c h a p t e r 5 Section 4(f ) Evaluation

PROCEDURES FOR PROTECTING SECTION 6(f) AND SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

SECTION 6(f) locating of the proposed action. Table 5-1 provides a Section 4(f) Use Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act summary of topics, content, and intended benefits of (LWCFA), administered by the Interagency Committee the chapter to the reader. Section 4(f) states that the A “use” of a Section 4(f) resource, as defined in a resource protected by Section 4(f). The Federal Secretary of Transportation 23 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 774.17, Highway Administration (FHWA) has defined 5 for Outdoor Recreation and National Park Service (NPS), occurs 1) when land is permanently incorporated this noise level as 67 A‑weighted decibels (dBA) . . . pertains to projects that would cause impacts on or result may approve a transportation program or project into a transportation facility (a direct use), 2) when or higher. in the permanent conversion of outdoor recreational requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public there is a temporary occupancy of land that is • The proximity of the proposed action substantially adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist property acquired with LWCFA assistance. The LWCFA park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl impairs aesthetic features or attributes [such as purpose (a direct use), as determined by the blocking the view from a Section 4(f) property] of established the Land and Water Conservation Fund refuge of national, State, or local significance, or criteria in 23 C.F.R. § 774.13(d), or 3) when there a resource protected by Section 4(f), where such (LWCF), a matching assistance program providing grants land of an historic site of national, State, or local is a constructive use of land as determined by the criteria in 23 C.F.R. § 774.15. A constructive features or attributes are considered important paying half the acquisition and development cost of outdoor significance (as determined by the Federal, State, contributing elements to the value of the resource. recreational sites and facilities. Section 6(f) prohibits the or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land An example of such an effect would be locating conversion of property acquired or developed with these area, refuge, or site) only if—(1) there is no prudent from the Section 4(f) resource, but the project’s a proposed transportation facility in such grants to a nonrecreational purpose without approval and feasible alternative to using [see text box, on proximity impacts are so severe that the protected proximity that it obstructs or eliminates views from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation this page, regarding the definition of “use” as it activities, features, or attributes that qualify a that are considered part of an NRHP-eligible, architecturally significant,historical property’s and NPS. NPS must ensure replacement lands of equal applies to the proposed action] that land; and resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment Section 4(f) eligibility. Another example would value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions (2) the program or project includes all possible occurs only when the protected activities, features, be locating a proposed transportation facility in of approval for land conversions (16 U.S.C. §§ 460l-4 planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation or attributes of the resource are substantially such proximity that it detracts from the setting through 460l-11). Section 4(f) properties that have received area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site diminished (23 C.F.R. § 774.15). For example, a of a park or historic site which derives its value in LWCFA assistance are discussed in tables associated resulting from the use. (49 United States Code constructive use can result when one or more of substantial part because of its setting. the following occur: with Figures 5-6 and 5-7, beginning on page 5-10. All [U.S.C.] § 303) • The proposed action results in a restriction on • The projected noise level attributable to the access that substantially diminishes the utility Section 6(f) properties in the Study Area would be avoided Not all properties eligible for listing in the National proposed action substantially interferes with the of a significant publicly owned park, recreation and are, therefore, not discussed further. Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are afforded use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of area, or historic site. SECTION 4(f) protection under Section 4(f). To be determined eligible for listing, Section 106 of the National Historic Sections of this chapter are presented to focus on Preservation Act (NHPA) specifies four criteria (embodiment of a distinctive design of a given type, an overall understanding of Section 4(f) of the of significance: Criterion A (association with an period, or method of construction), and Criterion D (have U.S. Department of Transportation Act and related important event[s]), Criterion B (association with an yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in legislation. It explains how properties afforded protection important person[s] significant in the past), Criterion C prehistory or history). Generally, cultural resources eligible under Section 4(f) are addressed in the planning and South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-1 5-2 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 5-1 Section 4(f) Evaluation Content Summary, Chapter 5

Topic Page Highlights Reader Benefit

● An understanding of protection provided to recreational facilities acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act assistance ● Definition of what properties ● An understanding of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act governing USDOTb qualify as having protection under when planning the location of the action alternatives Section 6(f) and Section 4(f) ● An understanding of what USDOT can and cannot do in relation to resources afforded ● Definition of “use” under Section 4(f), protection under Section 4(f) Procedures for Protecting Section 6(f) both through direct and proximity 5-1 ● An understanding of what constitutes avoidance of Section 4(f) resources and Section 4(f) Resources impacts (the latter constituting a “constructive use”) ● An understanding of what determinations have been made and what future determinations ADOTc and FHWAd must undertake ● Description of Section 4(f) in the EISa process and the steps associated with ● An understanding of actions already undertaken by ADOT and FHWA to avoid resources a Section 4(f) evaluation afforded protection under Section 4(f) ● An understanding of how public, stakeholder, and Communitye concerns and issues affect the evaluation

● Presentation of all resources ● Descriptions of all qualifying resources (including descriptions) located near ● An understanding of how the action alternatives may or may not affect the resources the action alternatives (except on ● An understanding of where direct use would occur, what the impacts would be, and what 5 Community land) measures would be proposed to minimize harm to the resource(s) Presentation of ● Presentation of which resources ● An understanding of what future actions may be warranted to fully implement measures Section 4(f) Resources, Impacts, 5-5 would be used by the proposed action and Measures to Minimize Harm to minimize harm ● Specific measures to minimize harm ● A separate discussion of resources in the South Mountains afforded protection under ● Description of alternatives examined Section 4(f ) to avoid use of Section 4(f) resources ● Understanding of unique problems or unusual factors of extraordinary magnitude that of the South Mountains would make avoidance of some affected Section 4(f) resources neither feasible nor prudent

● Summary of coordination to date with all vested agencies and parties Coordination 5-29 ● Illustration that Section 4(f)-related determinations involved stakeholder engagement ● Summary of future coordination efforts

● Summary of effort to avoid Section 4(f) resources ● An understanding of the efforts undertaken to avoid Section 4(f) resources Conclusions 5-31 ● Documentation of use of the South ● An understanding of the measures to minimize harm from use of the South Mountains as Mountains as a park, NRHPf-eligible a park, NRHP-eligible site, and a TCP site, and TCPg a environmental impact statement b U. S. Department of Transportation c Arizona Department of Transportation d Federal Highway Administration e Gila River Indian Community f National Register of Historic Places g traditional cultural property South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-3

Figure 5-1 Section 4(f) in the EISa Process as Applied to the Proposed Action for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D are not eligible Why are some schools afforded for protection under Section 4(f). Communicate with jurisdictions and agencies protection under Section 4(f) while others are not? If the evaluation concludes feasible and prudent avoidance of protected resources is not possible, FHWA may Not all public schools are afforded approve, from among the remaining alternatives that use Assess Conduct Assess environmental Screen ability to protection under Section 4(f). To be Develop a alternatives Identify Section 4(f) resources afforded protection under Section 4(f), only the conditions impact avoid and considered a Section 4(f) resource, school [including comprehensive to determine alternatives identify alternative that causes the least overall harm in light of the set of which should to be studied analysis of recreational areas must be publicly owned Section 4(f) alternatives measures statute’s preservationist purpose [23 C.F.R. § 774.3(c)]. resources] alternatives be studied in in detail to minimize and must be available for “walk-on” detail studied in Least overall harm is established by balancing: in Study Area detail harm activity by the public. Walk-on activity implies individuals do not have to make ➤➤ the ability to mitigate adverse impacts on each arrangements with school officials prior to resource afforded Section 4(f) protection (including use of the school’s recreational amenities any measures that benefit the resource) after school hours. School recreational ➤➤ When Where amenities serving only school activities and the relative severity of the remaining harm, after Use appropriate, possible, adjust Complete functions are not subject to Section 4(f) eliminate mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or Section 4(f) remaining avoidance protections. Policies to allow or not requirements as alternatives alternative evaluation features that qualify each Section 4(f) resource for part of screening that cannot alignments and present allow for walk-on use typically are set by criteriac prudently and to avoid measures to individual schools or the school districts. protection feasibly avoid direct use of minimize The following two examples may help ➤➤ Section 4(f) Section 4(f) harm the relative significance of each resource afforded resources resourcesb clarify how schools are determined to be 5 Section 4(f) protection Section 4(f) resources: ➤➤ • King’s Ridge Preparatory Academy, the views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Chapter 3 Chapter 5 Alternatives Section 4(f) Evaluation located at 3650 S. 64th Lane in Phoenix, resource afforded Section 4(f) protection is a publicly owned school with several ➤➤ the degree to which each alternative meets the a environmental impact statement outdoor recreational facilities, including d assumes avoidance of resources located in the South Mountains afforded protection under Section 4(f) has been determined not to be prudent and feasible purpose and need for the project athletic fields, basketball courts, and play ➤➤ equipment. According to the Riverside after reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any Consideration of Section 4(f) begins at the start of the EIS process. A clear benefit of the iterativeEIS process is recognition that Elementary School District, school adverse impacts on resources not protected by measures were taken early in the process to avoid or reduce impacts on resources afforded protection under Section 4(f). grounds are fenced and locked after hours. Section 4(f) Members of the public can use the facilities ➤➤ only if arrangements are made in advance. substantial differences in costs among the alternatives ➤➤ action alternatives. The ¼-mile distance is used NRHP-eligible historic resources associated with the Such a policy/practice does not qualify as allowing walk-on activity; therefore, the Process because it is the approximate maximum distance South Mountains school is not afforded protection under from which traffic noise would be disruptive to ➤➤ NRHP-eligible TCP resources associated with the Section 4(f). This chapter presents results of an evaluation examining human or wildlife uses. All other proximity impacts, South Mountains • Fowler Elementary School, located at potential use of public recreational land, historic such as those to the viewshed, would be detected at ➤➤ 6707 W. Van Buren Street in Phoenix, Appendix 5-1, beginning on page A583, presents resources, and traditional cultural properties (TCPs); distances less than ¼ mile. Qualifying resources are is a publicly owned school with outdoor properties initially considered for protection; recreational amenities consisting of no designated wildlife or waterfowl refuges are within presented in the following order: however, based on further analysis, they were baseball fields, basketball courts, athletic the Study Area. Figure 5-1 illustrates the process used ➤➤ properties eligible for inclusion in the NRHP determined to be ineligible for Section 4(f) fields, and covered playgrounds. While to address analytical and procedural requirements of Fowler Elementary School is fenced, the (not associated with the South Mountains or TCPs) protection. Section 4(f); the main body of text throughout the gates remain open. Fowler Elementary ➤➤ recreational trails ➤➤ chapter extends the discussion of the process presented A demonstration of why proximity impacts School District indicated its recreational ➤➤ public school recreational facilities associated with the action alternatives would not facilities are available for public use, in Figure 5-1. without prior authorization, after school ➤➤ public parkland (not associated with the South constitute constructive use of any resource afforded The chapter contains: hours. This policy/practice qualifies as Mountains) protection under Section 4(f). walk-on activity; therefore, the school is ➤➤ A presentation of resources and properties afforded ➤➤ ➤➤ afforded protection under Section 4(f). public parkland resources (Phoenix South Mountain Because prudent and feasible avoidance of direct use protection under Section 4(f) within ¼ mile of the Park/Preserve [SMPP]) associated with the South of some resources afforded Section 4(f) protection Mountains 5-4 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-2 Alignment Adjustments, Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections would not be possible, measures to minimize harm are presented. Some measures to minimize LOOP Agua Fria 101 Freeway Black Canyon 17 Freeway Study Area harm require further coordination on the part Existing freeway of the Arizona Department of Transportation Gila River Indian Community (ADOT) and FHWA with agencies, jurisdictions, PHOENIX boundary the Gila River Indian Community (Community), Maricopa County line 91st Avenue 91st Avenue 51st 75th Avenue 67th Avenue 59th Avenue 83rd Avenue

43rd Avenue and possibly major user groups. Those measures, 35th Avenue 27th Avenue 99th Avenue Dysart Road

107th Avenue Section 4(f) resources avoided El Mirage Road El Mirage McDowell Road as presented, will include a discussion of future Avondale Boulevard Avondale Papago Agua Fria River 10 Freeway Western Section additional steps needed to fully commit to the TOLLESON The W101 Alternative interchange at W59 AlternativePhoenix Sky Harbor measures. Van Buren Street was redesigned to Van Buren Street W71 AlternativeInternational Airport ➤➤ avoid use of resources associated with A discussion of alternatives considered to avoid all Tolleson Union High School ball fields. W101 Alternative Western Option Section 4(f) resources and why they were determined Buckeye Road W101 Alternative Central Option not to be “prudent and feasible.” Estrella Village W101 Alternative Eastern Option ➤➤ The W101 Alternative Western Results of coordination with agencies, jurisdictions, Option interchange at Lower Buckeye Lower Buckeye Road Eastern Section the Community, and major user groups. Road was redesigned to avoid use of resources associated with the E1 Alternative Southwest (Estrella) City Services Approximate scale Consideration of Alternatives Early Complex. Broadway Road in the EIS Process 5 1 2 3 miles The W71 Alternative Southern Avenue The action alternatives studied in detail in Chapter 3, alignment was shifted to avoid 60 SuperstitionAlternatives, are the result of an iterative process that use of the NRHPa-eligible Freeway 19th Avenue

