4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page intentionally left blank.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the environmental resources present in the Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit (LRT) study area and the potential environmental impacts, both positive and negative, that would occur with the No Build Alternative and with construction and operation of the Project Build Alternatives A1, B2, B3, and A4 (the Preferred Alternative). Aerial maps and diagrams of the alternatives are provided in Appendix D. Detailed data and information are provided in technical reports, as referenced in this chapter. Environmental resources and analyses presented in this chapter are as follows: • Air Quality • Parklands • Hazardous Materials • Visual and Aesthetics • Historic Resources • Utilities • Archaeological Resources • Energy • Noise • Construction Impacts • Vibration • Roadways and Level of Service • Environmental Justice • Stormwater Management • Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy • Natural Resources • Neighborhood Character • Indirect and Cumulative Effects • Community Facilities and Services

Existing conditions are described for 2009 or 2010, when the data were collected for each of the environmental resource categories. Analysis years for potential construction- and operations- related impacts are 2012 and 2030, respectively. The discussion of each environmental resource is organized, as appropriate, by legal and regulatory context, methodology, existing conditions, long-term (operations-phase) effects, short-term (construction-phase) effects, and mitigation. 4.2 Air Quality 4.2.1 Legal and Regulatory Context Air quality is a term used to describe the amount of air pollution to which the public is exposed. Air quality is governed by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). As required by the CAA, the USEPA has established health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain transportation-related air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). The standards for a particular air pollutant are set by the USEPA. By law, the USEPA must set the standards at a level that protects human health. States whose air quality does not meet one or more of the established health-based standards must develop a S tate Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the standards.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The CAA states that Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-assisted transit projects are subject to air quality conformity analysis (i.e., a proposed transit project must conform to the SIP for attaining air quality standards). P roject-level air quality conformity has two parts: regional analysis and local or “hot-spot” analysis. The regional analysis consists of the development and adoption of a conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that include the Project. The hot-spot analysis, which is required only for certain pollutants, must demonstrate the Project would not produce localized concentrations of air pollutants that would cause or contribute to a localized exceedance of the USEPA standards for that pollutant. The project conforms to the SIP if it is included in the conforming RTP and TIP, and if the Project will not cause or contribute to a hot-spot. 4.2.2 Methodology USEPA publishes a list of geographic areas that are in compliance (attainment areas) and not in compliance (nonattainment areas) with the health-based standards for each air pollutant. Areas that were once nonattainment areas, but are now in attainment are classified as “maintenance areas.” The Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project is in Wayne County, , which is classified as a nonattainment area for PM2.5 and as a maintenance area for O3, CO, and PM10. The State has applied to the USEPA to be redesignated as a m aintenance area for PM2.5 because PM monitors have not shown a violation of the standards for several years. The USEPA determination is pending. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) conducted a regional emissions analysis of the RTP and TIP and found the total transportation-related emissions were within emissions budgets established in the SIP for the relevant air pollutants. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA reviewed SEMCOG’s analysis and found that the RTP and TIP, which include the Project, conform with the USEPA’s regulation on air quality conformity (40 CFR part 93). The region is designated by USEPA as a maintenance area for CO, an air pollutant that may form hot-spots near major CO emissions sources even when the regional CO budget level is achieved. Air quality hot-spot modeling was performed using the USEPA mobile source emission factor model (MOBILE6.2) and the CAL3QHC air quality dispersion model (version 2.0) to estimate future CO levels at selected locations in the study area. 4.2.3 Existing Conditions The monitoring stations nearest the Project area (at 11600 East 7 Mile Road, 6050 Linwood, and 6921 West Fort) reported exceedances of the eight-hour standard for O3 in the latest three years of data. No other violations of the health-based standards were reported. 4.2.4 Long-Term Effects Regional Air Quality The LRT Project is included in SEMCOG’s RTP, Direction2035, as Project #4430, and in the 2011-2014 TIP as Project #2010353. T he RTP is available on t he SEMCOG website at http://www.semcog.org/Long-RangeTransportationPlan.aspx. SEMCOG, FHWA, and FTA have found that the RTP and TIP conform with the USEPA’s regulation on a ir quality conformity (40 CFR part 93). T his regulation requires the transportation system to make progress toward meeting the health-based standards for any nonattainment pollutant and for maintaining attainment of the health-based standards for any maintenance pollutant. T he analysis of SEMCOG’s RTP and TIP shows that such progress will be made. The analysis of the

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-2 Final Environmental Impact Statement

RTP indicated that, although the Project would reduce the number of highway lanes on Woodward Avenue, the highway network has excess capacity for much of the day, so the Project would not seriously affect highway congestion and emissions. F urthermore, the Project will attract some people out of their automobiles and thereby offset negligible increases in emissions associated with the small change in the highway network’s capacity for automobiles. Hot-Spot Analysis A CO hot-spot analysis was conducted, and the intersections modeled were selected in accordance with USEPA guidance. T he selected intersections are part of all Project Build Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (A4). The analysis predicted no exceedances of the CO standards at any intersection affected by the Preferred Alternative (A4), and no exceedances with the No Build Alternative. Details are found in the Air Quality Technical Report (2011). On February 23, 2011, SEMCOG informed the City of Detroit that the statewide InterAgency Working Group (IAWG) on a ir quality met on August 13, 2009, t o discuss the Project being entered into the Direction2035 RTP. At this meeting, the IAWG determined the LRT Project did not require a PM hot-spot analysis. FTA agrees with the decision, because the Project will not expand or create any new diesel bus or diesel rail terminals and is not expected to increase diesel traffic and associated PM emissions at any location within the study area. Levels of mobile source air toxics (MSAT) are not predicted to be adversely affected by the Project for the same reasons. Air Quality Conformity of the Project As detailed above, the Preferred Alternative (A4) is included in SEMCOG’s conforming RTP and TIP, and it will not cause or contribute to any localized exceedance of the health-based standards. T herefore, the Preferred Alternative (A4) conforms to the Michigan SIP for metropolitan Detroit. Details of the air quality analysis methods and results are provided in the Air Quality Technical Report (2011). 4.2.5 Short-Term Construction Effects The Preferred Alternative (A4) would result in limited, short-term increases in fugitive dust and diesel emissions during construction. During construction, the City of Detroit would adhere to State and local regulations regarding dust control. For this Project, FTA would require the use of diesel engine retrofit technology on diesel construction vehicles and diesel-powered equipment. 4.2.6 Mitigation Long-term mitigation is not required as the operation of the Preferred Alternative (A4) will not result in an adverse air quality impact. To alleviate PM emissions caused by construction in a populated area, FTA requires the retrofit of all diesel construction vehicles and diesel equipment used in the Project’s construction with diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, engine upgrades, engine replacements, or combinations of these strategies, to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Detroit would also comply with MDOT’s Standard Construction Specification Sections 107.15(A) and 107.19 to control fugitive dust during construction of the Project.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.3 Hazardous Materials This section analyzes potential contaminant sources that may be present within the study area. It assesses the potential of encountering hazardous waste and impacted soil and/or groundwater during Project construction activities, as well as the Project’s potential use of hazardous materials and its potential impact to the environment. To evaluate potential contaminant sources, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were conducted along the Project alignment at three candidate vehicle storage maintenance facility (VSMF) sites, and nine candidate traction power substation (TPSS) sites. (The MLK Boulevard VSMF was evaluated during the DEIS but has since been removed from consideration). The objective of a Phase I ESA is to identify, to the extent feasible, any Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC), i.e., contamination or potential contamination on a site. Full Phase I ESAs were conducted on all candidate VSMF and TPSS sites because the sites selected for the Project would need to be acquired. A modified Phase I ESA was conducted along the Project alignment, for which no property acquisition is planned. A full Phase I ESA includes all of the elements outlined in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. A modified Phase I ESA is one that includes some, but not all, elements of a full Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA reports are included in the Hazardous Materials Technical Report (2011). 4.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Context The primary Federal laws regulating hazardous waste and materials are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (USC 1976) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (USC 1980). The National Priority List (NPL) is a listing of the most polluted sites in the nation that are eligible for cleanup funding (Superfund) under CERCLA. The USEPA is the primary agency responsible for administering RCRA and CERCLA. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulates contaminated sites through a variety of programs primarily under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 P A 451, a s amended (NREPA), with additional guidance from various promulgated Administrative Rules and Operational Memoranda. Most of the identified contaminated sites near the Project alignment are generally regulated under Part 213 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Regulations, or Part 201 E nvironmental Remediation within NREPA; Part 115 of NREPA regulates Solid Waste. The MDEQ’s Remediation Division (RD) administers the Part 201 and Part 213 programs, while the Environmental Resource Management Division (ERMD) oversees the Solid Waste Management program under Part 115 of NREPA. A Phase I ESA or “all appropriate inquiries” (AAI) assessment must be conducted on all properties the City of Detroit plans to acquire to establish CERCLA’s innocent landowner defense [42 U.S.C. §9607(b)(3)], the bona fide prospective purchaser defense [42 U.S.C. §9607(r)], or the contiguous property owner defense [42 U.S.C. §9607(q)]. 4.3.2 Methodology A modified Phase I ESA was conducted for the Project in general accordance with ASTM Method E 1527-05 to identify RECs near (within 100 feet) the Project alignments. The following activities were conducted: environmental records search; review of standard historical sources, including Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic topographic maps, aerial photographs, and city directories; and site reconnaissance of the Project alignments to observe evidence of potential

