line LRT station on the northeast corner of Main Street/Mesa Drive. Each LRT station would serve one or more existing or planned bus routes in the area. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 5 November 2010 FIGURE 2: LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Also recommended, as part of the LPA, is a future (Phase 2) extension of LRT to Gilbert Road. This extension would provide enhanced regional transit connections and opportunity for a larger regional park-and-ride facility. At this time, Phase 2 is not identified in the MAG RTP, is unfunded, and is not evaluated in the EA. However, the Phase 2 recommendation has been forwarded to MAG and has been identified as an “illustrative project” for inclusion in the RTP. Should the Phase 2 project move forward as a federal project, it will be subject to NEPA compliance. Construction of the Build Alternative would include installation of trackwork, an overhead contact system (OCS) for the distribution of electricity to LRT vehicles, traction power substations, and signaling and communication systems. The LRT transitway would consist of tracks formed of continuously welded rails. The rails would be embedded track supported on a concrete slab. The OCS would consist of poles, approximately 25 feet tall, installed along the operating right-of-way at intervals from 90 to 170 feet to support the electrical power line. The OCS would be designed to be compatible with visual and aesthetic characteristics of the corridor. The poles would generally be located in the center of the two tracks, wherever possible. In some locations, catenary poles may be located on the side of the LRT trackway with the overhead electrical line suspended over the LRT tracks with head spans. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 6 November 2010 TABLE 2: STATION AND PARK-AND-RIDE LOCATIONS Station/Stop LRT Facilities (Stations) Sycamore/Main St. (LRT Starter Line End-of-Line Station) Alma School/Main St. Country Club/Main St. Center/Main St. Mesa Dr./Main St. Location1 Park-andRide Yes East of intersection Existing facility and not attributable to LRT extension No No No Yes East of intersection East of intersection East of intersection Station—East of intersection Park-and-Ride—Northeast of intersection. A 6.7-acre area of interest identified. Park-and-ride would accommodate approximately 500 vehicles and will not likely require the entire 6.7-acre site. Layout to be determined during final design. The park-and-ride site may have potential market value for transit-oriented development sometime in the future. Valley Metro Link BRT Facilities (Existing Stops—Facilities not attributable to LRT extension) Stapley/Main St.2 No East of intersection Gilbert/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Lindsay/Main St.2 No East of intersection Val Vista/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Greenfield/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Higley/Main St.2 No East of intersection Recker/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Power/Main St.2 No West of intersection Broadway/Power2 No North of intersection Yes North of intersection U.S. 60/Power (Superstition 2 Springs Center) 1 All LRT stations have a center platform configuration. 2Station locations as part of existing Valley Metro LINK BRT project. Station locations and amenities would remain. Source: METRO, 2010. Electricity for LRT operations would be supplied to the OCS from traction power substations (TPSS) located along the proposed LRT alignment. These electrical substations would be enclosed structures approximately 20-by-40 feet (30-by-60 feet including the grounding mat around the substation) located proximally to the LRT alignment. One TPSS would be required for roughly each one to one and a half mile of track. Specific locations will be determined as design is further refined. LRT vehicles for the Central Mesa LRT Extension would be maintained and serviced at the existing LRT Starter Line Operations and Maintenance Center (OMC), located south of Washington Street between State Route (SR) 143 and Loop 202. The OMC will have sufficient capacity to service LRT vehicles allocated to the Central Mesa LRT Extension, and expansion of the existing facility, or construction of a new facility will not be required. The existing traffic lane capacity along Main Street would be maintained between Sycamore and Country Club Drive. Typical cross sections are presented in Figure 3. For the segment east of Country Club Drive to the LRT eastern terminus near Hobson (just east of Mesa Drive), two design options are being considered: • • Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 7 November 2010 These design options are further described below. 1.2.1 Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Main Street’s traffic lane capacity would generally be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction from Country Club Drive to Horne. The exception is in the westbound direction only between Mesa Drive and Horne where two through lanes would be available. At the westbound approach to Mesa Drive intersection, one through lane would be trapped into a right turn lane. Single left turn lanes would be maintained at Country Club Drive (double left is removed), Robson, MacDonald, Center Street, Centennial Way/Sirrine Street, Hibbert, Mesa Drive, Lesueur, and Hobson. Acquisition of additional right-of-way along the alignment would be minimal to accommodate the fixed guideway as a result of the reduction of travel lanes. Typical cross sections at various locations along the Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option are shown in Figure 4. The station and park-and-ride locations presented in Table 2 apply to the 2Lane Option. This option could allow for future conversion, if desired, to 2 lanes in each direction through downtown by eliminating the dedicated left turn lanes and using splitphase traffic signals that would allow through and left-turning traffic to share the same left lane. The conversion would require minor curb revisions and/or parking removal beyond that shown in the current design between Country Club Drive and Robson. Between Mesa Drive and Udall, some additional curb and right-of-way revisions would be needed on the south side of Main Street. 