Santa Marie Townsite. 7th Street

7th Avenue began in 2001. Conducted to identify the range of 16th Street 24th Street 40th Street 48th Street Baseline Road 32nd Street Laveen reasonable action alternatives for detailed study, the Village The W71 and W101 Alternatives interchange at process considered potential impacts, including direct or Baseline Road was redesigned to avoid use of the Dobbins Road constructive use, on resources afforded protection under NRHP-eligible Sachs-Webster Farmhouse. The W55 Alternative (a previous version of the Section 4(f) (see Figure 5-1). During early development W59 Alternative) was shifted west to avoid use Phoenix South Elliot Road of the Barnes Dairy Barn and Hudson Farm Mountain Park/Preserve and screening of alternatives (see the section, Alternatives NRHP-eligible properties. The W71 Alternative alignment was shifted Development and Screening, beginning on page 3-1, to to avoid use of resources that would be associated with the future Laveen Farms learn more about the screening process), several early Elementary School. The E1 Alternative interchange at 51st Avenue alignments that would have directly used properties Western Section was redesigned to reduce impacts on resources associated with the South Mountains. afforded protection under Section 4(f) were either Eastern Section Ray Road eliminated from the process entirely or modified to avoid Ahwatukee use of the resources. Foothills Village Chandler Boulevard Figure 5-2 illustrates where adjustments were made to

Parkway LOOP Santan

17th Avenue 202 Freeway Desert Foothills avoid impacts on resources afforded protection under Pecos Road Section 4(f) early in the environmental impact statement (EIS) process.

a National Register of Historic Places Gila River Indian Community A result of the iterative alternatives development and screening process was that alignment adjustments were made early at numerous locations along the alignments to avoid use of existing and planned Section 4(f) resources. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-5

PRESENTATION OF SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES, IMPACTS, AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

Resources afforded protection under Section 4(f) to, the Study Area. Figures 5-4 through 5-7 describe uses would occur, mitigation measures (see Table S-4, are located near the action alternatives and include the resources, potential uses of the resources that would on pages S-18 through S-34) that address impacts properties eligible for the NR HP, recreational trails, result from implementation of the proposed action, and on non-Section 4(f) properties would also contribute public school recreational facilities, and public parks. measures to minimize harm to the resources, if needed. to incidental reductions in proximity impacts, where Figure 5-3 shows all Section 4(f) resources in, or close All action alternatives would use resources afforded appropriate, on Section 4(f) resources. protection under Section 4(f). Although no constructive

Figure 5-3 Section 4(f) Resources in the Study Area

LOOP Agua Fria Black Canyon 101 Freeway 17 Freeway Indian School Road Study Area Existing freeway Thomas Road Gila River Indian Community 91st Avenue 91st Avenue 51st Dysart Road 99th Avenue 75th Avenue 67th Avenue 59th Avenue 35th Avenue 27th Avenue 83rd Avenue 43rd Avenue

107th Avenue boundary El Mirage Road El Mirage

Avondale Boulevard Avondale McDowell Road Papago Maricopa County line 10 Freeway Section 4(f) properties AVONDALE TOLLESON Van Buren Street GOODYEAR Western Section 5 DOWNTOWN PHOENIX W59 Alternative Buckeye Road Estrella W71 Alternative Village W101 Alternative Western Option Lower Buckeye Road W101 AlternativeHohokam Central Option 143 Freeway W101 Alternative Eastern Option Broadway Road TEMPE Salt Eastern Section River

Southern Avenue E1 Alternative48th Street

Superstition 60 Freeway Baseline Road Laveen 7th Street 7th Avenue Village 16th Street Gila River Dobbins Road 19th Avenue Rural Road Rural 56th Street Indian Community Road Kyrene

Elliot Road Maricopa 10 Freeway Phoenix South Warner Road Mountain Park/Preserve

Ahwatukee Foothills Ray Road Western Section Village Eastern Section Chandler Boulevard Approximate scale

Parkway 24th Street 40th Street 32nd Street 17th Avenue Desert Foothills LOOP Santan Pecos Road 202 Freeway 1 3 miles

Section 4(f) properties within or near the Study Area include recreational trails, historicGila properties, River public school recreational facilities, and public parks. The alternatives development process for the proposed action included efforts to avoid affecting these properties. 5-6 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-4 Properties Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (not associated with the South Mountains or Traditional Cultural Properties)

Existing freeway Bethany Home Road Black Canyon 17 Freeway Gila River Indian Community 75th Avenue 51st Avenue 51st 39th Avenue 43rd Avenue 67th Avenue 59th Avenue Loop 101 Loop 101 boundary LOOP Agua Fria 101 Freeway Camelback Road Maricopa County line Section 4(f) properties (map) Lower Buckeye Road Indian School Road Section 4(f) properties (photos) Grand Canal Santa Maria Roosevelt Canal 91st Avenue 91st 99th Avenue 83rd Avenue Ong Farm Piestewa Union Pacific Railroad 67th Ave. Grand Canal 1 67th Ave. 51 Freeway Thomas Road Western Section

Santa Marie Townsite 59th Avenue 4 Van Buren Street 59th Avenue PHOENIX Roosevelt Canal 2 (Santa Maria) W59 Alternative McDowell Road Papago 10 Freeway W71 Alternative Ong Farm 9 W101 Alternative Western Option AVONDALE TOLLESON Van Buren Street Phoenix Sky Harbor W101 Alternative Central Option International Airport GOODYEAR W101 Alternative Eastern Option

Wellton-Phoenix Dobbins Road Buckeye Road Eastern Section LOOP Red Mountain Eloy Main Line 3 Dobbins Road 202 Freeway 5 E1 Alternative Hohokam 143 Freeway Lower Buckeye Road Approximate scale 59th Avenue Estrella stave silos 59th Avenue 1 2 3 miles Village Broadway Road Notes: Salt River Hudson Farm • Canal widths are not to scale. Sachs-Webster • Aerial photography is shown at variable scales. TEMPE LOOP Pima Farmhouse • Aerial photography date is April 2008.101 Freeway Southern Avenue • Locations of the action alternatives relative to the Section 4(f) resources are depicted in Conveyance Channel Superstition Laveen Area the insets. 60 Freeway

Baseline Road Laveen Village Dobbins Road

LOOP Price Sachs-Webster Farmhouse 5 101 Freeway Hudson Farm district 6 Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Elliot Road

Maricopa 10 Freeway Dobbins Road Dobbins Road Hackin Farmstead Warner Road

Western Section Eastern Section dairy barn Tyson Ray Road Barnes house Dairy Barn Gila River Indian Community Chandler Boulevard 59th Avenue

59th Avenue Ahwatukee Foothills Village Colvin-Tyson Farmstead and Barnes Dairy Barn 8 Hackin Farmstead 7 LOOP Santan 202 Freeway Pecos Road

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of the resources is provided in the section, Cultural Resources, beginning on page 4-128. NRHP eligibility, which in turn affects (figure continues in tabular format on next page) Section 4(f) eligibility, is determined through the Section 106 consultation process prescribed by the National Historic Preservation Act. Circled numbers on the figure correspond to the Section 4(f) resources described on the facing page. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-7

Figure 5-4 Properties Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (not associated with the South Mountains or Traditional Cultural Properties) (continued)

Impact Measure to Description Avoidance Proximity to Direct Constructive Minimize Conclusion Resource Proposed Action Use Use Harma • Constructed between 1878 and 1886 by the Grand Canal Company Primary delivery canal in the Salt River Project system; played important role in the • Would cross under 1 Grand Canal development of Arizona’s early agricultural industry Avoided None Not required the W101 Alternative • NRHPb-eligible under Criteria A and Cc 1. None of the action alternatives • Under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation would result in direct use of any of the NRHP-eligible properties • Constructed by Roosevelt Irrigation District in 1928; still in use Action alternatives shown on the corresponding map Segments that would cross the W59 and W71 Alternatives retain integrity; would be Roosevelt • Would cross all because the action alternatives 2 recommended NRHP-eligible under Criterion Ad Avoided constructed as None Not required Canal action alternatives would avoid the properties. • Segments that are crossed by the Papago Freeway and Agua Fria Freeway lack elevated spans to Where action alternatives would historical integrity; not recommended as NRHP-eligible clear the properties cross NRHP-eligible properties (specifically, the Grand Canal, Built in 1910 and owned by Union Pacific Railroad since 1996 • Roosevelt Canal, and the historic Wellton- Originally a 39-mile branch line serving the West Valley; later extended to connect • Would cross all Southern Pacific Railroad 3 Phoenix-Eloy with Southern Pacific Railroad’s main line at Wellton and Eloy Avoided None Not required action alternatives [Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Main Line Main line is NRHP-eligible under Criterion Ac • Line]), the action alternatives Spurs not eligible for NRHP • would be constructed as elevated • Officially established as an unincorporated townsite in 1945 spans to clear the properties. 5 Santa Marie Living example of a historic, rural Hispanic agricultural community in the region • 650 feet from 2. Some action alternatives would be 4 Townsite NRHP-eligible under Criteria A and Bc Avoided None None Not required • W71 Alternative located closer to these properties (Santa Maria) • Access from Lower Buckeye Road and 67th Avenue than others, and these properties • Multiple private ownerships would be subject to proximity impacts. The impacts would not • Constructed in 1909 375 feet from adversely alter characteristics Sachs-Webster NRHP-eligible under Criterion Cc for architectural merit W101 Alternative; 5 • Avoided None None Not required that contribute to the resources’ Farmhouse • Access from Baseline Road just west of 75th Avenue 760 feet from importance as Section 4(f ) e • Owned by FCDMC W71 Alternative resources. No constructive use • Includes farmhouse, variety of associated outbuildings, and 80-acre agricultural field of the NRHP-eligible properties Hudson Farm NRHP-eligible under Criterion Ac; stave silos NRHP-eligible under Criterion Cc Adjacent to the afforded protection under 6 • Avoided None None Not required district • Access from 59th Avenue W59 Alternative Section 4(f) would occur. • Owned by ADOTf 3. Because existing access to some of the NRHP-eligible properties • Farmstead includes two houses, dairy barn, modified horse barn afforded protection under Farmstead, houses, horse barn not NRHP-eligible Hackin • 1,300 feet from Section 4(f) might be affected, 7 Dairy barn NRHP-eligible under Criterion Cc Avoided None None Not required Farmstead • W59 Alternative alternative access would be • Access from 59th Avenue provided. In those instances, • Private ownership access would not be restricted and utility of the resources would • Circa-1950 farmstead with two farmhouses and dairy barn Colvin-Tyson not be altered. Farmstead and farmhouses not eligible for NRHP Farmstead • Adjacent to 8 Dairy barn NRHP-eligible under Criterion Cc Avoided None None Not required 4. None of the action alternatives and Barnes • W59 Alternative Access to the Barnes Dairy Barn from Dobbins Road or options would result in direct Dairy Barn • • Owned by ADOT or constructive use; therefore, no measures to minimize harm • Constructed in 1930 are warranted. NRHP-eligible under Criterion Ac Adjacent to 9 Ong Farm • Avoided None None Not required • Access from 59th Avenue W59 Alternative • Private ownership a Other mitigation proposed for other, non-Section 4(f) resources would contribute to reductions in proximity impacts (see text box regarding other measures contributing to reductions in proximity impacts on page 5-24). b National Register of Historic Places c State Historic Preservation Office concurrence, October 2005 d State Historic Preservation Office concurrence, July 19, 2006 e Flood Control District of Maricopa County f Arizona Department of Transportation 5-8 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-5 Recreational Trails System

Bethany Home Road Study Area Black Canyon Existing freeway Maricopa County Regional Trail 17 Freeway 2 LOOP Agua Fria Segment Sixty-eight 101 Freeway Gila River Indian Community Camelback Road boundary 51 Piestewa Freeway Maricopa County line Indian School Road Gran Trails 107th Avenue d Canal Maricopa County Regional Trails System Thomas Road PHOENIX 99th Avenue Hohokam Sun Circle/Maricopa/ 143 Freeway National Trails 75th Avenue 67th Avenue 51st Avenue 51st 43rd Avenue 91st Avenue 91st 83rd Avenue

River 59th Avenue Sun Circle Trail Agua Fria Segment One 1 McDowell Road Western Section Papago 10 Freeway W59 Alternative LOOP Pima 101 Freeway TOLLESON GOODYEAR Van Buren Street W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option Maricopa County Regional Trail W101 Alternative Central Option Segment Sixty-nine 3 Buckeye Road LOOP Red Mountain Phoenix Sky Harbor 202 Freeway Roosevelt Canal International Airport W101 Alternative Eastern Option 5 Eastern Section Estrella Lower Buckeye Road Village E1 Alternative

Note: Trail widths depicted are not to scale. AVONDALE Salt River Broadway Road TEMPE Approximate scale Southern Avenue 1Superstition 2 3 miles South Mountain Village 60 Freeway

Baseline Road Maricopa County Regional Trail 4 Segment Fifty-six Laveen Village Dobbins Road

Gila River LOOP Price 101 Freeway

Elliot Road Western Section Maricopa Eastern Section 10 Freeway Maricopa County Regional and Sun Circle Trails 5 Segment Eight Phoenix South Warner Road Mountain Park/Preserve Gila River Indian Community Ray Road

Maricopa County Regional Trail Segment Seven 6 Ahwatukee Foothills Village Chandler Boulevard