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-4 Final Environmental Impact Statement

environmental concerns and/or RECs, such as stained surface soil, material storage practices, and general land use. Photographs were taken to document existing conditions. Full Phase I ESAs were conducted in accordance with ASTM E1527-05 for the and Amsterdam Street VSMF sites, and the nine TPSS sites (TPSS #1 through TPSS #9, Appendix D). In addition to the activities listed above, the full Phase I ESA also included site walkovers, interviews with property owners and local regulatory officials, and environmental lien searches in accordance with ASTM. 4.3.3 Existing Conditions The modified Phase I ESA identified about 300 contaminated or potentially contaminated properties of concern (i.e., RECs) along the length of the Project; no superfund sites were identified. The RECs and their approximate locations are identified in the Hazardous Materials Technical Report (2011). RECs most commonly include former and current gasoline stations (known or suspected), dry cleaners, auto repair shops, industrial buildings, and other commercial properties. Subsurface impacts to soils and groundwater may have resulted from the current and historical usage, material storage practices, spills, fill material, or leakage from storage tanks. Current and/or former gasoline stations and automotive repair facilities are examples of sites that may have subsurface contamination as a result of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) or general petroleum substance use. Current and/or former dry cleaning operations represent a risk of subsurface contamination as the result of the use of chemicals in the dry cleaning process (chlorinated solvents, particularly tetrachloroethylene). Many vacant or abandoned properties with unknown use also pose a risk: several of these properties contained small one-story buildings with open areas fronting a road, giving the appearance that they might have once been gasoline service stations. Therefore, these properties have been identified as potential RECs in the Phase I ESA. Identification of the historical uses of these vacant or abandoned properties would require a site-specific Phase I ESA for each of these sites. Residential properties, churches, and office buildings do not pose a risk; typically, hazardous substances used at these types of properties include cleaning products that are kept in relatively small quantities and any spills or releases are normally minor. The primary concerns with residential properties, churches, or office buildings are former heating oil tanks. While the extent of potential subsurface contamination from individual properties may not result in widespread contamination, there may be localized areas along the Project alignment with significant levels of contamination. Both VSMF sites (Table 4-1) and nine TPSS sites (Table 4-2) contain RECs, based on the Phase I ESA findings. 4.3.4 Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative With no Project-related construction or VSMF- and TPSS-related property acquisition, there would be no anticipated hazardous materials impacts.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-1. Summary of RECs at VSMF Sites VSMF site Potential Environmental Concerns Highland Park On-site historical industrial uses: assembly plant; paint Ford Plant manufacturing plant; paint can cleaning; solvent and fuel oil underground storage tanks; glycerin aboveground storage tanks; rail activities; and coal piles; current fill soil piles and debris. Nearby off-site sources of contamination. Amsterdam On-site historical uses: automotive manufacturing plant, underground storage tanks, Street repair service facilities, lumber yard, lime warehouse, railway station and rail barn; two historical auto stations*; one dry cleaner. A djacent and nearby historical auto stations and cleaners. Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011 *Historical auto stations are a broad category that could include gasoline stations, auto repair facilities, and/or auto garage establishments.

Table 4-2. Summary of RECs at TPSS Sites TPSS Site Potential Environmental Concerns #1 On-site historical dry cleaner, unknown backfill soil. Adjacent historical dry cleaner. #2 On-site unknown backfill soil. Adjacent historical hat cleaner and blocker. #3 On-site historical storage of contaminating substances. #4 On-site historical gas station and auto repair, unknown backfill soil. Adjacent historical dry cleaner. #5 On-site historical railroad siding operations, underground storage tank fueling; repair facilities for historical automotive plant; two historical on-site auto stations; historical on-site dry cleaner. Adjacent historical machine shop. #6 On-site historical dry cleaner, unknown backfill soil. Several adjacent historical gas stations and a dry cleaner. #7 Two on-site historical dry cleaners, unknown backfill soil. Several adjacent historical dry cleaners and a gas station. #8 On-site historical gas station and auto repair. Two adjacent historical dry cleaners. #9 Current adjacent gasoline station. Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011 The Project LRT technology uses electricity to power the LRT vehicles via an overhead catenary wire system (OCS). This power source would have no long-term anticipated hazardous materials impact to the environment. Any existing hazardous material conditions along the alignment would have no long-term effect to the operation of the LRT. Although localized areas may contain elevated levels of contamination, the Project would not exacerbate or make the existing contamination worse. C ontamination found during construction activities would be properly removed and disposed of per Federal and State standards. The VSMF would be a full-service facility with indoor and/or outdoor storage, administrative offices, and provide on-site light maintenance repairs. The facility is expected to include a vehicle wash, paint booth, body shop, and other general repair, including maintenance pits and work areas that would store and use several types of hazardous and petroleum-based chemicals.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-6 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pollution prevention techniques will ensure that a low risk will exist for any potential impacts from the VSMFs to the environment. No hazardous materials will be used within the TPSS sites; therefore, there will be no long-term effects. The Phase I ESA studies indicate that RECs are associated with all of the candidate VSMF and TPSS sites (Table 4-1 and Table 4-2). These RECs could result in adverse long-term effects if due diligence (e.g., Phase I ESA, Phase II testing) is not performed. Due diligence includes having an ASTM E1527-05-compliant Phase I ESA for all properties to be acquired and conducting recommended Phase II testing to help establish whether contamination is present and, if present, to determine its nature and extent. Adverse long-term effects from purchasing contaminated property (clean-up liability) will be avoided by conducting the proper due diligence. To evaluate the nature and extent of potential contamination associated with the RECs identified in the VSMF and TPSS Phase I ESAs, Phase II ESA work plans would be developed to dictate sampling locations, depth, and analytical parameters. Requisite remediation would be performed, as necessary, prior to construction, according to the requirements of NREPA. If the presence of contamination is confirmed, proper due-care obligations must also be exercised to minimize potential exposure. The VSMF and TPSS sites are not intended to provide public access on a regular or continuous basis. Proper due-care activities are determined by the type, location, and concentrations of contaminants and the future property use and exposures, which are yet to be determined. Typical due-care activities may include removal of highly- contaminated soils, installation of vapor mitigation systems, and installation of a barrier to eliminate direct contact with contaminated soil. The Preferred Alternative (A4) The Rosa Parks Station to be built as part of the Preferred Alternative (A4) would require demolition of the Gateway Center Building located at 1101 W ashington Boulevard (see Appendix D). The southern portion of the proposed station would reside on the Gateway Center Building site. A Phase I ESA has been completed for this property, and the results indicate there are no R ECs on the Gateway property. However, RECs were identified on t hree nearby/ adjacent properties that were historically occupied by dry cleaners. Therefore, a Phase II ESA is recommended that will include the following activities: 1) conduct soil borings and collect soil samples to evaluate potential contamination associated with the historic cleaners located north of the property, and 2) complete a Hazardous Building Materials Survey (HBMS), which includes inspection and evaluation for asbestos, lead paint, and other hazardous materials (e.g., PCB or mercury-containing equipment, etc.) that may be present in the building. Soil borings and soil samples are typically considered a component of a Phase II ESA, while the HBMS is typically needed for contracting the building demolition. In addition, in Michigan, a Baseline Environmental Assessment (BEA), is also required to comply with State regulations at the time of property purchase and acquisition. According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) website, a BEA “allows people to purchase or begin operating at a facility without being held liable for existing contamination. BEAs are used to gather enough information about the property being transferred so that existing contamination can be distinguished from any new releases that might occur after the new owner or operator takes over the property.” See the Hazardous Materials Technical Report (2011) for additional information.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.3.5 Short-Term Construction Effects Construction of the LRT guideway and stations will be generally limited to near-surface work (approximately three feet from the ground surface), based on preliminary engineering. Deeper excavations are necessary at the two railroad viaducts to provide adequate underclearance for the LRT. The maximum depth of excavation would vary at the railroad viaducts but is expected to range from approximately four to eight feet below the ground surface. The cuts will extend from the existing grade to the proposed pavement/track surface and will also include additional excavation required for the track slab. Potential contamination migrating from a source beyond the road right-of-way (e.g., LUSTs at an adjacent gas station) is not expected to impact near-surface soil in the planned LRT guideway and station construction areas. T he most common potential contaminant sources along the alignment include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and auto repair shops. Contamination plumes of this type typically begin at the source area and migrate downward (through gravity) and outward (through dispersion). As the contamination spreads laterally in the unsaturated soil, the depth at which it would be encountered increases. Therefore, near-surface construction work is not expected to encounter soil contamination that may have migrated from a source off the road right-of-way. In the event contamination is encountered during construction, appropriate mitigation measures including soil removal and disposal would be implemented. Both railroad viaducts have multiple nearby properties of environmental concern. (See the Hazardous Materials Technical Report (2011) for details regarding RECs in the immediate vicinity of the railroad viaducts). Based on the Phase I ESAs, Phase II ESA testing is recommended for each selected VSMF and TPSS site (except for TPSS #3) and the Gateway Center Building along with requisite construction-phase remediation. T esting is not recommended at TPSS #3 be cause it is not anticipated this property would be acquired, and the TPSS would likely be constructed on top of or within an existing underground parking structure, requiring no e xcavation. Remediation/mitigation would be performed in accordance with the requirements of NREPA. In addition, if contamination is present, proper due-care obligations would be exercised to minimize potential exposure. 4.3.6 Mitigation Mitigation measures would be needed only along the Project alignment in areas where construction activities encounter known or suspected contaminated soil or groundwater. Even where the Project is located near or over part of a known contaminated site, the depth of excavation may be sufficiently shallow to avoid exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater. If contaminated soil or groundwater is suspected, based on visual and/or olfactory evidence during subsurface construction activities, the soil or groundwater would be tested to evaluate whether it is contaminated. If it is found to be contaminated, that material would be properly classified and if necessary, disposed of as non-hazardous or hazardous waste using appropriate waste management (i.e., removal, handling, transport, and disposal) practices. In the event contamination is discovered during rail construction activities, a remediation plan would be developed to address the contamination. The remediation plan would be performed according to NREPA. To help avoid potential cleanup liability associated with purchasing the contaminated property, full environmental due-diligence activities would be performed prior to the VSMF, TPSS, and Gateway Center Building property acquisitions. Although full Phase I ESAs were completed for