1.2.2 Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option With the 4-lane option, the current four through travel lanes (two in each direction) would be maintained from Country Club to Hobson. This scenario assumes split-phase traffic signals, and single left turn lanes would only be provided at Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive. All other existing turning lanes would be removed. The bike lane would be eliminated west of Lesueur, and parking would continue to be provided at most locations along this segment where it presently exists. To keep the existing numbers of through lanes will require acquisition of additional right-of-way at the northeast and southeast corners of Main Street and Mesa Drive. Typical cross sections at various locations along the Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option are shown in Figure 5. All of the stations and park-and-ride facility locations are as illustrated in Table 2. 1.2.3 Unresolved Issues Several issues will be further refined as the EA proceeds and community outreach continues. In addition to the previously discussed optional traffic design configurations downtown, decisions will need to be made about the following: • • • TPSS locations OCS Pedestrian access points Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 8 November 2010 • • • • • Park-and-ride sizing, layout and capacity Station design Urban design/public art Refinement of utilities and location Construction staging Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 9 November 2010 FIGURE 3: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, SYCAMORE TO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 10 November 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 11 November 2010 FIGURE 4: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, 2-LANE OPTION COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO HOBSON Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 12 November 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 13 November 2010 FIGURE 5: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, 4-LANE OPTION COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO HOBSON Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 14 November 2010 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING 2.1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION ACT OF 1966 The Central Mesa LRT Extension project is administered and partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, states that FTA “may approve a transportation program or project requiring publicly owned land of a public park or recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, or site) only if there is no prudent or feasible alignment to using that land and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use” (49 United States Code [USC] 303). As defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774.17, the “use” of a protected Section 4(f) property occurs when any of the following conditions are met. Direct Use A direct use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the property is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. This may occur as a result of a full or partial acquisition of the property, permanent easement, or temporary easements that exceed regulatory requirements noted under Temporary Use. Temporary Use A temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when there is a temporary occupancy of property that is considered adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purpose of the Section 4(f) statute. Under the FHWA/FTA regulations (23 CFR 774.13), a temporary occupancy of property does not constitute a use of a Section 4(f) resource when all the following conditions are satisfied: • • • • • Duration is temporary (i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project) and there should be no change in ownership of the land Scope of work is minor (i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) property are minimal) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the protected activities, features, or attributes of the property, on either a temporary or permanent basis The land being used must be fully restored (i.e., the property must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project) There must be documented agreement of the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) resource regarding the above conditions Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 15 November 2010 Constructive Use A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the transportation project does not permanently incorporate land from the resource, but the proximity of the project results in impacts (e.g., noise, vibration, visual, and property access) are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. For example, a constructive use can occur under at least one of the following conditions: • • • • The projected increase in noise level, attributable to the project, substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by Section 4(f). The proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of a resource protected by Section 4(f), where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value of the resource. An example of such an effect would be locating a proposed transportation facility in such proximity that it obstructs or eliminates views considered part of a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible, architecturally significant, or historical building’s Section 4(f) eligibility. Another example would be locating a proposed transportation facility in such proximity that it detracts from the setting of a park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part due to its setting. The project results in a restriction on access that substantially diminishes the utility of a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or historic site. Vibration associated with the proposed project impairs the use of a Section 4(f) resource. 