LOOP Santan 202 Freeway Pecos Road

Any of the action alternatives would cross one or more of the trails afforded protection under Section 4(f). The alternatives would bridge the trails. Circled numbers on the figure correspond (figure continues in tabular format on next page) to the Section 4(f) resources described on the facing page. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-9

Figure 5-5 Recreational Trails System (continued)

Impact Measure to Description Avoidance Proximity to Direct Constructive Minimize Conclusion Resource Proposed Action Use Use Harma One of few segments of the Maricopa Trail that does not have a common 1. None of the action alternatives would • Improvements to alignment with the Sun Circle Trail Would be result in direct impact on any of the trail existing freeways Maricopa County plans to move Segment One onto banks of the relocated along segments shown on the corresponding • associated with the Sun Circle Trail Agua Fria River; which side of the river would be determined through banks of the map because the action alternatives 1 Avoided W101 Alternative None Not required Segment One collaboration with the jurisdictions Agua Fria River would avoid impacts to the segments. and Options would Principal purpose is to create a regional planning framework for a 42‑mile and cross Where action alternatives would cross • continue to span to trail network Interstate 10 over trail segments (specifically, Segments clear the trail • Under City of Avondale and FCDMCb jurisdiction Seven, Fifty-six, Sixty-eight, and Sixty- nine of the Maricopa County Regional Improvements to Trails System, and Segment One of the existing freeways Maricopa Would cross State Sun Circle Trail) the action alternatives Constructed between 1878 and 1886 by the Grand Canal Company associated with the County Regional • Route 101L at would be constructed as elevated spans 2 Existing trail located along the banks of the Grand Canal Avoided W101 Alternative None Not required Trail Segment • Bethany Home to clear the trail segments. Under City of Phoenix jurisdiction and Options would Sixty-eight • Road continue to span to 2. None of the trail segments within clear the trail ¼ mile of the action alternatives have noise-sensitive activities or viewshed All Western Section Maricopa Would cross characteristics that contribute to their action alternatives 5 County Regional Runs along the Roosevelt Canal all Western importance as Section 4(f) resources. 3 • Avoided would be constructed None Not required Trail Segment Under City of Phoenix jurisdiction Section action These trails are typically used for high- • as an elevated span to Sixty-nine alternatives intensity recreational activities such as clear the trail running, hiking, and biking, not noise- All Western Section or viewshed-sensitive activities. While Maricopa Would cross Planned trail action alternatives access to trails is typically from trailheads County Regional • all Western 4 Would run east west within the Salt River riverbed Avoided would be constructed None Not required with accompanying parking areas, Trail Segment • – Section action Under City of Phoenix jurisdiction as an elevated span to there are generally few restrictions to Fifty-six • alternatives clear the trail gaining access from anywhere along their lengths. Trails will remain open during • Begins at the Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve boundary about construction, but some out-of-direction Maricopa halfway between Ray and Pecos roads and includes both the Sun Circle travel (i.e., a detour) may be necessary County Regional and Maricopa trails Adjacent to in some cases. Therefore, access to d 5 and Sun Circle • Located on the SRP canal banks, but will be moved to the SRP Avoided all action None None Not required the resources would not be restricted Trails transmission line easement along the northern boundary between the Gila alternatives and utility of the trails not altered as a Segment Eight River Indian Community and the city of Phoenix (Maricopa County 2004c) result of the construction, operation, • Under SRP jurisdiction and maintenance of any of the action alternatives. 3. No direct or constructive use of known • Common to the Sun Circle, Maricopa, and National trails within Phoenix Not required; recreational trails afforded protection South Mountain Park/Preserve however, Maricopa E1 Alternative would under Section 4(f) would occur. However, Maricopa County and the City of Phoenix creating an intergovernmental Would cross and coordinate County Regional • be constructed as an if an action alternative were identified, 6 agreement to extend the National Trail to Segment Eight Avoided run adjacent to None design of Trail elevated span to clear trails near potential freeway construction Extension of Segment Seven would serve to establish Sun Circle Trail as a E1 Alternative trails with Segment Seven • the trail would be closed for limited periods of continuous loop around the region Maricopa time for safety reasons. Such closures • Under City of Phoenix jurisdiction County would constitute a temporary occupancy of land so minimal as to not constitute a Section 4(f) use. a Other mitigation proposed for non-Section 4(f) resources would contribute to reductions in proximity impacts (see text box regarding other measures contributing to reductions in proximity impacts on page 5-24) b Flood Control District of Maricopa County c Arizona Department of Transportation d Salt River Project 5-10 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-6 Public School Recreational Facilities

Bethany Home Road Existing freeway Van Buren Street Gila River Indian Community Sunridge Camelback Road boundary Tolleson Union Van Buren Street Elementary High School Fowler School Piestewa High School 51 Freeway Maricopa County line 62nd Avenue Elementary 62nd Avenue School LITCHFIELD Latham Street Indian School Road Section 4(f) properties (map) recreation PARKfootball basketball fields Fowler field courtscourts Elementary School Section 4(f) properties (photos) (future) recreation Thomas Road Western Section 69th Avenue 67th Avenue 67th Avenue fields 69th Avenue 71st Avenue 71st Avenue Jefferson Street Roosevelt Street W59 Alternative Fowler Elementary School 2 Sunridge McDowell Road W71 Alternative Papago 3 Tolleson Union 10 Freeway Elementary School High School 1 W101 Alternative Western Option

Fowler Elementary School Van Buren Street W101 Alternative Central Option District school (future) 5 W101 Alternative Eastern Option recreation fields fields Avenue 91st 75th Avenue 83rd Avenue 67th Avenue 59th Avenue Buckeye Road Eastern Section 79th Avenue 72nd Avenue 72nd Avenue Elwood Street E1 Alternative Durango Street Durango Street recreation basketball Lower Buckeye fields Approximate scale 5 courts Road Tuscano Elementary School Lower Buckeye Road 1 2 MESA3 miles Santa Maria Middle School 99th Avenue Odeum Lane Broadway Road Notes: Phoenix • Aerial photography is shown at variable scales. 67th Avenue 67th Avenue Sky Harbor • Aerial photography date is April 2008. International Lower Buckeye Road Tuscano • Locations of the action alternatives relative 12 Southern Avenue Airport Santa Maria Elementary School to the Section 4(f) resources are depicted Middle School 4 Superstition recreation in the insets. 60 Freeway

71st Avenue recreation 71st Avenue fields Elwood Street Baseline Road

Sierra Linda High School 9 Vineyard Road Gila River Indian Maricopa LOOP Price Trailside Point 10 Freeway 101 Freeway

School Community

71st Avenue 71st 71st Avenue 71st Baseline Road Western Section pedestrian Phoenix athletic fields access from South play area/ Eastern Section wash Kyrene wash Mountain Kyrene Akimel A-al recreation fields Park/Preserve de la Estrella Middle School Kyrene Elementary de los Lagos School Elementary Meadow Loop Road recreation School Trailside Point School 6 fields Liberty Lane Liberty Lane Desert Meadows athletic

Elementary School Kyrene Akimel A-al Middle fields

34th Way 34th

34th Way 34th 59th Avenue 59th 59th Avenue 59th School and Kyrene de la 11 play areas/ Estrella Elementary School recreation fields Southern Avenue LaveenLaveen AreaArea ConveyanceConveyance ChannelChannel Betty Fairfax High School 8 Kyrene de los Lagos Elementary School 10

Desert Meadows Elementary School 7 Pecos Road LOOP Santan 202 Freeway

None of the existing and planned schools afforded protection under Section 4(f) have noise-sensitive activities or viewshed characteristics that contribute to their importance as Section 4(f) resources. (figure continues in tabular format on next page) Not all public school recreational facilities are afforded protection under Section 4(f). See sidebar on page 5-3. Circled numbers on the figure correspond to theSection 4(f) resources described on the facing page. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-11

Figure 5-6 Public School Recreational Facilities (continued)

Impact Measure to Description Avoidance Conclusion Proximity to Direct Constructive Minimize Harma Resource Proposed Action Use Use • Under jurisdiction of Tolleson Union High School District Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Adjacent to the Tolleson Union • 1 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant awarded Avoided W101 Alternative None None Not required High School • • Primary access to the facilities from Van Buren Street; additional access would be and Options at three other locations from Van Buren Street and one from Jefferson Street Under jurisdiction of Fowler Elementary School District Fowler • 325 feet from 2 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required Elementary School • W71 Alternative • Primary access to the facilities from 67th Avenue 650 feet from Under jurisdiction of Fowler Elementary School District Sunridge Elementary • Papago Freeway; 3 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required School • 725 feet from Primary access to the facilities from Roosevelt Street 1. None of the schools afforded • W59 Alternative protection under Section 4(f) Under jurisdiction of Fowler Elementary School District Santa Maria • Adjacent to have noise-sensitive activities 4 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required Middle School • W71 Alternative or viewshed characteristics • Primary access to the facilities from 72nd Avenue that contribute to their importance as Section 4(f) 5 • Under jurisdiction of Fowler Elementary School District resources. Fowler Elementary School Outdoor recreational facilities would be available for public use after school hours 900 feet from 5 • Avoided None None Not required District school (future) • Site plans and planned access unavailable W71 Alternative 2. No constructive or direct use • Access to be determined of the school sites afforded protection under Section 4(f) • Under jurisdiction of Laveen Elementary School District would occur. Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours 200 feet from 6 Trailside Point School • Avoided None None Not required 3. Because access to existing Primary access to the facilities would be from Vineyard Road; additional access W71 Alternative • school sites or planned would be provided west of the school access to planned school Under jurisdiction of Laveen Elementary School District 1,300 feet from sites afforded protection Desert Meadows • 7 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided W71 and W101 None None Not required under Section 4(f) would Elementary School • • Primary access to the facilities would be from Meadow Loop Road Alternatives not be altered, access to and utility of any of the • Under jurisdiction of Phoenix Union High School District resources would not be Betty Fairfax Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours 1,300 feet from 8 • Avoided None None Not required impaired. Therefore, none High School W59 Alternative • Primary access to the facilities would be from 5 9th Avenue; pedestrian access of the action alternatives or would be from south of Baseline Road options would result in direct Under jurisdiction of Tolleson Union High School District or constructive use and no Sierra Linda • 1,100 feet from 9 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required measures to minimize harm High School • W59 Alternative • Primary access to the facilities would be from 6 7th Avenue are warranted. Under jurisdiction of Kyrene Elementary School District Kyrene de los Lagos • 70 feet from 10 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required Elementary School • E1 Alternative • Primary access to the facilities would be from L iberty Lane Kyrene Akimel A-al Under jurisdiction of Kyrene Elementary School District Middle School and Kyrene • 50 feet from 11 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required de la Estrella Elementary • E1 Alternative Primary access to the facilities would be from L iberty Lane School • Under jurisdiction of Fowler Elementary School District Tuscano Elementary • 1,200 feet from 12 Outdoor recreational facilities are available for public use after school hours Avoided None None Not required School • W71 Alternative • Primary access to the facility would be from 79th Avenue a Other mitigation proposed for other, non-Section 4(f) resources would contribute to reductions in proximity impacts (see text box regarding other measures contributing to reductions in proximity impacts on page 5-24). 5-12 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-7 Public Parkland

Bethany Home Road LOOP Agua Fria Existing freeway 101 Freeway I-10 Encanto Boulevard I-10 Black Canyon 17 Freeway Gila River Indian Community 11 00 boundary 1 1

Dysart Road Camelback Road pp oo future

95th Maricopa County line 95th oo park 63rd Avenue Avenue Avenue basketball LL 63rd Avenue Piestewa courts 51 Freeway courts ee Section 4(f) properties (map) Garfield uu Roosevelt nn Street e e Street Indian School Road McDowell v v

Avondale Boulevard Avondale Section 4(f) properties (photos)

A

A

h

Road h

t

playground t

5 5 Western Section

recreation 99th Avenue 9 fields 9 Thomas Road 95th Avenue Park 5 W59 Alternative

I-10 95th Avenue/Encanto recreation recreation fields fields PHOENIX I-10 Boulevard Park (future) 3 W71 Alternative Friendship Park 1 Sunridge Park 4 W101 Alternative Western Option McDowell Road Papago 10 Freeway I-10 W101 Alternative Central Option AVONDALE W101 Alternative Eastern Option Van Buren Street GOODYEAR Eastern Section 35th Avenue Van Buren Street 35th Avenue recreation 91st Avenue 91st Hohokam 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 83rd Avenue 143 Tolleson Union High School TOLLESON fields E1 AlternativeFreeway picnic 35th Avenue picnic Buckeye Road Tolleson City Hall areas Approximate scale playground and Police Station areas recreation Roosevelt Street fields 5 retention baseball 1 3 miles fields Notes: Phoenix Sky Harbor 71st Avenue Lower Buckeye Road 71st Avenue Falcon Park 6 • Aerial photographyInternational is shownAirport at variable scales. Palo Verde Drive Palo Verde Palo Verde Drive Palo Verde Elwood Street TEMPE Dysart Road Calle Adobe Drive Dysart Road • Aerial photography date is April 2008. JeffersonJeffersonStreet Street • Locations of the action alternatives relative to the Parque de Paz 2 proposed Section 4(f) resources are depicted in the insets. Broadway Road basin Santa Maria Park • I-10 = Interstate 10 10 • SR 101L = State Route 101L (Loop 101) Cowden Park 7 d Road Southern Avenue Meadow Loop