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-8 Final Environmental Impact Statement

these sites, the Phase I ESAs would need to be updated no s ooner than six months prior to property acquisition to remain fully compliant with ASTM E1527-05 and 40 CFR part 312. Phase II testing is also recommended for these sites prior to property acquisition and construction. To evaluate the nature and extent of potential contamination associated with the RECs identified in Phase I ESAs for the VSMFs, TPSSs, and Gateway Center Building, Phase II ESA work plans would be developed to dictate sampling locations, depth, and analytical parameters. If contamination is present above cleanup criteria, a BEA, as outlined in Part 201 of NREPA, as amended, would be completed and disclosed to MDEQ to obtain liability protection. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination that may be present, due-care activities would be completed to satisfy ongoing due-care obligations. Owners or operators who have knowledge that their property is contaminated are required to provide due care including, but not limited to: undertaking measures necessary to prevent exacerbation of the contamination; response activity necessary to mitigate unacceptable exposure to hazardous substances; mitigating fire and explosion hazards due to hazardous substances; and allowing for the intended use of the facility in a manner that protects the public health and safety. Due-care requirements are not related to the owner or operator’s liability for the contaminants; they apply to non-liable parties and liable parties alike. Requisite remediation would be performed, as necessary, prior to construction according to the requirements of NREPA. 4.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources This section discusses built historic structures and archaeological resources, which includes buried historic and prehistoric sites, separately. 4.4.1 Historic Resources Legal and Regulatory Context Because the FTA may provide funding for the Project, it is considered a Federal undertaking and is subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, a s amended (16 USC 470 e t seq.), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800). Specifically, Section 106 of the NHPA requires FTA to consider the effects of the proposed Project on hi storic properties. H istoric properties are defined in 36 C FR part 800.16(l)(1) as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).” This evaluation process requires consultation and coordination with specific parties including the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), local governments, the public, and may involve tribal governments, parties with expertise regarding historic properties, and other Federal agencies such as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the (NPS). When a National Historic Landmark (NHL) is located within the area of potential effect (APE) and would be adversely affected by a project, the Federal agency must also comply with Section 110(f) of the NHPA. Section 110(f) requires the agency undertake, to the maximum extent possible, planning and actions to minimize harm to any adversely affected NHL and afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment. The ACHP regulations require that the NPS, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, be notified and invited to participate in the consultation involving NHLs. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 a lso applies to historic properties and is addressed separately in Chapter 5.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement

In addition, Woodward Avenue is recognized by FHWA as a National Scenic Byway and an All American Road under the National Scenic Byways Program. This program recognizes certain roads based on their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. Woodward Avenue is recognized for its important linkages with America’s automobile heritage. The Cities of Detroit and Highland Park have local ordinances (Detroit Ordinance 161-H and Highland Park Ordinance 1128, respectively) requiring design review and regulation of project activity in locally designated historic resources. As the Project would extend through such districts within Detroit, coordination with local officials regarding compliance with local ordinances is being undertaken as project design information is developed. Section 106 Process Consulting Parties and Public Involvement Per the process outlined in the Section 106 implementing regulations, FTA, in cooperation with the City of Detroit and in consultation with the Michigan SHPO, identified organizations with interest in Detroit historic resources to participate as consulting parties. T hese included representatives of municipal and county governments, cultural resource organizations, and the NPS. FTA also identified federally-recognized Indian tribes with potential interest in the Project area. FTA sought to initiate government-to-government consultation to identify their interest in the Project and to participate as consulting parties in the Section 106 process. In addition, FTA invited two State-recognized Indian tribes to participate as consulting parties. FTA and the City of Detroit held meetings with the consulting parties as described in Chapter 6, Public Participation and Agency Consultation and Coordination. FTA and the City of Detroit sought public input on t he Section 106 pr ocess through the distribution of and comment period for the DEIS, the posting of related Section 106 reports on the Project website, and the formal public hearing for the DEIS required under NEPA. Area of Potential Effect The APE is the area surrounding the proposed LRT, stations, VSMF, and other ancillary facilities where there is the potential for project effects on historic properties (Figure 4-1). The APE for built historic resources includes the roadways on w hich the LRT would be located, properties adjacent to those roadways, and select areas of expansion, including properties surrounding the potential VSMF and TPSS sites. Select properties near, but not adjacent to, the LRT alignment for which proposed LRT facilities were determined to be a significant visual element were also included in the APE; these properties were typically within 250 feet of the LRT alignment, station, and/or VSMF site. Maps of the APE are included in Appendix F. The SHPO concurred with the APE in January 2010. Due to new project information, including potential sites for the VSMF, the APE was revised; the SHPO concurred with the revised APE in October 2010 ( SHPO correspondence is included in the Archaeological Resources Technical Report). A fter publication of the DEIS, the APE was expanded again to include the areas surrounding proposed TPSS and the Michigan State Fairgrounds station site. FTA submitted the revised APE for review on F ebruary 18, 2011. The SHPO concurred on the expanded APE during a conference call, and at the conclusion of the 30-day review period, submitted no comments on the APE. Because the Preferred Alternative (A4) is a hybrid of Alternatives A1, B2, and B3, FTA made a slight expansion of the APE. Identification of Historic Properties Once the APE was established, FTA and the City of Detroit used architectural historians, who met the Secretary of Interior’s professional qualification standards, to identify built historic