2.1.1 De Minimis Findings Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59, amended existing Section 4(f) legislation at 23 USC 138 and 49 USC 303, to simplify the processing and approval of projects that would result in de minimis impacts (minor impacts) on lands protected by Section 4(f). The requirements of Section 4(f) would be considered satisfied if it is determined that the project would have only a “de minimis impact” on the Section 4(f) resource. The provision allows avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures to be considered in making a de minimis determination. De minimis impact is defined in 23 CFR 774.17 as follows: • • 2.2 For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact is one that would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f). For historic sites, de minimis impact means that the FTA has determined, in accordance with 36 CFR 800, that no historic property is affected by the project or the project would have “no adverse effect” on the property in question. SECTION 6(F) OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 16 November 2010 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA), administered by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) and the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service (NPS), pertains to projects that would cause impacts on, or the permanent conversion of, outdoor recreational property acquired with LWCFA assistance. The LWCFA established the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a matching assistance program providing grants paying half the acquisition and development cost of outdoor recreation sites and facilities. Section 6(f) prohibits the conversion of property acquired or developed with these grants to a non-recreational purpose without approval from the IAC and the NPS. The NPS must assure replacement lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions of approval for land conversions (16 USC 460l-4 through 460l-11). Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) are discussed together because it is not uncommon for recreational resources to receive LWCF funding, making Section 6(f) at times integral to the Section 4(f) process. 2.3 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is critical to the Section 4(f) process for cultural resources. Section 106 mandates that a project’s effect on cultural resources be considered. While 4(f) is concerned with the “use” of a 4(f) property and all feasible and prudent means to avoid the use of that property, Section 106 is concerned with the effects an action will have upon a cultural resource. Section 106 involves consultation with other parties, including the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the City of Mesa’s Historic Preservation Office (Mesa CHPO). For this reason, Section 106 is also the process by which a cultural resource’s eligibility is discussed and determined. This eligibility determination will assist in establishing whether or not Section 4(f) applies to the historic properties. A cultural resource may be considered a Section 4(f) property if it meets the criteria of eligibility for the NRHP. NRHP-eligible properties are generally older than 50 years, unless they are of exceptional significance. For the purposes of determining NRHP-eligibility however, the Evaluation of Potential Historical Properties and Districts and Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties technical reports used a forty-year age limit to capture properties that would attain the customary age of eligibility during the ten-year life of the planning and construction of the LPA. Section 4(f) properties are generally eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C (see below for definitions). Section 4(f) properties can, however, be eligible under Criterion D if preservation in place is warranted or under Consideration G if they are exceptionally important (for additional information refer to the Evaluation of Potential Historical Properties and Districts and Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties Technical Reports prepared for the Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment). Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 17 November 2010 2.3.1 NRHP Criteria/Considerations for Evaluation: Criterion A: Resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: Resources associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Resources that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: Resources that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2002) Consideration G: Resources that have not attained the 50 year age required by the NRHP, but demonstrate exceptional historical importance Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 18 November 2010 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT EVALUATION Parks and recreational faculties within the project area were determined through review of the City of Mesa General Plan, school district websites, and the Maricopa County Regional Trails System Plan. The City of Mesa Parks and Recreation Department was contacted by letter to elicit information necessary to determine Section 4(f) and 6(f) eligibility of resources. Finally, a site visit was conducted on December 5, 2009. Historic and archeological resources were determined through literature review, survey, and consultation with the SHPO and the Mesa CHPO. Further information on this subject is available in the Inventory and Evaluation of Potential Historical Properties and Districts and An Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Mesa LRT Extension Environmental Assessment. Section 4(f) resources (parks and recreation facilities, historic properties, and archaeological sites) would be affected if they were permanently incorporated into the transit facility or if their use (activities) features, or attributes that qualify them as a 4(f) resource are substantially impaired. Use of parkland or recreational facilities, historic properties, or archaeological sites for the implementation of the LRT project would be an impact requiring consultation with the FTA. In addition, Section 4(f) resources have the potential to be affected by LRT noise and vibration during operations. METRO conducted an impact assessment along the project corridor per FTA guidelines to determine whether LRT operations would produce substantial noise and/or vibration impacts. Construction activities could also produce temporary, but substantial, air quality, traffic, and transportation impacts at these facilities. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 19 November 2010 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) AND 6(F) RESOURCES Properties subject to Section 4(f) consideration include publicly owned park and recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national state, or local significance, and historic properties of national, state, or local significance. There are two city parks and recreational resources (Pioneer and Gateway) located adjacent to the project alignment; however, only Pioneer Park, which under Section 4(f) definition qualifies it as a Section 4(f) resource (Table 3). Gateway Park, while it contains benches and sculptures and is a public open space it is located close to other public open spaces and the City of Mesa Parks, Recreation and Commercial Facilities Department determined that Gateway Park does not meet Section 4(f) definition of being locally significant (see attached City of Mesa Letter, Appendix A). Pioneer Park also qualifies as a Section 6(f) resource as the City of Mesa received LWCF grant for improvements to this park. Section 106 Consultation and evaluation of historic and archaeological properties along the alignment is ongoing. The FTA has submitted the Inventory and Evaluation of Potential Historic Properties and Districts for National Register Eligibility and Potential Adverse Effects Report to the SHPO for their review and concurrence. Tables 6, 9, and 12 in Section 7.0 of that report detail effects to these historic properties. Each historic property is listed in Table 4 with a preliminary effect finding 1 under Section 106 and a Section 4(f) use determination. Locations of historic properties are shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix B. In addition, the FTA has submitted the An Archaeological Assessment for the Central Mesa LRT Extension Environmental Assessment Report to the SHPO for their review and concurrence. This report concluded that there are no known archaeological sites within the area of potential effect, but that several prehistoric canals cross through the project area. However, the condition and precise location of these canals are unknown. TABLE 3. PUBLICLY OWNED PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS ADJACENT TO PROJECT ALIGNMENT Property Pioneer Park 526 E. Main Street Description Pioneer Park is approximately 16 acres in size and is owned by the City of Mesa. Park amenities are located at the back of the park and include volleyball and basketball courts, horseshoe pits, playground equipment, and an on-leash dog area. There are three large and two small ramada’s with barbeques for social gatherings, and a restroom facility. In addition, the park is home to a steam locomotive No. 2355 that was donated to the City of Mesa in 1958 from Southern Pacific Railroad. The central portion of the park contains a large open grass area lined with trees, picnic tables with barbeques, and concrete sidewalks to access the recreational amenities and the front of the park. The front of the park contains open grass areas with a statue dedicated to the pioneers that helped establish the City of Mesa. Section 4(f) Use Determination All Alternatives – No Use 1 The preliminary findings of effects and recommended treatments have been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and concurrence. The final findings will be included in the final Section 4(f)/6(f) report. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 20 November 2010 TABLE 4. HISTORIC SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT CORRIDOR Map No.1 Resource Name Location Description of Impact Preliminary Section 106 Finding Section 4(f) Use Determination2 Sycamore/Main to Country Club Drive 1 1338 W. Main St. No impact to Sign No Effect No Use 1310 W. Main St. 1260 W. Main St. No impact to Sign No impact to Sign No Effect No Effect No Use No Use 4 Plainsman Hotel Sign Only Rawl’s Motel Sign Only HiWay Host Motel Sign Only Mesa Thrift Store 1018 W. Main St. No Effect No Use 5 Standage House 960 W. Main St. No Effect No Use 6 7 Luxor Auto Sign Only Darner Auto Center Sign Only Trava-Leers Motel Sign Only Landmark Restaurant 909 W. Main St. 837 W. Main St. No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No impact to Sign No impact to Sign No Effect No Effect No Use No Use Relocation of the sign No use of land or impact to building Relocation of the sign No use of land or impact to building No impact to Sign No Adverse Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No use of land or impact to building No use of land; no impact to building or sign Relocation of the sign No use of land or impact to building No impact to Sign No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 836 W. Main St. 809 W. Main St. Larada’s Army Surplus Sign Only Nader House 764 W. Main St. Kiva Lodge Motel Sign Only David Buck Auto 668 W. Main St. 720 W. Main St. 665 W. Main St Guerro-Lindsay Signs w/ Sign 531 W. Main St. Payless Car Sales Sign Only 16 Citrus Inn (2-lane and 4lane options) 17 Certified Benz & Beemer Sign Only Downtown 4-Lane Option 18 Salsita’s Mexican Food 530 W. Main St. 15 524 W. Main St. 525 W. Main St. 311 W. Main St. 19 Mayday Janitorial Supply Commercial Complex 261 W. Main St. 20 Lamaze Childbirth Classes 228 W. Main St. 21 American Chopper 220 W. Main St. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report Station location - No use of land or impact to building Station location - No use of land or impact to building Relocation of nonhistoric curb line - No use of land or impact to building Relocation of nonhistoric curb line - No use of land or impact to building 21 November 2010 Map No.1 Resource Name Location 22 Mickey’s Downtown Barber Shop; Jersey Girl Café; the Fiber Factory 218 W. Main St. 23 Red Sevens Computer Outlet; Iglesia Apostolica Misionera Arizona Master Blind Corporation; LeBaron Gallery 215 W. Main St. 25 Skunk Motorsport 26 The Pit Stop 202-206 W. Main St. 201 W. Main St. 27 Chandler Court 104 W. Main St. 28 Barnett Building 48 W. Main St. 29 Duncan G. Graham Medical Office Tri-City Community Service Center Brown and Brown Chevrolet Dairy Queen w/ sign 122 E. Main St. Barber Shop Helen and Medical Clinic w/ sign Prime Time Child Care w/ sign Metro Valley Painting 637 E. Main St. 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Mormon Temple (Temple Historic District) Downtown 2-Lane Option 18 Salsita’s Mexican Food 212 W. Main St. 225 E. Main St. 256 E. Main St. 629 E. Main St. 640 E. Main St. 659 E. Main St. 525 E. Main St. 311 W. Main St. 19 Mayday Janitorial Supply Commercial Complex 261 W. Main St. 20 Lamaze Childbirth Classes American Chopper 228 W. Main St. 21 22 23 24 Mickey’s Downtown Barber Shop; Jersey Girl Café; the Fiber Factory Red Sevens Computer Outlet; Iglesia Apostolica Misionera Arizona Master Blind Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 220 W. Main St. 218 W. Main St. Description of Impact Preliminary Section 106 Finding Section 4(f) Use Determination2 Relocation of nonhistoric curb line - No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No Adverse Effect No Use No Effect No Use Relocation of nonhistoric curb line - No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No Adverse Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No use of land or impact to building No use of land or historic district No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Adverse Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use No Effect No Use Station location - No use of land or impact to building Station location - No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building No use of land or impact to building 215 W. Main St. No use of land or impact to building No Effect No Use 212 W. Main St. No use of land or No Effect No Use 22 November 2010 Map No.1 Resource Name Corporation; LeBaron Gallery Skunk Motorsport Location Description of Impact Preliminary Section 106 Finding Section 4(f) Use Determination2 impact to building No Use No Effect No use of land or impact to building No Use 26 The Pit Stop No Effect No use of land or impact to building No use of land or No Use 27 Chandler Court 104 W. Main St. No Effect impact to building No use of land or No Use 28 Barnett Building 48 W. Main St. No Effect impact to building 29 122 E. Main St. No Effect No Use Duncan G. Graham No use of land or Medical Office impact to building No Use 30 225 E. Main St. No Effect Tri-City Community No use of land or Service Center impact to building No Use 31 256 E. Main St. No Effect Brown and Brown No use of land or Chevrolet impact to building No Effect No Use 32 Dairy Queen w/ sign 629 E. Main St. No use of land or impact to building No Effect No Use 33 637 E. Main St. Barber Shop Helen and No use of land or Medical Clinic w/ sign impact to building No Effect No Use 34 Prime Time Child Care w/ 640 E. Main St. No use of land or sign impact to building No Effect No Use 35 Metro Valley Painting 659 E. Main St. No use of land or impact to building 36 No Effect No Use Mormon Temple (Temple 525 E. Main St. No use of land or Historic District) historic district 1 Map No. corresponds to numbers shown in Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix B. 2 Some properties with no Section 4(f) use have Section 106 determinations of No Adverse Effect. This is because they do not incorporate any land into the transportation facility, and Federal guidance stipulates that where there is a Section 106 determination of No Adverse Effect, there cannot be a constructive use. 25 202-206 W. Main St. 201 W. Main St. 5.0 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 5.1 DIRECT USE OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES This section describes the Section 4(f) properties that would be affected by the LRT Build Alternative. If however, the No-Build Alternative were selected, most of the transportation capital improvements included under the No-Build Alternative have already been approved and funded and would result in “no use” of parklands, recreational resources, or significant historic resources. For those other capital improvements not yet approved or funded, impacts on recreational or historic resources may occur should those projects be built. An analysis of the impacts would be conducted as part of the environmental studies prepared for those projects as they are implemented. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 23 November 2010 5.1.1 Parks and Recreation (Non-Historic) Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Pioneer Park, constructed in 1947, is located at 526 East Main Street between Lesueur and Hobson Streets and is owned by the City of Mesa (Figure 6). The park is a 16-acre community park containing picnic facilities, playground, horseshoe courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, restroom, several sidewalks to access other portions of the park, and an on-leash dog area. The park also provides three ramadas for family functions and parties as well as a number of picnic tables and barbeque pits located throughout the park. The south end of the park (nearest to Main Street and the LRT guideway) contains open grass areas for a variety of uses. A statue has been erected in the park adjacent to Main Street honoring those who founded Mesa. Pioneer Park is also a Section 6(f) resource. In 1985, the City of Mesa received a LWCF grant for improvements, more specifically, the grant funded playground equipment, ramadas and picnic area, and sidewalks (personnel communication, Andrea Moore, City of Mesa, 8 September 2009). The 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options of the Build Alternative will be located entirely within the existing Main Street roadway prism and would not result in the acquisition or conversion of any portion of Pioneer Park into the transit facility or for a non-recreational purpose. Therefore, the 2-lane and 4-lane options would not result in the direct use of Pioneer Park. In addition, the park-and-ride lot on the northeast corner of Main Street and Mesa Drive is located west of Pioneer Park and would not result in the acquisition or conversion of any portion of the Park into the transit facility or for a non-recreational purpose (Figure 6). Therefore, the park-and-ride lot would not result in the direct use of Pioneer Park. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 24 November 2010 Figure 6: Pioneer Park and Park-and-Ride Lot Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 25 November 2010 5.1.2 Historic Properties The preliminary finding of effects for all historic properties located within the APE is either “No Effect” or “No Adverse Effect”. The proposed project would result in “no direct use” of land from any historic property. Therefore, no consideration of avoidance alternatives is necessary. 5.2 CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES Section 4(f) regulations, 23 CFR 774.15(a) states: “A constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) property, but the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.” 5.1.1 Historic Properties The LRT project would not result in a constructive use of any historic Section 4(f) properties or historic district because the relocation of the non-historic curb line, location of the LRT stations, overhead catenary system, and the proposed park-and-ride lot would not substantially impair the features or attributes that qualify any historic properties for protection under Section 4(f). Vibration impacts from LRT operations are expected to be low or absent throughout the project corridor, and no adverse impacts on Section 4(f) properties have been identified. Similarly, the noise analysis indicates no impacts along the alignment (See Noise and Vibration Technical Report for further information). The Noise and Vibration Technical Report also determined that construction related vibration activities are unlikely to exceed construction related impact thresholds. Therefore, as described in 23 CFR 774.15(f), no constructive uses of any Section 4(f) resources would result from these potential impacts. 5.2.2 Parks and Recreation Resources Pioneer Park is located along the eastern edge of downtown Mesa and is surrounded by residential and commercial development with Main Street bordering the southern end of the park (Figure 6). In addition, the Mesa Arizona Temple is located directly to the south of the park. The proposed guideway would be located within the middle of Main Street, a major transportation corridor, consisting of a median landscaped with palm trees and other shrubs, streetlights, and utility boxes. In addition, a new park-and-ride facility would be constructed on the northeast corner of Mesa Drive and Main Street. Although the guideway would introduce a new element (overhead catenary system, tracks, and park-and-ride facility) Main Street is a major transportation corridor and these new elements would not substantially impair the aesthetic features that are important contributing elements of the park and would not create a constructive use of this property from a visual or noise impairment. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 26 November 2010 5.2.2 Refuges and Restriction of Access None of the Section 4(f) Resources within the project corridor are wildlife or waterfowl refuges and, therefore, impacts due to ecological intrusion are not applicable. In addition, the project’s design would not restrict access to any Section 4(f) property. 5.3 TEMPORARY USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES Section 2.1 defines temporary use of Section 4(f) properties. The project does not include any temporary use of Section 4(f) properties, nor do project plans include any temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) properties. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 27 November 2010 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. http://www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html 2002. Available online at Federal Highway Administration. 2005. Section 4(f) Policy Paper. Available online at http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fpolicy.asp#7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2005. Guidance for Determining De Minimis Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/guidedeminimis.htm PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Andrea Moore, City of Mesa Parks and Recreation Department, to METRO, 8 September 2009 Bryan Raines, City of Mesa, Deputy City Manager, to METRO, 7 September 2009 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Section 4(f) and 6(f) Report 28 November 2010 APPENDIX A: City of Mesa Correspondence December 18, 2009 Letter to METRO from City of Mesa Parks, Recreation and Commercial Facilities Department APPENDIX B: Maps of NRHP-eligible and –listed Properties within the APE