Elwood Street

retention 24th Street 32th Street 40th Street 48th Street Baseline Road recreation fields Laveen Area Conveyance Channel 83rd Avenue 83rd Avenue recreation Dobbins Road fields Lower Buckeye Road 59th Avenue Laveen Commons Park 12 19th Avenue 19th Avenue retention 83rd Avenue/Elwood Street (future) Park (future) 9 Western Section L Phoenix South Mountain Lib Gila River Indian Community Eastern Section be 16 Park/Preserve rt y Maricopa La 10 Freeway an Southwest (Estrella) City Services 8 e ad Ro 15th15th AvenueAvenue ard ney

n 48th ii 48th Street V Street V park

Ray Road

basketball

s

l 17th Avenue l courts 17th Avenue Pecos Road

Future City of i Pecos Road

Chandler Blvd h 14 t recreation fields Phoenix Park o y a Chandler Boulevard Fo t w 71st Avenue 71st Avenue r k Future City of e r Pecos Park 15 s a 13 Phoenix Park e P Trailside Point Park 11 (South D Mountain 620) Pecos Road

Other than Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve (addressed separately in the next section), none of the action alternatives would result in direct impacts on any of the existing or planned public parks (figure continues in tabular format on next page) or their recreational components. None of the parks afforded protection under Section 4(f) have noise-sensitive activities or viewshed characteristics that contribute to their importance as Section 4(f) resources. Because access to these parks would not be altered, access to and the utility of the resources would not be impaired. Circled numbers on the figure correspond to theSection 4(f) resources described on the facing page. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-13

Figure 5-7 Public Parkland (continued)

Impact Measure to Description Avoidance Proximity to Proposed Direct Constructive Minimize Conclusion Resource Action Use Use Harma • 55-acre park owned and operated by the City of Avondale Adjacent to I-10b 1 Friendship Park Avoided None None Not required • Primary access from McDowell Road (Papago Freeway) 1. Except for the South Mountains, none of the action alternatives • 4-acre park owned and operated by the City of Goodyear 1,200 feet from I-10 2 Parque de Paz Avoided None None Not required would result in direct impacts Primary access from Pa lo Verde Drive (Papago Freeway) • on any of the existing or planned 95th Avenue/ • 10-acre park to be owned and operated by the C ity of Phoenix Adjacent to SR 101Ld public parks or their recreational 3 Encanto Boulevard • Site plan unavailable Avoided None None Not required (Agua Fria Freeway) components. Some of the Park (future) • Primary access would be from Encanto Boulevard and/or 95th Avenue properties have recreational • 15-acre park owned and operated by the City of Phoenix amenities funded through LWCFc • LWCF grant awarded for site preparation, including grading, utilities, 1,300 feet from I-10 grants. 4 Sunridge Park Avoided None None Not required irrigation, landscaping, and lighting (Papago Freeway) 2. Although the W101 Alternative • Primary access is from Roosevelt Street Western Option would pass • 2-acre park owned and operated by the City of Tolleson through a portion of Southwest 900 feet from • LWCF grant awarded for parking lot improvements and bench and ramada (Estrella) City Services complex, 5 95th Avenue Park Avoided W101 Alternative Partial None None Not required installation it would not constitute a direct Reconstruction (all Options) • Primary access from Garfield Street use of a resource afforded • 14.5-acre park owned and operated by the City of Phoenix 500 feet from I-10 protection under Section 4(f) 6 Falcon Park Avoided None None Not required 5 • Primary access from Roosevelt Street (Papago Freeway) because the alternative would cross only the retention • 3-acre park owned and operated by the City of Tolleson 200 feet from 7 Cowden Park Avoided None None Not required area within the complex. No • Primary access from Van Buren Street W101 Alternative and Options constructive or direct use of the Southwest Alternative properties afforded protection • 100-acre park to be owned and operated by the City of Phoenix Adjacent to W101 Alternative  8 (Estrella) City Avoided None access would Not required under Section 4(f) would occur. • Primary access would be from Lower Buckeye Road/99th Avenue Western Option Services be provided 3. None of the parks afforded 83rd Avenue/ • 8.5-acre park to be owned and operated by the City of Phoenix protection under Section 4(f) Adjacent to W101 Alternative 9 Elwood Street Park • Noncontributing portion of property would be in right-of-way Avoided None None Not required have noise-sensitive activities Eastern Option (future) • Primary access would be from 83rd Avenue and/or Elwood Street or viewshed characteristics that contribute to their importance • 15-acre park to be owned and operated by the City of Phoenix 10 Santa Maria Park Avoided Adjacent to W71 Alternative None None Not required as Section 4(f) resources. • Primary access would be from 71st Avenue 4. Because all existing and • 15-acre park owned and operated by the City of Phoenix 1,000 feet from planned resources protected 11 Trailside Point Park Avoided None None Not required • Primary access from Vineyard Road W71 Alternative under Section 4(f) would • 15-acre park to be owned and operated b y the City of Phoenix remain accessible, utility of Laveen Commons 500 feet from W71 and 12 • Site plan unavailable Avoided None None Not required the resources would not be Park (future) W101 Alternatives • Primary access would be from Meadow Loop Road impaired. 5. Except for the South Mountains, • 66-acre park owned and operated by the City of Phoenix 13 Pecos Park Avoided Adjacent to E1 Alternative None None Not required none of the action alternatives • Primary access from 48th Street or options in the Western • 7.2-acre park to be owned and operated b y the City of Phoenix Future City of Section would result in direct or 14 • Site plan unavailable Avoided Adjacent to E1 Alternative None None Not required Phoenix Park constructive use of existing or • Primary access would be from Liberty Lane planned public parks; therefore, Future City of no measures to minimize harm • 75-acre park to be owned and operated b y the City of Phoenix 15 Phoenix Park (South Avoided Adjacent to E1 Alternative None None Not required are required. • Primary access would be from Chandler Bouelvard Mountain 620) • 16,600-acre park operated and maintained by the City of Phoenix Approximately The E1 Alternative would directly Phoenix South Not 0.9 mile of freeway • Primary access from Central Avenue, south of Dobbins Road 31.3 acres (less Not See page use resources afforded protection 16 Mountain Park/ prudent would pass through the • LWCF grant applied to expand park boundary at eastern side of the park, to than 0.2 percent applicable 5‑22 under Section 4(f) located in the Preserve and feasible southwestern edge of SMPPe develop Park Drive, and to improve restrooms and ramadas of SMPP) South Mountains. Note: Information regarding the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to Sunridge Park is from personal communications with P. Dutrack, February 10, 2005. a Other mitigation proposed for other, non-Section 4(f) resources would contribute to reductions in proximity impacts (see box regarding other measures contributing to reductions in proximity impacts on page 5-24). b Interstate 10 c Land and Water Conservation Fund d State Route 101L (Loop 101) e Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve 5-14 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

PUBLIC PARKLAND RESOURCES The South Mountains in Phoenix’s (SMPP) ASSOCIATED WITH THE The Phoenix Mountain Preserve Act and the Proposed Freeway Sonoran Preserve System SOUTH MOUNTAINS Events leading to the City of Phoenix’s eventual adoption the exception was to allow the proposed freeway to go of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve Act started as a grass- through SMPP because the importance of the freeway The City of Phoenix operates and SMPP is a highly valued resource to the region’s roots effort when a group of concerned citizens decided to the region’s economy and transportation system maintains over 27,000 acres of mountain communities. Through the course of preparing the Draft preserves and desert parks. The preserved the city’s mountains needed protection from increasing was clearly recognized. Known legislative history of this Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)/Section 4(f) natural land provides visual relief to life encroachment from ongoing development. statute does not mention a specific alignment for the in an urban setting and can benefit the Evaluation, the participating public has regularly In 1990, the Arizona Legislature ratified the City’s proposed action because it is the purview of the STB, urban economy. In 1998, the City of expressed to ADOT its concerns about the freeway going requirement that approval by the city’s voters was not the Legislature, to determine the precise alignment of State highways. It was the intent of the Legislature Phoenix adopted the Sonoran Preserve through SMPP and possible impacts from the proposed necessary for the construction of a roadway through to allow the proposed action to go through SMPP; the Master Plan, which sets forth strategies to action (see sidebar on this page for related information). a mountain preserve under Arizona Revised Statutes protect the natural settings while allowing (A.R.S.)8 § 2 ‑7047. Although this may suggest that precise alignment was to be determined through the access to them. SMPP has been called the SMPP is afforded protection as a publicly owned park. construction of the proposed action through SMPP collaborative project development process. The mountain centerpiece of the preserve system. would be subject to voter approval, such is not the case. preserve boundary as established for SMPP under the SMPP is approximately 16,600 acres in size and is Phoenix Mountain Preserve Act set aside a 200‑foot-wide Through the course of preparing the Provisions in the Act clearly indicate voter approval is not operated and maintained by the City of Phoenix (City corridor through the park as a utility corridor. However, DEIS, many documented public comments applicable to a state route proposed to be constructed of Phoenix 1989, 2005a). Figure 5-8 illustrates major the right-of-way (R/W) easement also allows the use of pertaining to SMPP have been received. within a designated mountain preserve if the state route this corridor for other purposes (including roads). The Comments ranged from strong preferences features of the park/preserve. The following points was in the State Highway System on August 15, 1990. corridor, although not wide enough to accommodate a to not go through the park at all suggest the value of SMPP as a resource afforded The proposed action was in the State Highway System modern freeway, is in approximately the same location as (e.g., the City of Phoenix Parks Board, the protection under Section 4(f): plan prior to 1990 and is thus exempt from voter the South Mountain Freeway alignment adopted in 1988. Phoenix Mountain Preservation Council, 5 ➤➤ SMPP is arguably one of the largest city parks in approval requirements under this statute. Records prior and the Arizona State Horsemen’s to adoption of the statute suggest a primary reason for Association have opposed use of SMPP the United States and a centerpiece of the Phoenix for the proposed action) to strong Sonoran Preserve System. recommendations to undertake all possible ➤➤ SMPP offers over 3 million visitors per year measures to mitigate impacts on SMPP if there is no action alternative to avoid use of opportunities for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, the park. and interaction with the natural Sonoran Desert In the City of Phoenix General Plan, the Circulation located in SMPP). To do so, the proposed action immediately adjacent to a major metropolitan area Element (Goal 1, Policy 7) clearly supports the would cut through the ridges. Figure 5-9 is two (City of Phoenix 2009c). timely construction of the proposed action (City of visual simulations of what the cuts might look Phoenix 2005b). Supporting General Plan maps show the like through the ridgelines. Figure 5-10 conveys City of Phoenix planning activities since the mid-1980s proposed action in the general location as planned in the the size of the cuts through the park. Without illustrate an awareness of the possible interaction between mid-1980s with a portion of it passing through SMPP. mitigation, the cuts could create substantial visual SMPP and the proposed action. On April 11, 1989, the scars by replacing a natural setting with unweathered South Mountain Park Master Plan, prepared by the Direct Use subsurface rock exposure. Section 4(f) resources in the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Library Department, was South Mountains All action alternatives would result in direct use of ➤➤ Intrusion – The proposed action would introduce an adopted by the Phoenix City Council. The master plan SMPP. The impact would be the same for all action intensive human-made use into an otherwise passive, shows the freeway alignment (designated as “planned Detailed discussions of resources afforded alternatives because all action alternatives would be on a natural setting as evidenced by the remainder of SMPP southwest loop”) as adopted by the State Transportation protection under Section 4(f) located in the common alignment through SMPP; 0.9 mile of freeway to the north and the Community land to the south. South Mountains can be found in: Board (STB) in 1988. While the plan acknowledges alignment would pass through the southwestern edges ➤➤ • Public Parkland Resources (SMPP) the interrelationship between the park and the proposed Access – The proposed action could alter access of the park bordering Community land. Land area Associated with the South Mountains freeway, a recommendation in the plan identifies to SMPP. While there are no formal trailheads directly used would be approximately 31.3 acres, which (this page) the underlying conflict leading to the passage of the or staging areas for access into SMPP where the • represents less than 0.2 percent of total SMPP parkland. NRHP-Eligible Historic Resources (SMPP) Phoenix Mountain Preserve Act (see text box on this proposed action would pass through the park, Associated with the South Mountains uncontrolled access to the park does occur in the (page 5-24) page). Specifically, the recommendation states that “the Members of the public and stakeholders expressed affected area by hikers, equestrians, and Community • The South Mountains (Muhadagi Doag) as Southwest Loop be realigned around South Mountain concern for other direct use-related impacts of the a Traditional Cultural Property (page 5-25) Park.” The selected alternative would have all possible proposed action, such as: members [see the discussion regarding the South environmental mitigation measures implemented to lessen ➤➤ Mountains as afforded protection under Section 4(f) Landscape alteration – The proposed action would the impact on the park (City of Phoenix 1989). as a TCP, beginning on page 5-25]. cross three mountain ridgelines (two of which are South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-15

Figure 5-8 Public Parkland Resources (Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve) Associated with the South Mountains

Broadway Road Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community boundary Maricopa County line 7th Street 7th Avenue Southern Avenue 16th Street Central Avenue Central South Mountain Phoenix South Mountain Superstition Park/Preserve Environmental 60 Freeway Education Center Trails Main entrance to the park is Ramadas and picnic area Baseline Road located at 10919 South Central Avenue Recreation area Maricopa 10 Freeway Parking area

Dobbins Lookout Western Section Dobbins Road W59 Alternative 19th Avenue

Typical ramadas W71 Alternative and picnic areas Eastern Section Parking near Dobbins Road Elliot Road E1 Alternative 5 Western Section and 19th Avenue Approximate scale Eastern Section 1 2 3 miles

Estrella Drive Warner Road Ma Ha Tuak Range

LOOP Price 101 Freeway Trails abound Ray Road in the park Gila Range Parking at 7th Street Typical recreation areas Guadalupe Rangeand Telegraph Pass 48th Street Chandler Boulevard 24th Street 40th Street 32nd Street

17th Avenue Parkway Desert Foothills LOOP Santan 202 Freeway Pecos Road Quarter Midget car track Equestrian area

Gila River Indian Community

As a publicly owned public park, the Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve is a 16,600-acre desert preserve park operated and maintained by the City of Phoenix. 5-16 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-9 Photo Simulations, Proposed Roadway Cuts through Ridges of the South Mountains

Ahwatukee Foothills Village

Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve

Gila River Indian Community

Gila River Indian Community Vee Quiva Casino Dusty Lane 5 community

Gila River Indian Community boundary Gila River Indian Community boundary Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Vee Quiva Casino boundary boundary Note: Perspective of roadway in photographic simulation is approximate. Note: Perspective of roadway in photographic 51st Avenue simulation is approximate.