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-10 Final Environmental Impact Statement

resources within the APE that are included in, or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. A ny prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object eligible for the NRHP are known under the Section 106 pr ocess collectively as historic properties. T he criteria for NRHP eligibility are set forth at 36 CFR part 60.4: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and obj ects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and di stinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Built resources are typically evaluated under Criteria A, B, and C; Criterion D applies primarily to archaeological resources. If a property was determined to possess historic significance, its integrity was evaluated using the following seven aspects of integrity to determine if it conveys historic significance: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If a property was determined to possess historic significance under one or more criteria and retains integrity to convey its significance, the property was deemed eligible for the NRHP during the Section 106 review of this Project. The architectural historians identified historic properties by: • conducting research at the Michigan SHPO’s office on p reviously identified and evaluated historic properties; • reviewing tax parcel data using geographic information system (GIS) mapping; and, • conducting surveys of all built resources within the APE paying particular attention to all properties approaching 50 years old or older. Architectural historians evaluated historic properties previously listed in the NRHP with surveys and photographs to document any property changes, verified validity of prior assessments, and determined if any properties changed to the extent that they are no longer eligible for the NRHP or that NRHP boundaries should be altered. Based on the review, FTA determined that no eligibility or boundary changes to NRHP-listed properties within the APE were needed. All NRHP-listed properties were documented in a survey data form modeled on t he Michigan SHPO’s form; current photographs and NRHP boundary maps were appended to each form. The architectural historians identified 63 NRHP-listed historic properties in the APE, including three NHLs (, , and Highland Park Ford Plant). T wo historic properties evaluated for this Project are also currently nominated for the NRHP by the Michigan SHPO.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement

In addition to reviewing properties already in the NRHP, architectural historians evaluated 222 other properties within the APE that would approach 50 years of age or older during the potential construction period for both Project phases. Of these properties, FTA determined that 49 were eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, FTA and the City of Detroit identified a total of 114 NRHP-listed properties and properties considered eligible for the NRHP within the APE. Detailed documentation and evaluation of historic properties for NRHP eligibility are provided in the Section 106 Technical Reports available on t he Woodward Avenue Project website (http://www.woodwardlightrail.com). Table 4-5 provides a list of all NRHP-listed and NRHP- eligible properties within the APE. Assessment of Effects to Historic Properties FTA and the City of Detroit, in consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties, assessed potential effects to historic properties based on Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR part 800.5). An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may directly or indirectly alter a historic property’s characteristics that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Examples of adverse effects include, but are not limited to, physical destruction of or damage to all or part of a historic property, property alteration that is inconsistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68), removal of a property from its historic location, change of the character of a property’s use or physical features in a property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance, and/or introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of a property’s significant historic features. During the assessment of effects, FTA and the City of Detroit reviewed information for each historic property to determine which aspects of integrity are most critical to NRHP eligibility. In some cases, historic properties did not retain aspects of integrity. For example, many historic properties did not retain integrity of setting as their historic urban surroundings have been altered over time. Due to the scope and nature of the Project, impacts are generally limited to changes to historic properties’ visual settings that, in some cases, would diminish integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Architectural historians conducted site visits to each historic property and reviewed project plans, conceptual station designs, and additional project documentation, including results of noise and vibration impact analyses. Following guidelines (36 CFR part 800, and National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Park Service, 1997), the following categories of findings were used to assess effects to historic properties: No Effect: An undertaking may be determined to have no effect to a historic property present in the APE if it would not alter any aspects of integrity for that historic property. No Adverse Effect: An undertaking may be determined to have no adverse effect to a historic property if the undertaking would alter a specific aspect of integrity for that historic property but the effect would not alter a characteristic that qualifies that resource for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that diminishes the significant aspect of integrity.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-12 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Adverse Effect: An undertaking may be determined to have an adverse effect to a historic property if the undertaking would alter a characteristic that qualifies that historic property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that diminishes the significant aspect(s) of integrity. Adverse effects can vary from demolition of the historic property to a visual effect that alters its setting, but does not physically impact it. The historic property is lost forever if the Project requires its demolition, whereas a change in setting, though adverse, does not remove the historic property. Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative No effects to historic properties are anticipated with the No Build Alternative, as this alternative would include only increased bus frequencies on DDOT Route 53 on Woodward Avenue and reorganization of some feeder bus routes. It would not involve construction activity. Project Alternatives Adverse effects to aboveground historic properties have been identified with Alternatives A1, B2, B3, and A4. Therefore, FTA determined the Project would have an adverse effect on historic properties. Details of the effects determinations for historic structures are provided in the Section 106 Technical Reports (2010-2011). Of the 114 NRHP-listed and eligible properties in the APE, the number of properties and the specific properties that would be adversely affected by the Project differs by alternative (Table 4- 5). FTA determined that there would be no adverse effect to the three NHLs. No direct physical impacts would occur to these properties, and no indirect adverse effects, such as visual, auditory, or vibratory impacts, are anticipated. The presence of the LRT guideway and catenary system within the transportation right-of-way would not constitute adverse effects to historic properties. Adverse effects would primarily consist of impacts to setting, feeling, and association due to the presence of an LRT station. Woodward Avenue, determined NRHP-eligible, has historically included mass transit vehicles, most notably a horse-drawn rail car system from 1863-1892, an electric streetcar system from 1892-1956, and bus service from 1956 t o the present. The existing bus service includes bus shelters along Woodward Avenue within the transportation right-of-way. For historic districts that encompass the roadway and historic properties that flank the roadway, introduction of LRT was not determined to be an adverse effect because these historic properties would retain integrity of setting, feeling, and association. In all, 15 historic properties would be adversely affected by at least one of the alternatives, with 13 properties adversely affected by A4, the Preferred Alternative (Figure 4-1). Generally, the adverse effects consist of visual impacts to historic properties’ setting, feeling, or association, although direct and adverse physical impacts would occur to some properties for some design options. The ACHP was notified of the adverse effects findings and declined to participate in the resolution of adverse effects. Since the publication of the DEIS, a few Project refinements and supplementary reviews changed FTA’s effect determinations on historic properties. The City of Detroit informed FTA they are removing from consideration the MLK Boulevard VSMF site and station billboards, which reduces the number of Project adverse effect determinations. FTA supplemented the Section 106 T echnical Report after publication of the DEIS with site- specific information on TPSSs and refinements of the Project’s northern terminus. These evaluations were documented in two supplemental technical reports. Based on this supplemental

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement

evaluation, the Adverse Effect finding to the Woodlawn Cemetery was changed to No Effect, and the No Adverse Effect finding to the Michigan State Fairgrounds Historic District was maintained. In addition, previously identified historic properties within the vicinity of the proposed TPSS and construction staging areas were evaluated to determine if the location of a TPSS or a co nstruction staging area would adversely affect any of these historic properties. Based on these evaluations, no TPSS sites or construction staging areas would adversely affect any previously identified historic properties. Under the Preferred Alternative (A4), the City of Detroit would demolish the 100-year-old Gateway Center Building to construct a LRT station. Although FTA determined the Gateway Center Building was not eligible for the NRHP, nor was it part of an eligible historic district, the removal of the property would visually adversely affect the setting of the Gabriel Richard Building and the Washington Boulevard Historic District. Noise and Vibration Analysis As discussed in Section 4.5 and displayed in Tables 4-3 and 4-4, there could be moderate noise impacts on residents and guests residing in some historic properties along the alignment if no mitigation measures are applied. Per FTA’s Transit Noise and V ibration Impact Assessment Guidance (2006), FTA requires that noise and vibration impacts are disclosed both before proposed mitigation and after mitigation is applied. W ith the implementation of mitigation measures, such as vehicle skirts and rail lubrication on turns, the predicted noise impacts may be eliminated. The City of Detroit would not modify historic properties or add visual elements in front of historic properties to mitigate noise impacts. FTA determined the Project noise would not affect the NRHP qualifying characteristics of any historic property within the APE.