The cuts shown to accommodate the proposed freeway include no slope treatments or other mitigation measures. The perspective is drawn from a point above the west end of Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve near the Dusty Lane community southeast through the main ridges of the South Mountains. See Figure 5-10 for an “engineered” view of the proposed cuts.

➤➤ Habitat connectivity – While the Study Area is Constructive Use The viability of the new alignments and the urbanizing and there are no documented major All of the action alternatives would result in a direct use modifications to the action alternatives and options wildlife dispersal/migration routes, there is a of SMPP. As a rule, and applicable in this case, when currently under consideration as prudent and feasible continued interest from the commenting public, direct use of a Section 4(f) resource would occur, analysis were then evaluated to determine whether there would vested park stakeholders, the Community, and to determine whether proximity impacts would result in be unique problems or unusual factors associated with State and federal agencies to address the issue constructive use is no longer applicable (23 C.F.R. § 774.15). the revised action alternatives or whether the cost; social, (see the section, Biological Resources, beginning on economic, and environmental impacts; or community page 4-117, to learn more about habitat connectivity). Avoidance Alternatives for Public Parkland disruption resulting from avoiding the Section 4(f) Unmitigated, the proposed action could create a Resources of the South Mountains resource would be of extraordinary magnitude physical impediment for the movement of wildlife Afforded Protection under Section 4(f) (23 C.F.R. § 774.31). to and from the Sierra Estrella, the Gila River To avoid impacts on Section 4(f) resources, alignments The results of this evaluation are presented on lowlands, and the South Mountains. within and outside of the Study Area were investigated. page 5-18. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-17

Figure 5-10 Cross Sections, Proposed Roadway Cuts through Ridges of the South Mountains

elevation (feet) 1230 Laveen Alta Ridge Village 1210 ground before freeway construction E1 Alternative freeway lanes E1 Alternative right-of-way 1190 ground after freeway construction Gila River Indian Community 1170 sideslope boundary rockfall containment fence Phoenix South Mountain 1150 70 feet 1 1 median barrier Park/Preserve boundary Alta Phoenix 1130 Ridge South Mountain Respective cut locations Park/Preserve Inset A 1110 rockfall containment ditch 1090 Inset A elevation (feet) Dusty Lane 1280 Main Ridge North community ground before 1260 freeway construction

1240 Vee Quiva Casino 1220 1200 5 sideslope 1180 1 1 Main 1160 sideslope

51st Avenue 51st 220 feet ground after Ridge 1140 1 North freeway construction 1 Gila River 1120 rockfall containment Indian Community rockfall containment fence Inset B fence 1100 median barrier rockfall

1080 containment ditch rockfall containment ditch 1060 Inset B Main Ridge South elevation (feet) 1330 Main Ridge South Ahwatukee Inset C Foothills 1310 Village 1290 ground before freeway construction 1270

1250 sideslope Pecos Road 3/4 sideslope 1230 1 190 feet ground after 3/4 1210 freeway construction 1 rockfall containment Approximate scale 1190 rockfall containment fence fence 1170 median barrier rockfall rockfall 1/2 1 mile containment ditch containment ditch 1150

1130 Inset C

The proposed roadway cuts to the ridges of the South Mountains could substantially alter the visual setting by replacing natural terrain with subsurface rock exposure, unless mitigated. The final determination of sideslopes and treatments would be made after extensive sampling and geotechnical analysis of rock conditions. 5-18 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

No-Action Alternative not meet the project’s stated purpose and need criteria Alternative would serve regional mobility needs, The No-Action Alternative would not result in proposed and would be coupled with adverse impacts, specifically: particularly of those living in the Maricopa area, action ‑related effects on properties afforded protection ➤➤ would not address needs based on regional travel meeting this travel demand would not address any under Section 4(f). However, the No‑Action Alternative demand and existing and projected transportation specifically identified planning goals for an integrated would not prevent nonfederal projects (e.g., private system capacity deficiencies regional transportation network. The RTP identifies the proposed action as a critical link in the Regional developments, locally and State-funded infrastructure ➤➤ would cause substantial traffic performance impacts Freeway and Highway System, both in completing it projects) from adversely affecting properties afforded on I-10 (Maricopa Freeway) between State Route and in optimizing overall system performance as well as protection under Section 4(f). The No-Action Alternative (SR) 202L (Santan Freeway) and US 60 (Superstition that of specific existing links such as SR 202L (Santan would also not meet the project’s stated purpose and need Freeway) Freeway). The Riggs Road Alternative would not as described in Chapter 3, Alternatives (see page 3‑40). ➤➤ would increase undesirable congestion on US 60 Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is not prudent. complete the loop system as part of SR 202L, thereby (Superstition Freeway) and SR 101L (Price Freeway) causing substantial out-of-direction travel for motorists. ➤➤ Gila River Indian Community Alternatives would result in unintended underuse of SR 202L The alternative would not be prudent and feasible All action alternatives under study lie outside the (Santan Freeway) because it would not meet the proposed action purpose ➤➤ Community. The Community has not granted would have substantial impacts on existing and need and, therefore, was eliminated from further permission to ADOT and FHWA to develop residences, including thousands of residential consideration. alternatives within the Community boundary that may displacements SR 85/I-8 Alternative 5 avoid SMPP. As a sovereign nation, the Community ➤➤ would not be consistent with local or regional must rescind Resolution GR-126-00 before any planning, which includes a freeway alternative that The SR 85/Interstate 8 (I-8) Alternative would begin alternatives crossing Community land could be planned. completes the loop system as part of SR 202L at I‑10 approximately 32 miles west of downtown Phoenix and would require replacement or widening of Coordination among ADOT, FHWA, and the For these reasons, the US 60 Extension Alternative I ‑8 for approximately 63 miles east before reconnecting Community regarding the development of alternatives would not be prudent and feasible and was eliminated with I‑10 at Casa Grande, approximately 56 miles on Community land has been ongoing since project from further consideration. south of downtown Phoenix. SR 85 is currently being inception. While the Community Governor allowed I-10 Spur Alternative (and Options) reconstructed as a four-lane, divided highway with the study of an alignment on Community land, limited-access control, and I‑8 is a four-lane, divided this alignment was ultimately not supported by the The I-10 Spur Alternative (see Table 3-5 on interstate freeway with full access control. Existing signs Community as a whole and was voted down by page 3-12) and its options are a variation of the US 60 at each terminus designate the route as a truck bypass Community referendum in February 2012. This Extension Alternative and would connect with it near of downtown Phoenix. The alternative would not be outcome is consistent with resolution GR-126-00 that Baseline Road. The alternative would have all of the prudent and feasible because it would not meet the strongly opposed any alignment on Community land. adverse impacts associated with the US 60 Extension proposed action purpose and need as part of the regional Therefore, ADOT and FHWA have determined that an Alternative. Differences, however, include: transportation network and, therefore, was eliminated alternative alignment on Community land is not feasible. ➤➤ would also require reconstruction of the I‑10/I‑17 from further consideration. See Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community system traffic interchange Tunnel Alternatives Coordination, for additional information regarding ➤➤ would result insubstantial disruption to community coordination with the Community. character and cohesion, splitting South Mountain Tunnel alternatives were investigated as design options (Figure 5-11). To summarize, they were studied to: US 60 Extension Alternative Village ➤➤ avoid the use of SMPP For these reasons, the I-10 Spur Alternative (and The US 60 Extension Alternative (see Table 3‑5 on ➤➤ avoid use-related impacts [as described in the Options) would not be prudent and feasible and, page 3 ‑12) was developed to avoid use of SMPP, section, Public Parkland Resources (SMPP) Associated therefore, was eliminated from further consideration. site AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and the South Mountains with the South Mountains, beginning on page 5-14] TCP. The US 60 Extension Alternative, however, would Riggs Road Alternative of landscape alteration, visual intrusion, access, and habitat connectivity Nearly two-thirds of the Riggs Road alternative would be on Community land. While the Riggs Road South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-19

Figure 5-11 Profile, Tunnel Alternatives Profile for tunnel options (no vertical exaggeration) elevation Main Ridge North Main Ridge South (feet) 1420 1340

1260 1180 Alta Ridge 1100 1020

Immediately below is an enlargement (three times) of the boxed portion of this drawing. Approximate scale

500 1000 feet Profile for tunnel options (no vertical exaggeration) elevation (feet) 1420 Main Ridge North Main Ridge South 1340 tunnel cross-section view Medium profile Low profile tunnel 1260 cross-section view 1180 1100 1020 Underground profile

Approximate scale 5

500 1000 feet Profile view of tunnel options (vertical dimension exaggerated ten times [10:1] for structural clarity)

elevation (feet) 1400 Cut slope areas 1380 Conceptual bridge pier 1360 Main Ridge North 1340 Existing ground 1320 Underground profile 1300 cross-section view Main Ridge South Low profile 1280 cross-section view 1260 Medium profile 1240 1220 1200 Street Ivanhoe Medium profile 1180 1160 Low profile tunnel tunnel tunnel 1140 Alta Ridge 1120 1100 1080 1060 existing ground existing ground 1040 1020 Underground profile 1000

Approximate scale

500 1000 feet

Three tunnel depths were examined. In all cases, the profiles would not completely avoid the use of resources of the South Mountains afforded protection under Section 4(f). Further, none of the options for tunnel depths would achieve the desired outcome of avoiding use-related impacts such as visual and noise intrusion. 5-20 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Based on the analyses, the options were eliminated from ➤➤ Incident management would be constrained on the ➤➤ Costs to construct the bridges—estimated to be detailed study. The alternatives would not be prudent tunnel alternatives because of the confined space, between approximately $232 million (21 percent of and feasible because: limited accessibility, and lack of graded side slopes. the project’s total construction cost) and $323 million ➤➤ (29 percent of the project’s total construction cost)— The desired effects from the tunnel alternatives—to The Tunnel Alternatives do no avoid direct use of avoid access and other use-related impacts such as were determined to not be prudent. a resource afforded protection under Section 4(f), ➤➤ landscape alteration and visual intrusion—would not the desired outcome of this alternative development. Construction of the bridge alternatives would be achieved. Necessary bridges, cut slopes for the Although the Tunnel Alternatives would have less require drilling and blasting for the numerous pier tunnel entrances, retaining walls, fill slopes for the visual, noise level, and habitat acreage impacts than foundations, which would result in permanent approaches, and potential ventilation shafts would all would the open cut design of the proposed action, scarring and excavation of the ridges. ➤➤ cause use-related impacts. total avoidance of such impacts would not be possible. The bridge alternatives would increase visual impacts ➤➤ There are security concerns regarding tunnels on Constructible tunnel configuration options (see text box for views from the South Mountains to adjacent land urban freeways being considered potential terrorist regarding tunneling options on page 3‑16 for further and from adjacent land to the South Mountains. targets (American Association of State Highway and discussion) would require tunnel construction at the ➤➤ The inclusion of a bridge could result in hazardous Transportation Officials [AASHTO] 2003). known maximum feasible width. It is not possible at materials restrictions along the entire proposed ➤➤ ADOT and FHWA have determined the tunnels, this time to determine if the maximum width could action. Therefore, hazardous cargo carriers would at a minimum, must accommodate the three be accommodated based on the site-specific geology have to continue to use existing routes. general purpose lanes; desirably, they would of the South Mountains. Furthermore, because of ➤➤ Incident management would be constrained on 5 accommodate four lanes (see the text box regarding the constructability and operational challenges, the bridge alternatives because of the height above tunnel constraints and potential configurations on and unacceptable safety concerns, the substantially existing ground, lack of graded side slopes, and the pages 3-16 and 3-17). This requirement is based on higher costs associated with tunnel construction and distances between access points. safety concerns of diverging or splitting freeway- maintenance would not be warranted. For these reasons, ➤➤ Perceived driver safety might be impaired because speed traffic going in a single direction. Current FHWA and ADOT have determined that the Tunnel the bridge height and length and steepness of the construction techniques would allow for tunnels that Alternatives are not prudent and feasible and were, grades would be unique to an urban freeway in the accommodate only three lanes in one direction. therefore, eliminated from further consideration Phoenix area. ➤➤ The inclusion of a tunnel could result in hazardous Bridge Alternatives materials restrictions along the entire proposed The desired outcome of developing the Bridge action. Therefore, hazardous cargo carriers would In an effort to achieve results comparable to those Alternative is to avoid use of a property protected under have to continue to use existing routes. proposed for the tunnel alternatives, bridge alternatives Section 4(f) or reduce use-related impacts. Not only do were also investigated. As with the tunnel alternatives, the Bridge Alternatives not avoid use of a Section 4(f) ➤➤ Costs to construct the tunnels—estimated to be various designs were analyzed. Figures 5-12 and 5-13 property, but they would increase visual impacts and between approximately $215 million (20 percent of illustrate bridge concepts considered. Based on the introduce incident management and homeland security the project’s total construction cost) and $1.9 billion analysis, bridge alternatives were determined to not be concerns, constructability and maintenance issues, (1.7 times the project’s total construction cost) prudent and feasible because: future expansion limitations, and undesirable intrusion- (depending on length and excavation method)— ➤➤ related impacts. Because the Bridge Alternatives do not were determined to be not prudent (see page 3-59 Complete avoidance of the resources afforded achieve avoidance or meaningfully reduce use-related for information on the project's estimated total protection under Section 4(f) would not be achieved. ➤➤ impacts, the substantially higher construction cost is not construction cost). The desired effects from the bridge alternatives— warranted. For these reason, FHWA and ADOT have ➤➤ avoidance of use-related impacts such as landscape Costs to maintain and operate the tunnel— determined that the Bridge Alternatives are not prudent alteration and visual intrusion—would not be estimated to be between $1.5 million and $2 million and feasible and were, therefore, eliminated from further achieved. Necessary bridge piers, bridge foundations, a year—are not prudent. Costs include full-time consideration. staffing of ventilation buildings, major equipment fill slopes for approaches, and cut slopes would cause repairs, and tunnel rehabilitation. use-related impacts. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-21