Table 4-3. Historic Properties Where Building Occupants Would Experience Moderate Noise Impact Project Name and NRHP Status Alternative Alternative A1 The Wardell (aka Park Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed Normandie Hotel NRHP Eligible Stevens Building (aka Stevens Building Apartments) Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Washington Boulevard Historic District Alternative B2 The Wardell (aka Park Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed Normandie Hotel NRHP Eligible Book Cadillac Hotel (aka Westin Book Cadillac Detroit) Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Washington Boulevard Historic District Central Methodist Church (aka Central United Methodist Church) NRHP Listed Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Grand Circus Park Historic District Alternative B3 The Wardell (aka Park Shelton Apartments)

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-14 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Project Name and NRHP Status Alternative NRHP Listed Normandie Hotel NRHP Eligible Central Methodist Church (aka Central United Methodist Church) NRHP Listed Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Grand Circus Park Historic District 1450 Woodward Avenue Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District Alternative A4 Normandie Hotel (Preferred NRHP Eligible Alternative) The Wardell (aka Park Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed Book Cadillac Hotel (aka Westin Book Cadillac Detroit) Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Washington Boulevard Historic District Central Methodist Church (aka Central United Methodist Church) NRHP Listed Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Grand Circus Park Historic District Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011

As discussed in detail in Section 4.6 and shown in Table 4-4, the general transit vibration assessment predicted there may be vibration impact to historic properties adjacent to the proposed Project prior to the implementation of vibration mitigation. The general vibration assessment uses conservative assumptions and nationwide data in models to predict whether there would be vibration impacts on s ensitive receptors. S ite specific information collected during Project Final Design, such as soil characteristics or building materials, to support a detailed vibration analysis would provide a more accurate assessment of whether the Project would have vibration impacts on sensitive receptors. In addition to potential vibration impacts, the general noise and vibration assessment predicted there could be ground-borne noise impacts to occupants of historic properties, as listed in Table 4-4. Ground-borne noise is the vibration of walls, ceilings, and floors in a room that re-radiates audible sound. Similar to the vibration assessment, the prediction of ground-borne noise is based on conservative, generalized nationwide data. During Final Design a more detailed analysis of soil and building characteristics would determine with more certainty whether there would be operational ground-borne noise impacts resulting from the Project. In areas where the general vibration assessment predicted there would be a vibration or ground- borne noise impact, FTA would require the City of Detroit to conduct detailed vibration testing during Final Design of the Project. If soil conditions and building foundations are found to transmit vibration or ground-borne noise to the buildings listed in Table 4-4, mitigation other than alteration of the building itself would be required. M itigation, such as floating slabs

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement

underneath the track bed, would eliminate vibration and ground-borne noise impacts. FTA would approve the analysis and mitigation measures before allowing construction to proceed.

Table 4-4. Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impacts on Historic Resources Prior to Mitigation Project Name and NRHP Vibration Ground- Impact Alternative Status Impact Borne Predicted Noise After Impact Mitigation Alternative A1 Stevens Building (aka Impact Impact No Impact Stevens Building Apartments) Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Washington Boulevard Historic District Fox Theatre Building No Impact Impact No Impact National Historic Landmark The Wardell (aka Park No Impact Impact No Impact Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed Alternative B2 Book Cadillac Hotel Impact Impact No Impact (aka Westin Book Cadillac Detroit) Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Washington Boulevard Historic District Fox Theatre Building Impact Impact No Impact National Historic Landmark The Wardell (aka Park No Impact Impact No Impact Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed Alternative B3 Fox Theatre Building Impact Impact No Impact National Historic Landmark The Wardell (aka Park No Impact Impact No Impact Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed 1450 Woodward No Impact Impact No Impact Avenue Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District Alternative A4 Fox Theatre Building No Impact Impact No Impact (Preferred National Historic Alternative) Landmark

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-16 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Wardell (aka Park No Impact Impact No Impact Shelton Apartments) NRHP Listed Book Cadillac Hotel Impact Impact No Impact (aka Westin Book Cadillac Detroit) Contributing building within the NRHP-listed Washington Boulevard Historic District Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011

NPS expressed concern that vibration impacts during construction may negatively affect the NHLs in the study area, especially the Fox Theatre. FTA is committed to ensuring that methods used to construct the stations and trackwork would not impact historically significant features of the NHLs, including the Fox Theatre. Local Historic Districts The City of Detroit municipal code (Detroit City Code. Chapter 25 {1964}) also establishes protocol for designating local historic districts. (The district nomenclature includes both districts with multiple properties as well as individual properties.) Prior to authorization or approval of the proposed Project, the City of Detroit would need to continue to closely coordinate with the Historic District Commission to identify whether the Project would have demonstrable effects on local historic districts. Prior to construction of any element of the Project that is located within a local historic district, the City would need to file an application for a building permit that will be reviewed by the Historic District Commission. Using the guidelines established by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation as a basis for review of the permit, the Historic District Commission would decide whether to issue a certificate of appropriateness, issue a notice to proceed, or deny the building permit. Within the Area of Potential Effects established to review the Project’s effects on NRHP listed or eligible historic properties for the Federal Section 106 process, there are 23 locally-designated historic districts. M ost of these districts overlap geographically with historic properties evaluated for the Section 106 r eview; in all cases, properties requiring Section 106 determinations of eligibility and effect have been assessed appropriately as part of the Federal process. The local historic districts are: • Vinton Building Historic District • Historic District • State Savings Bank Building • Peterboro-Charlotte Historic District • Washington Boulevard Local • Historic District • Garfield Building Historic District • Soldiers and Sailors Monument • Warren-Prentis Historic District • Bagley Memorial Fountain • East Ferry Avenue Historic District • Lower Woodward Avenue Historic • Woodward – West Palmer- Cass- District West Kirby Historic District* • Historic • New Amsterdam Historic District District • New Center Area Historic District • Women’s Exchange Building • Peoples’ Community Church • Grand Circus Park Historic District Historic District

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• St. John C.M.E. Church Historic • -Edison Historic District District • Arden Park-East Boston Boulevard • Little Rock Church Historic District Historic District *Local designation was proposed in 2011, but it was not approved and formally designated by the City at the time this FEIS went to printing.

While there may be some impacts on local historic districts from the Project, the stipulations identified in the Federal Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement for historic properties eligible for or listed on the NRHP and the design review required under City of Detroit ordinance should minimize and/or mitigate any of these potential impacts. F TA is not proposing separate mitigation for local historic districts and the local ordinance does not require mitigation as part of the application and approval process.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-18 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-1. Adversely Affected Historic Properties

Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-5. Historic Properties within the Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Area of Potential Effects Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-1 Detroit Eight blocks in Downtown Listed under A, B, Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No No adverse effect: Adverse effect: Financial Detroit roughly bounded and C for No property property acquisition No property No property District on the south by West associations with acquisition within within district; acquisition within acquisition within Historic Jefferson Avenue, east by financial industry district; visual visual adverse effect district or adverse district; visual District Woodward Avenue, north and prominent adverse effect to to setting by station effect to integrity adverse effect to by Lafayette Avenue, and businessmen, and setting by station within historic setting by station Listed 2009 west by Washington examples of office within historic district boundary within historic Boulevard buildings district boundary district boundary

1-4 Guardian 500 Listed under C as No adverse effect: No effect No effect No adverse effect: Building significant example No direct impact No direct impact National of to resource or to resource or Historic skyscraper designed adverse effect to adverse effect to Landmark by Wirt C. Rowland integrity integrity

Listed 1989;

Designated NHL 1989

1-5 Coleman A. 2 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A, B, No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Young and C for No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Municipal associations with to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Center post World War II adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to

development and integrity integrity Determined Mayor Coleman A. Eligible 2010 Young, and Neo- Formalist style

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-20 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-6 Wayne 600 Randolph Street Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No effect No effect County C for association No direct impact No direct impact to Building with political to resource or resource or adverse adverse effect to effect to integrity Listed 1975 and Beaux Arts integrity style

1-7 Lawyers 137 Cadillac Square Listed under A, B, No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No effect No effect Building and C for No direct impact No direct impact to associations with to resource or resource or adverse Listed 1982 social and adverse effect to effect to integrity commercial history integrity and local developer John J. Barlum, and Commercial Style

1-8 130 Cadillac 130 Cadillac Square Eligible under C as Adverse effect: No adverse effect: No effect No effect Square rare local example Visual adverse No direct impact to of triangular- effect to setting resource or adverse Determined shaped, late-19th and feeling by effect to integrity

Eligible 2010 century commercial station proximate building to historic boundary

1-10 Vinton 600 Woodward Avenue Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Building C for association No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact with the Vinton to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Listed 1983 Company and as a adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to work of prominent integrity integrity local architect

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-11 State Savings 151 West Fort Street Listed under A and Adverse effect: No adverse effect: No effect Adverse effect: Bank C for association Visual adverse No direct impact to Visual adverse with financial effect to setting, resource or adverse effect to setting, Listed 1982 history and as feeling, and effect to integrity feeling, and Beaux Arts-style association by association by work of prominent station proximate station proximate architects McKim, to historic to historic Mead & White boundary boundary

1-13 712 Cass Avenue Listed under A and No effect No effect No effect No effect C for associations Listed 2004 with social history and local clubhouse architecture