Figure 5-12 Profile, Medium Bridge Alternatives Profile for medium-profile bridge (no vertical exaggeration) Main Ridge North elevation Main Ridge South (feet) 1420 1340 1260 1180 Alta Ridge 1100 1020

Immediately below is an enlargement (three times) of the boxed portion of this drawing. Approximate scale

500 1000 feet Profile for medium-profile bridge (no vertical exaggeration) elevation (feet) 1420 Main Ridge North Main Ridge South 1340 1260

1180 1100 existing ground 1020

Approximate scale 5

500 1000 feet Profile for medium-profile bridge (vertical dimension exaggerated ten times [10:1] for structural clarity) elevation (feet) 1400 1380 Main Ridge North 1360 Cut slope areas 1340 Main Ridge South Medium profile 1320 1300 Conceptual bridge pier 1280 Existing ground 1260 Medium profile 1240 1220 Medium profile 1200 Street Ivanhoe 1180 1160 1140 Alta Ridge 1120 1100 1080 1060 existing ground 1040 1020

Approximate scale

500 1000 feet

Two medium-profile bridge options were examined. The goal of the bridge alternative was to completely avoid the use of resources of the South Mountains afforded protection underSection 4(f). In all cases, the profiles would not completely avoid direct impacts on the resources. Further, none of the options would achieve the desired outcome of avoiding use-related impacts such as visual and noise intrusion. 5-22 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Figure 5-13 Profile, High Bridge Alternatives

Profile for high-profile bridge (no vertical exaggeration) Main Ridge North elevation Main Ridge South (feet) 1420 1340 1260 1180 1100 1020

Immediately below is an enlargement (three times) of the boxed portion of this drawing. Approximate scale

500 1000 feet Profile for high-profile bridge (no vertical exaggeration) elevation (feet) 1420 Main Ridge North Main Ridge South 1340 1260 1180 1100 existing ground 1020

5 Approximate scale

500 1000 feet Profile for high-profile bridge (vertical dimension exaggerated ten times [10:1] for structural clarity)

elevation (feet) High profile 1400 Main Ridge North 1380 Conceptual bridge pier 1360 High profile Main Ridge South Existing ground 1340 1320 1300 1280 1260 High profile Ivanhoe Street Ivanhoe 1240 1220 1200 1180 Alta Ridge 1160 1140 1120 1100 1080 1060 1040 existing ground 1020 Approximate scale

500 1000 feet

Two high-profile bridge options were examined. The goal of the bridge alternative was to completely avoid the use of resources of the South Mountains afforded protection underSection 4(f). In all cases, the profiles would not completely avoid direct impacts on the resources. Further, none of the options would achieve the desired outcome of avoiding use-related impacts such as visual and noise intrusion. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-23

Measures to Minimize Harm Figure 5-14 Comparison, 1988 South Mountain Freeway Alignment and Proposed Freeway Alignment

Measures to minimize harm to SMPP are presented below. Some measures require further coordination on the Estrella Drive Existing freeway 1988 right-of-way part of ADOT and FHWA with agencies, jurisdictions, Gila River Indian E1 Alternative Community boundary right-of-way and possibly major user groups (see the section, Black Canyon 17 Coordination, beginning on page 5-29). Those measures, Maricopa County line ADOT-acquiredFreeway property as presented, will include a discussion of future additional StudySURPRISE Area steps needed to commit to the measures. Phoenix Phoenix South MountainPEORIA Alta ➤➤ South Mountain Park/Preserve Some measures have already been undertaken to Ridge Park/Preserve EL MIRAGE reduce impacts on the park. These measures were YOUNGTOWN undertaken as a result of design determinations or of White Tank past, related actions. DustyMountain Lane communityRegional Park 60 Grand ➤➤ Avenue Piestewa The South Mountain Freeway, as proposed 51 Freeway

in 1988, would have resulted in a direct use of just Vee Quiva LITCHFIELD LOOP Agua Fria Casino 1988 right-of-way 101 Freeway GLENDALE over 40 acres of SMPP (ADOT 1988a). Using PARK approximately the same alignment as planned E1 Alternative right-of-way PHOENIX in 1988, the R/W requirements of the proposed 51st Avenue Papago Main 10 Freeway action through the park/preserve would result in an Ridge 5 To Los Angeles North actual use of approximately 31.3 acres; the design as planned in the DEIS would use approximately Phoenix Sky Harbor 9 fewer acres than what was planned in 1988 Gila River Indian International Community Airport (Figure 5–14). GOODYEAR Maricopa ➤➤ Utility corridor Main 10 Freeway The alignment of the South Mountain Freeway, Ridge BUCKEYE South as planned in 1988, was located to avoid bisecting Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve SMPP and to avoid the creation of remnant Western Section parcels of parkland. As such, the alignment was Approximate scale Eastern Section

placed on SMPP and Community boundary lines 1/2 1 mile Pecos Road Sierra Approximate scale (Figure 5-14). Estrella 1 5 miles ➤➤ In the mid-1980s, as plans progressed to design and construct the South Mountain Freeway, Through enhanced design (steeper slopes, a redesigned 51st Avenue service traffic interchange, and optimized horizontal and ADOT purchased land adjacent to the then-SMPP vertical alignments), the project team was able to “tighten up” right-of-way limits, resulting in a lesser use of the Phoenix South boundary and turned a remnant over to the City of Mountain Park/Preserve (SMPP) when compared with what was considered in 1988. Since the original study, ADOT has ac- Phoenix; this acreage was incorporated into SMPP. quired property associated with the 1988 right-of-way limit. Property outside of the 1988 limits was given to the City of The intent was to replace parkland that would be Phoenix and incorporated into SMPP. converted to freeway use. The approximately 16‑acre ➤➤ property is located on the western side of the current Measures to address the conversion of SMPP land to Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix SMPP boundary (see Figure 5–14). a transportation use would include: Mountains Preservation Council, Mountain Bike ➣➣ ➤➤ Excess property associated with future South During the design phase, ADOT would consult Association of America, and Arizona Horsemen’s directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office Association. Mountain Freeway R/W acquisitions, where ➣➣ appropriate, could be used as replacement land for to identify and implement other design measures, During the design phase, ADOT would consult parkland taken by the freeway. when possible, to further reduce land needed directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office in for the proposed action. The City Manager’s representing City of Phoenix interests to enter into office represents its constituents, including the an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to identify 5-24 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Measures Contributing to Incidental Reduction of Proximity Impacts and purchase replacement land. Replacement land slope treatment would depend on the interaction would not exceed a 1:1 ratio (minus previously of two primary factors: purchased replacement land) unless ADOT — the angle of the cut slope Many of the mitigation measures presented in the freeway with the surrounding environment as — Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental would be allowable. Ancillary freeway structures and the City of Phoenix determine jointly that the receptivity of the cut rock to rock sculpting Consequences, and Mitigation, that address impacts on (e.g., noise barriers) could also be visually treated exceeding the 1:1 ratio would be in the best and rounding to mimic existing contours and non-Section 4(f) properties would also contribute through architectural treatments or landscaped interests of both parties. Pursuant to State law, allow for staining, revegetation, and other to incidental reductions in proximity impacts, where buffers. The visual treatment would reduce ADOT cannot purchase land for the sole purpose related measures to blend the slope with the applicable, on resources afforded protection under similar types of proximity impacts that would Section 4(f). To clarify conclusions in this chapter, occur on resources afforded protection under of transferring it to other ownership. Therefore, South Mountains’ natural setting. As an no proximity impacts from the proposed action Section 4(f) (see the section, Visual Resources, under provisions set forth in the IGA entered example, if the cut rock were not conducive to would cause a constructive use of a Section 4(f) beginning on page 4‑153, to learn more about into by both ADOT and the City of Phoenix, desired slope treatments, flattening the slopes resource; Section 4(f) properties, however, would visual impacts and related mitigation). the City would be responsible for identification could increase the receptiveness of the cut still benefit from secondary, incidental reduction • Barriers would be constructed to mitigate noise of replacement land. Once agreed upon under the rock; this would, however, increase the land of proximity impacts. Consider the following from the proposed action on noise-sensitive terms of the IGA, ADOT would issue payment necessary for the proposed action. examples: developments near certain resources afforded ➣➣ • Visually, the proposed action would introduce protection under Section 4(f). The noise barriers to the City of Phoenix for the acquisition of Figure 5-10 illustrates the proposed slope angles forms, lines, colors, and textures distinctly would provide incidental reduction in proximity replacement land. Provisions of the IGA would for the cuts through the mountain ridgelines. different from the existing landscape. To reduce impacts for the resources. Specific incidental ensure commitment of the transaction would be ADOT would undertake additional geotechnical the visual intrusion, the proposed action could noise reduction benefits are shown in the table solely for the purposes of timely acquisition of investigation during the design phase to be designed to blend the color, line, and form of below. parkland for public use within Phoenix. determine, in part, how receptive the proposed 5 ➣➣ The City of Phoenix, under the provisions set slope angles would be to slope treatments. During Incidental Noise Reduction Benefitsa forth in the Phoenix Mountain Preserve Act, this period, ADOT would consult directly with Noise Levelc without Noise Levelc with would not be able to sell SMPP land to ADOT the Phoenix City Manager’s office in representing b Section 4(f) Resource Noise Barriers Noise Barriers for the proposed action. Therefore, ADOT would City of Phoenix interests and on behalf of the Hackin Farmstead 64 58 undertake the condemnation process to obtain the Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee and Hudson Farm 65 58 land for the proposed action. Because replacement Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council in land would be provided as a measure to minimize establishing a slope treatment plan for cut slopes Santa Marie Townsite 64 59 harm, ADOT would request City of Phoenix- through the ridgelines, with the clear intent to Trailside Point School 73 63 written and published support prior to beginning blend as well as would be possible the cut slopes Tolleson Union High School 70 63 the condemnation process. with the South Mountains’ natural setting. ➤➤ ➤➤ 83rd Avenue/Elwood Street Park (future) 68 60 Several measures were analyzed to entirely avoid Measures to minimize intrusion on SMPP would or further reduce impacts associated with the cuts include: Cowden Park 70 63 through the three ridgelines (two of which are located ➣➣ Barriers proposed to mitigate noise impacts on Kyrene Akimel A-al Middle School and 74 62 within SMPP). After careful deliberation, these neighboring residential developments (near the Kyrene de la Estrella Elementary School measures were dropped from further consideration Foothills Reserve residential development and Future City of Phoenix Park 71 64 as discussed in the previous section, Avoidance Dusty Lane residential area), while not specifically a Refer to the section, Noise, beginning on page 4‑78, to learn more about impacts on noise levels and related Alternatives for Public Parkland Resources of the South intended to mitigate noise intrusion into SMPP, mitigation. Noise-level predictions are based on projected, modeled traffic volumes and speeds for the design year Mountains Afforded Protection under Section 4(f), would provide incidental noise mitigation (see the of 2035. For a noise-related constructive use to occur, the mitigated noise level must exceed 67 dBA. b E xamples of reductions in impacts on noise-sensitive Section 4(f) properties are representative, and do not constitute beginning on page 5-16. Other measures to minimize section, Noise, beginning on page 4-80, regarding a comprehensive list of properties that would benefit from incidental reductions in noise or in other impacts. the alteration of the SMPP landscape would include: the general location of proposed barriers). c dBA (decibels, A-weighted) ➣➣ Because of the potential for the ridgeline cuts ➣➣ Visual intrusions caused by the introduction of the to introduce forms, lines, colors, and textures built aspects of the proposed action on the natural distinctly different from the existing ridgelines, setting of SMPP would be reduced by a number design measures would be implemented to blend of measures where appropriate: the appearance of the cuts with the surrounding — Vegetation buffers would be used to screen natural environment, as feasible. The degree of views of the freeway from SMPP. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-25

— Saguaros, mature trees, and larger shrubs action through SMPP would be undertaken near any trails and barely visible from any of the more likely to survive the transplanting and settling- during the design phase. (See the section, Visual readily used trails. Comments from some members of in period would be transplanted in relatively Resources, beginning on page 4-153, to learn more the public have indicated that effects of the cuts extend natural areas near the proposed action to blend about measures and processes to mitigate visual beyond changing the physical nature of the park and with the existing landscape (see the section, impacts from the proposed action.) strike an emotional chord as compromising the park’s Biological Resources, beginning on page 4-117, ➤➤ Measures to reduce impacts on SMPP access and integrity. regarding native plant salvaging requirements habitat connectivity include: NRHP-ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES for the proposed action). ➣➣ The design of proposed crossings of existing — (SMPP) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTH Clustering or grouping plant material in an natural washes in and adjacent to SMPP was MOUNTAINS informal pattern to break up the linear form of the investigated to determine the feasibility of freeway would be undertaken where appropriate modifying the design to create opportunities for Background data to support the property as eligible for to “naturalize” areas within the R/W. wildlife to cross and to enhance park access. Eleven the NRHP are highlighted below: — Landscape treatments using native plants on the ➤➤ crossings were investigated. Based on locations, The park’s origins began in 1924 when prominent periphery of R/W areas at overpass locations likelihood/effectiveness as multifunctional local citizens, aided by then-Congressman Carl and areas near residential developments would crossings, and on preliminary cost estimates, Hayden, started a process to obtain 13,000 acres be installed where appropriate. preliminary designs of some crossings would from the federal government (see Appendix 5-2, — Aesthetic treatments and patterning would be be enhanced to accommodate the movement of beginning on page A561). applied to noise barriers and other structures wildlife and provide access to SMPP for hiking, ➤➤ In 1927, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 5 (lighting standards, overpasses, abutments, equestrian, Community, and bicycling use (see conveyed 9,200 acres of land to the City of Phoenix retaining and screening walls). Figure 3-25 on page 3-47). Some of the crossings ➣➣ through a grant under the Recreation and Public As general practice, ADOT’s Roadside would provide direct access to SMPP; all would Purposes Act. Over the years since the transfer, the Development team would work with a local permit wildlife to move unimpeded in and out of City acquired additional properties to bring SMPP jurisdiction to develop a theme for landscaping the park at the crossing locations (see the section, to its present 16,600 acres. and structures from the standard approved Biological Resources, beginning on page 4-117, to ➤➤ In 1934, NPS developed the original master plan for ADOT applications. Once a theme were learn more about the proposed multipurpose bridge the park, which represented the largest municipal determined, Roadside Development would structures and perceived conflicts between human park planning effort in the United States. design the aesthetic treatment. However, for and wildlife use of the crossings). ➤➤ the proposed action through SMPP, ADOT ➣➣ During the design phase, ADOT would consult The development of the park from 1933 to 1942 was would consult directly with the Phoenix City directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office the direct result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Manager’s office in representing City of Phoenix (which represents its constituents, including the New Deal programs, which provided relief from interests and on behalf of the Sonoran Preserve Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix the Great Depression by employing the Civilian Advisory Committee and the Phoenix Mountains Mountains Preservation Council, Mountain Bike Conservation Corps (CCC). Preservation Council and with Community Association of America, and Arizona Horsemen’s ➤➤ Today, the park retains many of its original CCC- representatives to develop the aesthetic treatment Association), Community delegates, Maricopa constructed buildings, structures, and facilities, and of landscaping and structures through the park/ County, and assigned staff from the Arizona its master-planned layout and design. preserve. Treatments may or may not include Department of Public Safety and the Arizona Game In 1989, the City of Phoenix listed SMPP in the City of ADOT standard applications (see page 4-159 to and Fish Department (AGFD) to finalize design Phoenix Historic Property Register as a Nonresidential learn more about standard applications). features and locations of the crossings. ➣➣ To set clear parameters defining the scope of the Historic District. After initiation by the City of Phoenix mitigation measures to be implemented and for In summary, the visual impacts from roadway cuts to the Historic Preservation Office, SHPO concurred on determinations, an IGA would be created between South Mountains as a park would be perceived by some July 19, 2006, that SMPP is eligible for listing in the ADOT and the City of Phoenix. Planning for to be severe. The measures to minimize harm recounted NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D as set forth under visual treatment of the portion of the proposed above could serve to diminish the intrusion of the cuts Section 106 of the NHPA (see sidebar on page 4-130 for into the park experience for the majority of users. The further details associated with NRHP eligibility criteria). cuts would be located in a remote portion of SMPP, not 5-26 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Direct Use important event[s]), Criterion B (association with an is inclusive and extends beyond the boundary of SMPP Implementation of the E1 Alternative would result important person[s] significant in the past), and Criterion (Figure 5-8). The full extent of the TCP boundary in direct use of SMPP as an NRHP–eligible historic C (embodiment of a distinctive design of a given type, would be studied as part of the measures to minimize resource. The characteristics of the 80-year-old SMPP period, or method of construction). None of the elements harm to the South Mountains TCP (see Measures to that make it eligible for listing in the NRHP would of SMPP related to protection under Criteria A–C would Minimize Harm, beginning page 5-27). For reasons of not be compromised by construction and operation of be adversely affected by the proposed action. The integrity cultural resources sensitivity, boundaries of contributing the proposed action. SMPP’s CCC legacy and features of SMPP would not be endangered by commitment elements/sites are not presented in this document. to transportation use of 31.3 acres (0.2 percent of total would be unaffected; the park’s proximity to downtown The South Mountains continue to be a focus for tribal SMPP area). The far western periphery of the park, Phoenix would remain unchanged; the Sonoran Desert tradition and ceremony. The South Mountains are a where the use would occur, has no association with the features that make the park unique because of its source of upland plants and animals important in various CCC legacy or any other feature associated with Criteria major urban metropolitan area location would remain Native American cultures and traditions. unchanged; and the size of the park would be decreased A–C. Generally, cultural resources eligible for the NRHP The portions of the South Mountains on Community by 31.3 acres out of 16,600 (0.2 percent). under Criterion D are not eligible for protection under Section 4(f). land are at the western end: the Main Ridge North Constructive Use and Main Ridge South. These ridges serve as the THE SOUTH MOUNTAINS (MUHADAGI Community’s main, direct physical link to the mountains. The E1 Alternative would result in direct use of SMPP. DOAG) AS A TRADITIONAL CULTURAL When direct use of a Section 4(f) resource would PROPERTY Two contributing components to the TCP are located occur, analysis to determine whether proximity impacts within the Study Area, one of which is considered 5 The South Mountains are highly valued by Native would result in constructive use is no longer applicable NRHP-eligible under Criterion A. The first site is American communities. The Community—encompassing (23 C.F.R. § 774.15). of unknown age and function, but its position on Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pee Posh (Maricopa) the landscape is unique and possibly associated with Avoidance Alternatives tribes—and other Native American communities, traditional religious and ceremonial activities associated including the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alternatives to avoid use of SMPP were evaluated and with the South Mountains. The second site is situated Community and the Ak–Chin Indian Community, both within the South Mountains TCP. These sites continue determined to be not prudent and feasible. Information of which include Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh peoples, pertaining to avoidance alternatives for all Section 4(f) to function in the living Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh the Tohono O’odham Nation (formerly known as Papago, communities and often serve as spiritual places (Tribal resources is presented in the section, Avoidance or Desert People), and the Colorado River Indian Tribes Alternatives for Public Parkland Resources of the South Historic Preservation Officer [THPO] response [not consider the South Mountains sacred, playing a role in concurrence] regarding NRHP-eligibility of the South Mountains Afforded Protection under Section 4(f), their culture, identity, history, and oral traditions. Because beginning on page 5-16. Mountains as a TCP and its contributing components of their importance in the history and cultural identity was received on August 17, 2011; consultation is Measures to Minimize Harm of Native American communities, the South Mountains ongoing). are NRHP-eligible as a TCP under Criteria A and Measures to minimize harm to SMPP are presented B. The South Mountains TCP boundary is currently Direct Use below. Some measures require further coordination undefined (see the section, Cultural Resources, beginning The E1 Alternative would result in direct use of the on the part of ADOT and FHWA with agencies, on page 4‑128, to learn more about the South Mountains TCP. Approximately 3 miles of freeway alignment jurisdictions, and possibly major user groups (see the in this context). section, Coordination, beginning on page 5-29). The would pass through the mountains and would affect The Community has expressed to ADOT and FHWA measures described for SMPP as a parkland resource the southern and southwestern portions of the TCP. its concerns about an alignment through the South afforded protection under Section 4(f) would have direct The E1 Alternative was designed to avoid a site that is Mountains and the irreversible impacts on the South application and are not repeated here. These measures a contributing element to the South Mountains TCP, Mountains from the proposed action. would, when implemented, minimize harm to those resulting in no direct use of this TCP element. A R/W fence would limit access to the site by freeway users, but characteristics of SMPP that make it eligible for listing To the Community, the South Mountains are part of a Community members would continue to gain access to in the NRHP. These are set forth in Section 106 of the continuum of life and not an individual entity that can the site as they currently do. Freeway construction along NHPA, specifically Criterion A (association with an be isolated and analyzed. The area designated as a TCP South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-27

the E1 Alternative would completely remove the other and Chapter 3, Alternatives, to learn more about the Community have expressed interest in expanding site from the landscape. status of avoidance alternatives. the study to include an evaluation of the TCP. As a measure to minimize harm to the TCP, While the conversion and permanent loss of part of the Measures to Minimize Harm ADOT and FHWA would provide funds for the mountains to a transportation use by the proposed action Community to conduct the TCP evaluation. is a concern, related Community-expressed concerns Measures to minimize harm to the South Mountains ➣➣ Several measures were analyzed to entirely avoid focus on impacts on history, culture, traditions, and the TCP are presented below and duplicate some measures or further reduce the impacts associated with ability to maintain and continue the cultural identity presented under the section, Measures to Minimize Harm, the cuts through the three ridgelines (all of of the communities. The conversion and permanent on page 5-23. ADOT, FHWA, Western Area Power which are located within the TCP). After careful loss caused by any of the action alternatives would lead Administration (Western), the U.S. Bureau of Indian deliberation, some measures were dropped from to other impacts on the TCP similar to those impacts Affairs (BIA), and SHPO, with other consulted parties, further consideration for reasons cited in the described for SMPP (e.g., alteration of landscape, have developed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) that section, Avoidance Alternatives for Public Parkland intrusion into a natural setting, effects on access, and addresses mitigation to avoid, reduce, or otherwise Resources of the South Mountains Afforded Protection effects on habitat connectivity). The related impacts, mitigate impacts on NRHP-eligible resources on a under Section 4(f), beginning on page 5-16. without mitigation, would directly affect the traditional case-by-case basis. Consultation with Native American Other measures to minimize the alteration of uses and spiritual places on the mountains. Within the groups as it pertains to impacts and resulting mitigation the South Mountains landscape resulting from context of the TCP, the proposed action would be a would occur through the Section 106 consultation the ridgeline cuts are presented beginning on physical barrier on the landscape, altering traditional process. page 5-22. ADOT would invite the Community access to sacred sites, disrupting traditional cultural Some measures have already been undertaken to reduce to participate in direct consultation with the City 5 practices, and degrading the overall integrity of the impacts on the TCP. These measures were undertaken of Phoenix in establishing a slope treatment plan cultural tradition and identity. as a result of design determinations or of past, related for cut slopes through the ridgelines, with the Even with mitigation, implementation of the proposed actions. clear intent to blend the cut slopes with the South ➤➤ action would alter the direct physical connection Measures to address the conversion of the South Mountains’ natural setting. Community members have between their homeland Mountains TCP to a transportation use would ➤➤ Measures to minimize intrusion on the TCP would be and the South Mountains and would restrict the ability include those previously described measures the same as those described for SMPP (see page 5-23). to visit or use these locations in a traditional cultural implemented in prior years and these listed below: ➣➣ ADOT would invite the Community to participate in manner. During the design phase, ADOT would consult direct consultation with the City of Phoenix to develop directly with the Community to identify and Constructive Use the aesthetic treatment of landscaping and structures implement other design measures, when feasible, (e.g., noise barriers) through the TCP. to further reduce land requirements for the The E1 Alternative would result in a direct use of the ➤➤ To reduce impacts on TCP access and habitat proposed action. The consultation would likely South Mountains TCP. As a rule, and applicable in this connectivity, the multipurpose crossings proposed as include the City of Phoenix for reasons stated case, when direct use of a Section 4(f) resource would a measure to minimize harm to SMPP (see measure under the measures to minimize harm pertaining occur, analysis to determine whether proximity impacts outlined in the section, Measures to Minimize Harm, to SMPP (see page 5-23). would result in constructive use is no longer applicable beginning on page 5-23) would provide access from ➣➣ The E1 Alternative was designed in such a way as (23 C.F.R. § 774.15). the Community to the mountains. to avoid a site that is a contributing element to the ➤➤ Avoidance Alternatives South Mountains TCP, resulting in no direct use During the design phase, ADOT would invite the of this TCP element. A R/W fence would limit Community to participate in direct consultation with Alternatives to avoid use of the South Mountains TCP access to the site by freeway users, but Community the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and assigned were evaluated and determined to be not prudent and members would continue to gain access to the site staff from the Arizona Department of Public Safety feasible. See the section, Avoidance Alternatives for as they currently do. and AGFD to finalize design features and locations Public Parkland Resources of the South Mountains Afforded ➣➣ The City of Phoenix is undertaking an NRHP- of the crossings. Protection under Section 4(f), beginning on page 5-16; eligibility study of the archaeological and Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination; historical sites within SMPP. The City and 5-28 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