1-17 Gabriel 305 Michigan Avenue Eligible under C as No adverse effect: Adverse effect: No effect Adverse effect: Richard example of No direct impact Visual adverse Visual adverse Building Commercial Style to resource or effect to setting by effect to setting by and work of adverse effect to station proximate to removal of 100- Determined Chicago architects integrity historic boundary year-old Gateway Eligible 2010 Marshall & Fox Center Building and presence of station proximate to historic boundary

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-22 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-18 Washington Washington Boulevard Listed under A and Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No effect Adverse effect: Boulevard between Michigan and C for associations No property Removal of Removal of 100- Historic Clifford streets on the east with planned acquisition within Macomb Monument year-old Gateway District and between State and community district; visual to build station Center Building to Grand River streets on the development and adverse effect to within historic construct station Listed 1982 west City Beautiful setting and feeling district boundary near district Movement, and as by station within would result in boundary would early 20th-century historic district adverse effect to result in adverse commercial boundary location, design, effect to setting, streetscape materials, feeling, and workmanship, association setting, and feeling

1-21 Capitol Park Bounded by Grand River Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No effect No effect Historic Avenue on the north, C for association No property No property District Michigan Avenue on the with commercial acquisition within acquisition within south, the north-south history, and for late district or adverse district or adverse Listed 1999 alley between Griswold 19th-and early 20th- effect to integrity effect to integrity Street and Woodward century architecture Avenue on the east and commemoration of first Mi. Gov. Stevens T. Mason

1-22 Michigan Southeast corner of Listed under C as No effect No effect No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Soldiers’ and example of No direct impact to No direct impact Sailors’ Neoclassical-style resource or adverse to resource or Monument commemorative effect to integrity adverse effect to work of sculptor integrity Listed 1984 Randolph Rogers

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-30 John J. 1 Cadillac Square Listed under B and No effect No effect No effect No effect Bagley C for association Memorial with former Mi. Fountain Gov. John J. Bagley and as example of Listed 1971 Romanesque Revival- style commemorative work of architect

1-31 Barlum 65 Cadillac Square Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Tower example of Late Gothic Revival style Listed 2005 high-rise building designed by local architects Bonnah and Chaffee

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-24 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-32 New 111 Cadillac Square Eligible under A, B, No effect No effect No effect No effect Cadillac and C for Square associations with Apartments Downtown development and Determined developer John J. Eligible 2011 Barlum, and as example of Commercial Style

1-33 Detroit 121 Gratiot Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Public and C for Library association with Public Branch Library system and as Classical Determined Revival-style work Eligible 2011 of local architect William E. Kapp

1-24 Lower Roughly bounded on the Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Woodward west by State Street and C for association No property No property No property No property Avenue Clifford Street, and on the with Judge acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within Historic east by Grand River Augustus B. district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse District Avenue and John R. Street Woodward’s effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity original Detroit plan Listed 1999 and for commercial architecture

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-25 Grand Circus Roughly bounded by Listed under A and No adverse effect: Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: Park Historic Clifford Street on the C for association No property property acquisition property acquisition No property District south and west, John R. with Detroit’s early acquisition within within district; within district; acquisition within Street on the south and 20th-century district or adverse adverse effect to adverse effect to district; Listed 1982 east, and the north side of entertainment and effect to integrity setting and design setting and design cumulative Adams Street on the north social development by station within by station within adverse effect to and for commercial historic district historic district setting and design architecture boundary boundary by station within historic district boundary

Update: Billboards Update: Billboards are no longer are no longer included as part of included as part of this alternative. this alternative. However, the However, the presence of the presence of the station would still station would still constitute an constitute an adverse effect to the adverse effect to the historic district’s historic district’s setting and design. setting and design.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-26 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-26 Central 23 East Adams Avenue Listed under C as No adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No adverse effect: United example of Gothic No direct impact Visual adverse Visual adverse No direct impact Methodist Revival-style to resource or effect to setting by effect to setting by to resource or Church religious adverse effect to station proximate to station proximate to adverse effect to architecture integrity historic boundary historic boundary integrity Listed 1983

Update: The Update: The Michigan SHPO did Michigan SHPO did not concur with the not concur with the adverse effect adverse effect determination; a determination; a determination of no determination of no adverse effect was adverse effect was accepted by FTA. accepted by FTA.

1-27 Francis 2101 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No adverse effect: No effect No effect No effect Palms example of Beaux No direct impact Building and Arts and Italian to resource or State Theater Renaissance Revival adverse effect to style movie theater integrity Listed 1982 designed by architect C. Howard Crane

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-27 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

1-28 Fox Theatre 2211 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Building example of Art No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact National Deco-style movie to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Historic palace designed by adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Landmark C. Howard Crane integrity integrity

Listed 1985;

Designated NHL 1989

1-29 St. John’s 2326 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No adverse effect No adverse effect No adverse effect Episcopal example of Gothic Church Revival-style religious Listed 1982 architecture

2-2 First 2870 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect Adverse effect: Unitarian example of Visual adverse Church of Romanesque effect to setting by Detroit Revival-style church station proximate designed by local to historic Listed 1982 architects boundary Donaldson and Meier

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-28 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-3 First 2930 Woodward Avenue Listed under A and No effect No effect No effect No effect Presbyterian C for association Church with oldest local Protestant Listed 1982 congregation and as example of Romanesque Revival-style church designed by local architect George D. Mason

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-29 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-4 Midtown Approximately two blocks Listed under A and Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: No No adverse effect: Woodward of Woodward Avenue C for association No property property acquisition property acquisition No property Historic between Charlotte and with commercial acquisition within within district; within district; acquisition within District Stimson streets, including development and for district; visual visual adverse effect visual adverse effect district or adverse two buildings at 14 commercial adverse effect to to setting and to setting and effect to integrity Listed 2008 Charlotte Street and 25 architecture setting and feeling feeling from VSMF feeling from VSMF Peterboro Street from VSMF site site proximate to site proximate to proximate to historic district historic district historic district boundary boundary boundary

Update: The MLK Update: The MLK Update: The Jr. Boulevard Jr. Boulevard MLK Jr. VSMF site was VSMF site was Boulevard VSMF removed from removed from site was removed further further from further consideration. consideration. consideration. Therefore, this Therefore, this Therefore, this alternative would alternative would alternative would have no adverse have no adverse have no adverse effect on the historic effect on the historic effect on the property. property. historic property.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-30 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-5 Peterboro- Properties along the north Eligible under C for No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Charlotte side of Charlotte Street eclectic collection No property No property No property No property Historic and the south side of of middle-class acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within District Peterboro Street between residences in district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse Woodward and Park streetcar-associated effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Determined avenues, and the east side development Eligible 2010 of Park Avenue between Charlotte and Peterboro Update: The Update: The MLK Update: The MLK streets MLK Jr. Jr. Boulevard Jr. Boulevard Boulevard VSMF VSMF site was VSMF site was site was removed removed from removed from from further further further consideration. consideration. consideration. Therefore, this Therefore, this Therefore, this alternative would alternative would alternative would have no adverse have no adverse have no adverse effect on the effect on the historic effect on the historic historic property. property. property.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-31 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-6 Clarence 3420 Cass Avenue Nominated under A Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No effect Burton and C for Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse School association with effect to setting effect to setting and effect to setting and public education and feeling from feeling from VSMF feeling from VSMF Nominated and as work of VSMF site site proximate to site proximate to 2010* architects proximate to historic boundary historic boundary Malcomson & historic boundary Higginbotham

Update: The MLK Update: The MLK Update: The Jr. Boulevard Jr. Boulevard MLK Jr. VSMF site was VSMF site was Boulevard VSMF removed from removed from site was removed further further from further consideration. consideration. consideration. Therefore, this Therefore, this Therefore, this alternative would alternative would alternative would have no adverse have no adverse have no adverse effect on the historic effect on the historic effect on the property. property. historic property.

2-7 Temple 3424 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Beth-El first local synagogue planned Listed 1982 according to modern Jewish religious practices and theater conversion by architect C. Howard Crane

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-32 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-16 Cass- 3527, 3550, and 3566 Listed under A and Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: No No effect Davenport Cass Avenue, and 149 C for associations No property property acquisition property acquisition Historic Davenport Street with automobile acquisition within within district; within district; District industry and district; visual visual adverse effect visual adverse effect residential adverse effect to to setting, feeling, to setting, feeling, Listed 1997 development, and setting, feeling, and association and association for revival-style and association from VSMF site from VSMF site apartment from VSMF site proximate to proximate to architecture proximate to historic district historic district historic district boundary boundary boundary

Update: The MLK Update: The MLK Update: The Jr. Boulevard Jr. Boulevard MLK Jr. VSMF site was VSMF site was Boulevard VSMF removed from removed from site was removed further further from further consideration. consideration. consideration. Therefore, this Therefore, this Therefore, this alternative would alternative would alternative would have no adverse have no adverse have no adverse effect on the historic effect on the historic effect on the property. property. historic property.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-33 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-17 Hotel 40 Davenport Street Listed under A, B, Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No effect Stevenson and C for Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse associations with effect to setting effect to setting and effect to setting and Listed 1997 residential and association association from association from development and from VSMF site VSMF site VSMF site Charles Hugh proximate to proximate to proximate to Stevenson, and for historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary building’s Georgian Revival style Update: The Update: The MLK Update: The MLK MLK Jr. Jr. Boulevard Jr. Boulevard Boulevard VSMF VSMF site was VSMF site was site was removed removed from removed from from further further further consideration. consideration. consideration. Therefore, this Therefore, this Therefore, this alternative would alternative would alternative would have no adverse have no adverse have no adverse effect on the effect on the historic effect on the historic historic property. property. property.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-34 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-18 Orchestra 3711 Woodward Avenue Listed under A and No effect No effect No effect No effect Hall C for associations with Detroit Listed 1971 Symphony

Orchestra and cultural development, and as Beaux Arts-style theater designed by architect C. Howard Crane

2-21 Willis- Roughly bounded on the Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Selden north by the alley north of C for associations No property No property No property No property Historic West Willis Street, on the with Detroit’s rapid acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within District east by Woodward turn-of-the-century district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse

Avenue, on the south by commercial, effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Listed 1997 the alley south of Selden industrial and Street, and on the west by residential Third Avenue neighborhood development

2-23 4104-4120 Woodward Listed under A as No effect No effect No effect No effect Avenue Detroit’s oldest Listed 2008 operating bowling alley

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-35 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-24 Majestic 4126-4140 Woodward Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Theater Avenue example of Art Deco style theater Listed 2008

2-26 Detroit 55 Willis Avenue Listed under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Edison association with Company Detroit’s central Willis heating system

Avenue Station

Listed 1997

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-36 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-29 David 4421 Woodward Avenue Listed under B and No effect Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No effect Whitney C for association Visual adverse Visual adverse House with lumber baron effect to setting, effect to setting, David Whitney, Jr. feeling, and feeling, and Listed 1972 and as example of association from association from Romanesque station proximate to station proximate to Revival-style historic boundary historic boundary architecture

Update: Billboards Update: Billboards are no longer are no longer included as part of included as part of this alternative. this alternative. Therefore, FTA has Therefore, FTA has determined that determined that there would be no there would be no adverse effect to this adverse effect to this historic property. historic property.

2-31 Edwin S. 4612 Woodward Avenue Listed under A, B, No effect No effect No effect No effect George and C for Building associations with commercial Listed 1993 development and developer Edwin S. George, and as example of Chicago Style

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-37 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-32 First 33 East Forest Street Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Congregatio- example of nal Church -style Listed 1979 religious architecture

2-33 Warren- Approximately bounded Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Prentis on the north by Warren C for association No property No property No property No property Historic Avenue, on the east by with residential acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within District Woodward Avenue, on the development and for district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse west by Third Avenue, late 19th- and early effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Listed 1997 and on the south by 20th- century Prentis and Canfield residential avenues architecture

2-34 Cathedral 4800 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Church of St. example of Gothic Paul Revival-style work Complex of architect Ralph Adams Cram Listed 1982

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-38 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-35 Samuel L. 5035 Woodward Avenue Listed under B and No effect No effect No effect No effect Smith House C for association with entrepreneur Listed 1986 William C. Williams and lumber and automobile pioneer Samuel L. Smith and as example of Queen Anne style

2-36 Maccabees 5057 Woodward Avenue Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Building C for association No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact with Order of the to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Listed 1983 Maccabees adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to beneficiary society integrity integrity and as the work of architect Albert Kahn

2-37 Cultural 5200 Woodward Avenue, Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Center 5201 Woodward Avenue, C for associations No property No property No property No property Historic and 100 Farnsworth with Cultural Center acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within District Avenue plan and community district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse planning, and for effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Listed 1983 civic architecture by architects Cass Gilbert, Paul Philippe Cret, and Harley, Ellington & Day

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-39 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-38 Detroit 5401 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Historical and C for Museum association with Cultural Center Determined development and as Eligible 2010 example of mid- 20th- century institutional architecture in Prairie and International Styles

2-39 The Wardell 15 East Kirby Street Listed under A, B, No effect No effect No effect No effect and C for Listed 2007 associations with early 20th-century luxury hotel development and developer Fred Wardell, and as Italian Renaissance- style work of local architects Weston and Ellington

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-40 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-42 Colonel 5510 Woodward Avenue Listed under B and No effect Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Frank J. C for association Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse Hecker with prominent effect to setting, effect to setting, effect to setting, House citizen Colonel feeling, and feeling, and feeling, and Frank J. Hecker and association from association from association from Listed 1973 as example of station proximate to station proximate to station proximate Chateauesque style historic boundary historic boundary to historic boundary

Update: Billboards Update: Billboards are no longer are no longer included as part of included as part of this alternative. this alternative. Therefore, FTA has Therefore, FTA has determined that determined that there would be no there would be no adverse effect to this adverse effect to this historic property. historic property.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-41 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-43 East Ferry Approximately three Listed under A and No adverse effect: Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: Avenue blocks of East Ferry C for association No property property acquisition property acquisition Visual adverse Historic Avenue between with residential acquisition within within district; within district; effect to setting District Woodward Avenue and development and for district or adverse visual adverse effect visual adverse effect and feeling from Beaubien Street late 19th- and early effect to integrity to setting and to setting and station proximate Listed 1980 20th- century feeling from station feeling from station to historic residential within historic within historic boundary architecture district boundary district boundary

Update: Billboards Update: Billboards are no longer are no longer included as part of included as part of this alternative. this alternative. Therefore, FTA has Therefore, FTA has determined that determined that there would be no there would be no adverse effect to this adverse effect to this historic property. historic property.

2-44 Barlum 25 East Palmer Avenue Eligible under B and No effect No effect No effect No effect Apartments C for association with developer John Determined J. Barlum and as Eligible example of Art (n.d.) † Deco-influenced apartment building

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-42 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-61 Woodward - Bounded by West Palmer Eligible under A No adverse effect: Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: West Palmer Avenue on the north, and C for No property property acquisition property acquisition No property - Cass - West Woodward Avenue on the association with acquisition within within district; within district; acquisition within Kirby east, West Kirby Avenue development of district or adverse visual adverse effect visual adverse effect district; visual Historic on the south, and Cass University-Cultural effect to integrity to setting from to setting from adverse effect to District Avenue on the west Center Area and for station within station within setting from architecture historic district historic district station within Determined designed by notable boundary boundary historic district Eligible 2011 local architects and boundary firms

Update: Billboards Update: Billboards are no longer are no longer included as part of included as part of this alternative. this alternative. Therefore, FTA has Therefore, FTA has determined that determined that there would be no there would be no adverse effect to this adverse effect to this historic property. historic property.

2-51 St. Joseph’s 5930 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Episcopal example of Church Richardsonian Romanesque-style Listed 1982 church designed by architects Malcomson & Higginbotham

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-43 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-54 New Located primarily west of Listed under A and No effect No effect No effect No effect Amsterdam Woodward Avenue C for association Historic approximately between with industrial District Amsterdam Street on the history and for north and Antoinette automobile-related Listed 2001 Street on the south architecture

2-57 Piquette Roughly bounded by Listed under A, B, No effect No effect No effect No effect Avenue Endicott Avenue and the and C for Industrial Grand Trunk Western associations with Historic Railroad on the north, automobile industry District Hastings Street on the and automotive east, Harper Avenue on pioneers, and for Listed 2004 the south, and Woodward automobile-related Avenue on the west architecture

2-58 Conrail and Two bridges spanning Eligible under A No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Grand Trunk Woodward Avenue and C for No anticipated No anticipated No anticipated No anticipated Western between Endicott and association with impacts to historic impacts to historic impacts to historic impacts to historic Railroad Baltimore avenues Depression-era elements; no elements; no elements; no elements; no Bridges public works and as adverse effect to adverse effect to adverse effect to adverse effect to Art Deco-style integrity integrity integrity integrity Determined railroad bridges Eligible 2010

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-44 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