AZ T:12:112 (ASM) AS A TRADITIONAL freeway users, but Community members would continue house and power line construction, trash dumping, and CULTURAL PROPERTY to gain access to the site as they currently do. erosion. The Community, Akimel O’odham, and Pee Posh tribes consider Pueblo del Alamo an important site AZ T:12:112 (ASM) is used by contemporary In summary, the intrusion of the proposed freeway into that plays a role in their culture, identity, history, and Community members actively exercising their traditional the South Mountains, including especially the cuts into oral traditions. Because of its importance in the Native religious and ceremonial practices and beliefs. The site three ridgelines, would likely be perceived as severe by American community’s history and cultural identity, Villa and its use are part of a broad pattern of traditional many members of the Community. The above measures Buena is considered a TCP and is NRHP-eligible under religious and ceremonial practices and beliefs that have been and/or would be undertaken to avoid, reduce, Criterion A. The W101 and W71 Alternatives would defined the cultural identity, continuity, and traditions of or otherwise mitigate impacts on the South Mountains cross Villa Buena. The W59 Alternative would cross the Akimel O’odham. Therefore, the site is eligible for TCP and on AZ T:12:112 (ASM). The proposed Pueblo del Alamo. listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as a TCP. freeway would be located in an area used frequently by Direct Use members of the Community, one that provides direct TCPs can be the physical manifestation of knowledge, access to the South Mountains. Thus, the proposed information, and belief in communities where the The E1 Alternative was designed to avoid site AZ action would adversely affect physical access to the TCP perpetuation of culture and the transmission of T:12:112 (ASM), resulting in no direct use of this TCP. and adversely affect another TCP within the South information are maintained through oral tradition Mountains TCP. Perhaps more important to members of and its connection with specific cultural places. These Constructive Use the Community, the proposed action might be perceived qualities relate to the event associations of these TCPs The E1 Alternative was designed to avoid site AZ as severing the Community’s spiritual connection to the under Criterion A. Direct alteration of Villa Buena and 5 T:12:112 (ASM) and would not result in proximity mountains. Pueblo del Alamo through freeway development has impacts on this Section 4(f) resource. ADOT R/W the potential to adversely affect the cultural landscape OTHER TRADITIONAL CULTURAL through loss or alteration of these “knowledge sites” fencing would limit access to the site by freeway users, PROPERTIES but Community members would continue to gain access unless specific, proactive measures were undertaken to the site as they currently do. Villa Buena is the remains of an approximately 537‑acre to prevent such loss. Therefore, the Community prehistoric Hohokam village. The majority of Villa prepared a proposal to develop a TCP enhancement and In discussions with the Community, the Section 4(f) Buena is located on Community land; however, the site management plan for the sites to prevent adverse effects. resource does not have noise-sensitive activities or extends outside the Community onto private land. The FHWA and ADOT have committed to implementing viewshed characteristics that contribute to its importance Community, Akimel O’odham, and Pee Posh tribes this plan. as a Section 4(f) resource. Therefore, according to consider Villa Buena an important site that plays a role in 23 C.F.R. § 774.15, no further analysis of these Section 4(f) does not apply if FHWA determines, their culture, identity, history, and oral traditions. Because proximity impacts to determine whether they would after consultation with SHPO, that the archaeological of its importance in the Native American community’s substantially impair the resource is necessary. resource is important chiefly because of what can be history and cultural identity, Villa Buena is considered a learned by data recovery and has minimal value for Measures to Minimize Harm TCP and is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A. preservation in place and that SHPO does not object to this determination [23 C.F.R. § 774.13(b)]. SHPO Measures to reduce impacts on this TCP have already Pueblo del Alamo is a Hohokam village site from the has concurred (October 25, 2012), and FHWA has, been undertaken as a result of design determinations. Colonial to Classic period. It is located north of the Salt therefore, determined that the Villa Buena and Pueblo The E1 Alternative was designed to avoid site AZ River. Pueblo del Alamo has been subject to several del Alamo TCPs are not Section 4(f) properties. T:12:112 (ASM), resulting in no direct use of this TCP archaeological excavations as well as substantial disturbance element. A R/W fence would limit access to the site by through agricultural development, road construction, South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-29

COORDINATION

Coordination efforts pertinent to the interaction of the ➤➤ Coordination efforts pertaining to Section 4(f)- remains, although no prudent and feasible avoidance proposed action with properties afforded protection related topics have been extensive and continuous. alternatives for all resources are available. under Section 4(f) have been continuous since the start ➤➤ ➤➤ A strong desire to avoid use of those affected Additional coordination is warranted and will of the EIS process (see Table 5-2). Three major points properties afforded protection under Section 4(f) continue to fully address satisfactory measures to can be taken from Table 5-2: minimize harm to those affected properties.

Table 5-2 Documented Coordination Associated with Section 4(f) Resources Summary of Topics Discussed a, b, c Agency/Group Date of Coordination Action Taken Coordination pertinent to Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve (SMPP)

City of Phoenix Parks Board September 22, 2005, Meeting Letter sent and/or meetings held to: ● Introduce action alternatives City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department January 19, 2006 ● Describe requirements of Section 4(f) Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee November 21, 2005, Meeting ● Describe potential impacts on SMPP ● Introduce concepts to minimize harm Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council November 7, 2005, Meeting ● Request feedback on materials presented 5

Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council January 19, 2006 Summary of September 22, 2005, meeting sent to the Council requesting confirmation of meeting results

November 18, 2005 Letter received stating opposition to the project Letter sent to groups to: ● Introduce action alternatives Mountain Bike Association of America ● Describe requirements of Section 4(f) January 19, 2006 ● Describe potential impacts on SMPP ● Introduce concepts to minimize harm ● Request feedback on materials presented Letter received stating opposition to the project Coordination pertinent to the South Mountains Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and related sitesd Coordination regarding the status of the South Mountains as a TCP has been ongoing with the Community,e State Historic Preservation Office SHPO),( and jurisdictions (see Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination; the section, Cultural Resources, beginning on page 4-126; and Appendix 2-1 to learn more about coordination with the Community regarding the South Mountains TCP and other related sites). Coordination pertinent to public parks and trails Coordination regarding the status of the public parks and trails (existing and planned) has been continuous (see Appendix 5-2, beginning on page A561, regarding documented coordination efforts with City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department and Maricopa County). City of Phoenix April 6, 2005 Meeting to discuss existing and planned recreation facilities Maricopa County September 6, 2005 Meeting to discuss recreational trail policy MAGf and City of Phoenix October 23, 2009 Meeting to discuss recreational trails MAG December 1, 2009 Meeting to discuss recreational trails Letter sent indicating that if an action alternative were chosen, trails near potential freeway construction would be closed for limited periods Maricopa County May 8, 2012 for safety reasons. Such closures would constitute a temporary occupancy of land so minimal as to not constitute a Section 4(f) use (Maricopa County concurred on May 10, 2012). (continued on next page) 5-30 Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 5-2 Documented Coordination Associated with Section 4(f) Resources (continued) Summary of Topics Discussed a, b, c Agency/Group Date of Coordination Action Taken Coordination pertinent to public schools Coordination regarding the status of the public school sites (existing and planned) has been continuous (see Appendix 5-2, beginning on page A561, regarding documented coordination efforts associated with protected public schools). Coordination pertinent to Hudson Farm and Colvin-Tyson Farmstead and Barnes Dairy Barn

Arizona State Land Department Request concurrence on adequacy and eligibility recommendations of addendum records search and field survey reports addressing these Bureau of Land Management resources: Bureau of Reclamation ● Bureau of Reclamation concurred on September 19, 2005 City of Phoenix–City Archaeologists August 31, 2005 ● City of Phoenix–City Archaeologist concurred on November 1, 2005 City of Phoenix–Historic Preservation Office ● Salt River Project concurred with comments on September 19, 2005 Salt River Project ● SHPO requested revisions on September 19, 2005 SHPO ● Revisions made and SHPO concurrence received on October 3, 2005 Letter sent to FHWAg to: City of Phoenix July 18, 2010 ● Request revised W59 Alternative alignment (shift from 63rd Avenue to 61st Avenue near Dobbins Road) ● Note that this shift to 61st Avenue would result in direct use of Section 4(f) resources Letter sent to City of Phoenix to: 5 FHWA September 27, 2010 ● Request information on current zoning and planning in vicinity of Section 4(f) resources along Dobbins Road ● Request determination of SHPO position on potential W59 Alternative alignment revision Letter sent to FHWA to: City of Phoenix October 20, 2010 ● Note that the Laveen area and historic farmsteads/Section 4(f) properties are zoned commercial ● Indicate that the City of Phoenix will coordinate the response from SHPO regarding historic, Section 4(f) farmsteads Letter sent to FHWA regarding SHPO/City of Phoenix response to potential W59 Alternative alignment shift from 63rd Avenue to 61st Avenue, noting that: ● SHPO supports shift to 61st Avenue alignment with acceptable plan to minimize harm to historic Section 4(f) properties City of Phoenix December 23, 2010 ● SHPO’s support for alignment shift depends on successfully protecting Hudson Farm ● Protection of the entire Hudson Farm farmstead is not expected ● Potential exists to protect Hudson Farm with a conservation easement Letter sent to SHPO requesting concurrence on approach to mitigation of impacts on historic/Section 4(f) properties in the area of the W59 Alternative’s intersection with Dobbins Road, noting that: FHWA February 1, 2011 ● Approach would consist of documentation and a conservation easement, with goal of conveying Hudson Farm to another entity for reuse ● A public meeting is recommended in vicinity of resources to solicit feedback ● SHPO concurred with this approach to mitigation of impacts on historic/Section 4(f) properties on February 4, 2011 Letter sent to SHPO requesting concurrence on reassessment of eligibility and findings of effect to properties in the area of the W59 Alternative’s intersection with Dobbins Road, noting that: ● One property was considered no longer eligible for the NRHP. July 11, 2012 (eligibility) FHWA ● The boundary of one NRHP-eligible property was expanded. September 6, 2012 (effects) ● The NRHP eligibility of the other properties remained unchanged. ● SHPO concurred with the eligibility recommendations on July 16, 2012. ● SHPO concurred with the findings of effect (no effects on historic properties) on September 14, 2012. a The table identifies documented meetings and refers to written communications to and from agencies, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Numerous e-mail communications and phone conversations also occurred to coordinate meeting dates and agendas and to follow up on actions resulting from meetings and written communications. b Written communications can be found in Appendices 1-1 and 5-2. c Some measures to minimize harm presented in the chapter require further coordination on the part of ADOT and FHWA with vested agencies, jurisdictions, and possibly major user groups. Agencies requiring further coordination are identified in those measures. d Cultural resources discussed were determined to be Section 4(f) resources from either previous listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or through initial consultations with SHPO. e Gila River Indian Community f Maricopa Association of Governments g Federal Highway Administration South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 5 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-31

CONCLUSIONS

Table 5-3 Direct Use of Section 4(f) Resources The chapter has served as the basis for the consideration Use of some resources afforded protection under of effects of the action alternatives on resources Section 4(f) would be unavoidable. Exhaustive efforts Resource Associated Direct Use afforded protection under Section 4(f). Demonstration were undertaken to identify avoidance alternatives for with the South Mountains of the proposed action’s compliance with Section 4(f) each resource. However, not all efforts resulted in the Public parkland 31.3 acresa identification of prudent and feasible avoidance to the necessarily meant presentation in this chapter of how NRHPb-eligible historic land 31.3 acres consideration of the law’s provisions was implemented, use of all properties. Resources subject to direct use are c d beginning with the earliest stages in the EIS process. afforded protection as historic properties eligible for South Mountains TCP unknown With few exceptions, action alternatives were designed listing in the NRHP as public parkland and/or as TCPs. a The acreage presented represent an “overlapping” impact on the South Mountains resulting from the three functions and to avoid direct and constructive use of recreational All action alternatives (when the Western and Eastern are not to be interpreted as distinct—and therefore additive— trails, properties eligible for the NRHP, public school Sections are combined) would result in the same extent geographical impacts. b recreational facilities, and public parklands. In some of direct use of the resources associated with the South National Register of Historic Places c Traditional Cultural Property instances, alternatives were eliminated from the EIS Mountains (see Table 5-3) and AZ T:12:112 (ASM). d A ny direct use is unknown because the Federal Highway process because complete avoidance could not be Administration and the Gila River Indian Community agreed that, Measures to minimize harm to the South Mountains achieved and prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives while impacts to the TCP would occur, no boundary to the TCP resources were determined through direct coordination has been established because of cultural resources sensitivity were identified. Besides avoidance, other mitigation with resource owners, agencies with jurisdiction, and concerns. measures described in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, with other stakeholders and users. Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, helped 5 reduce impacts resulting from the proximity of the action alternatives to the resources. This page intentionally left blank.