2-60 New Center Properties along Eligible under A for Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: No Adverse effect: Commercial Woodward Avenue from association with No property property acquisition property acquisition No property Historic Baltimore Avenue to development of acquisition within within district; within district; acquisition within District Grand Boulevard early suburban district; visual visual adverse effect district; visual visual adverse effect Detroit adverse effect to to setting, feeling, to setting, feeling, adverse effect to Determined setting, feeling, and association and association setting, feeling, Eligible 2010 and association from station within from station within and association from station historic district historic district from station within historic boundary boundary within historic district boundary district boundary

3-6 Michigan 105 East Bethune Street Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Bell and C as important Telephone local telephone Company switching station Madison and as example of Central Art Deco-style Exchange utilitarian Building architecture

Determined Eligible 2010

3-9 Metropolitan 8000 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect United example of Gothic Methodist Revival-style church Church designed by architect William Listed 1982 E.N. Hunter

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-45 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-10 8055 8055 Woodward Avenue Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward example of Avenue terracotta-clad commercial building Determined Eligible 2011

3-74 New Center Roughly bounded by Eligible under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Area Historic Virginia Park Street on the example of late 19th No property No property No property No property District north, Woodward Avenue, - and early 20th - acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within Bethune Court, and century residential district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse Determined Second Avenue on the subdivision effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Eligible 2011 East, Lothrop Road on the including various south, and the Lodge revival styles Service Drive and Third Street on the west

3-12 Virginia Park Three blocks along Listed under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Historic Virginia Park Street example of late 19th- No property No property No property No property District between Woodward and early 20th- acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within Avenue and the John C century planned district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse Listed 1982 Lodge Service Drive residential effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity subdivision including various revival styles

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-46 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-16 8300 8300 Woodward Avenue Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward example of Avenue terracotta-clad, Beaux Arts-style Determined building Eligible 2010

3-18 Woodward 8501 Woodward Avenue Listed under C for No effect No effect No effect No effect Avenue English Gothic Presbyterian Revival-style Church architecture and as

example of lantern- Listed 1982 dome, auditorium- plan church designed by architect Sidney Rose Badgley

3-21 First Baptist 8601 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Church of example of Gothic Detroit Revival-style religious Listed 1982 architecture

3-23 North 8715 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward example of English Congre- Gothic Revival-style gational religious Church architecture

Listed 1982

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-47 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-24 Henry M. 8726 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Utley Branch and C for No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Library association with to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or development of adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Determined Detroit Public integrity integrity Eligible 2010 Library system and local Carnegie- funded libraries, and for Carnegie library plan and design

3-25 Woodward 8747 Woodward Avenue Eligible under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Gladstone example of early No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Townhomes 20th-century Tudor to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Revival-style row adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Determined house terrace and integrity integrity Eligible 2010 worker housing

3-26 Temple 8801 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Beth-El example of early Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse 20th -century, effect to setting effect to setting effect to setting effect to setting Listed 1982 Neoclassical-style from station from station from station from station synagogue designed proximate to proximate to proximate to proximate to by architect Albert historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary Kahn

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-48 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-27 St. Joseph’s 8850 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Episcopal example of English Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse Church Gothic Revival-style effect to setting effect to setting effect to setting effect to setting from station from station from station from station religious Listed 1982 architecture proximate to proximate to proximate to proximate to historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary

3-28 8855 8855 Woodward Avenue Eligible under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Woodward example of No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Avenue Neoclassical-style to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or bank branch adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Determined building integrity integrity Eligible 2011

3-32 Jewish 8904 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A for No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Community continued use as No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Center community center to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or and recreational adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Determined facility integrity integrity Eligible 2010

3-33 Central 9000 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: Woodward example of late Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse Visual adverse Christian Gothic Revival-style effect to setting effect to setting effect to setting effect to setting Church church architecture from station from station from station from station designed by proximate to proximate to proximate to proximate to Listed 1982 architect George D. historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary historic boundary Mason

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-49 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-35 Northern 9026 Woodward Avenue Nominated under A No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: High School and C for No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact associations with to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Nominated public education in adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Detroit and integrity integrity 2010 * important civil rights history, and as work of architects Malcomson & Higginbotham

3-36 St. Rita 35 Owen Street Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Apartments example of Italian Renaissance Determined Revival-style Eligible 2011 apartment building

3-37 Atkinson One block along Atkinson Eligible under C for No effect No effect No effect No effect Street Street between Woodward collection of Historic Avenue and Second eclectic, early 20th- District Avenue century houses Determined Eligible 2010

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-50 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-38 Boston- Bounded by Woodward Listed under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Edison Avenue on the east, collection of early No property No property No property No property Historic Edison Street on the south, 20th -century acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within District Glynn Court on the north, residential district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse and Linwood Street on the architecture effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Listed 1972 west designed by numerous local architects and firms

3-41 Arden Park- Arden Park and East Listed under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: East Boston Boston boulevards collection of early No property No property No property No property Historic between Woodward 20th-century acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within District Avenue on the west and residential district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse Oakland Street on the east architecture effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Listed 1982 designed by local architects and firms

3-42 Cathedral of 9844 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: the Most example of Gothic No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Blessed Revival-style to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or Sacrament religious adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to architecture integrity integrity Listed 1982

3-46 11341 11341 Woodward Avenue Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward example of Avenue Neoclassical-style bank branch Determined building Eligible 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-51 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-50 Hotel 11626 Woodward Avenue Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Normandie example of bachelor hotel type with Determined applied Gothic Eligible 2011 Revival ornament

3-52 11745 11745 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward and C for Avenue association with early 20th- century Determined development of Eligible 2011 storage warehouse industry and as Gothic and Tudor Revival influenced commercial warehouse

3-47 Lawrence- Bounded on the north by Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Webb Webb Street, on the east example of early Historic by Woodward Avenue, on 20th-century District the south by Lawrence residential Street, and on the west by neighborhood Determined Hamilton Avenue representing diverse Eligible 2010 architectural styles

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-52 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-58 City of 12050 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Highland and C for Park Robert association with B. Blackwell railroad union Municipal history and as Building International Style institutional office Determined building Eligible 2010

3-59 Highland Bounded by Farrand Park Listed under C as No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Heights- on the north, Oakland early 20th-century No property No property No property No property Stevens' Street on the east, suburban acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within Subdivision Massachusetts Street on neighborhood with district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse Historic the south, Woodward high-quality, effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity District Avenue on the west middle-class housing stock Listed 1988

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-53 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-60 Detroit 25 Cortland Street Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Edison and C for Company associations with Cortland Detroit Edison Street Company and Substation Detroit Street Railways streetcar Determined rail system, and as Eligible 2010 early 20th-century, Renaissance Revival-style utility building

3-61 Highland 14 Cortland Street Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Park example of Tudor- Presbyterian Gothic-style church Church designed by architect Sidney Listed 1982 Rose Badgley

3-64 Grace 12375 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Evangelical example of Gothic Lutheran Revival-style church Church designed by architect J. Adam Listed 1982 Fichter

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-54 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-67 Trinity 13100 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect United Gothic Revival-style Methodist church designed by Church architect George D. Mason Listed 1982

3-68 YWCA 13130 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Detroit and C for Northern association with Branch Young Women’s

Christian Determined Association of Eligible 2010 Detroit and as example of Beaux Arts-style architecture

3-71 Highland 13215 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Park Post and C for Office association with New Deal-era Determined government policies Eligible 2010 and programs, and as example of Stripped Classical style and monumental, civic architecture

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-55 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

3-72 YMCA 13220 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Detroit and C for Northern association with Branch Young Men’s Christian Determined Association of Eligible 2010 Detroit, and as work of architects Burrowes and Eurich and example of Italian Renaissance Revival style

4-17 City of 25, 30 Gerald Street Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Highland and C for Park association with Municipal early development Buildings and local Historic governance of City District of Highland Park and for Determined Neoclassical-style Eligible 2010 civic architecture

4-19 Highland 13843 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Park Theater association with Highland Park’s Determined early commercial

Eligible 2011 development

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-56 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-21 S.S. Kresge 13871 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Company and C for Highland associations with Park Branch S.S. Kresge Stores Company and its practice of Determined constructing Eligible 2010 adjacent branch stores

4-28 Highland 91 Manchester Street Listed under A and No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Park Ford C for association No direct impact No direct impact to No direct impact to No direct impact Plant with automobile to resource or resource or adverse resource or adverse to resource or National development and as adverse effect to effect to integrity effect to integrity adverse effect to Historic pioneering industrial integrity integrity Landmark architectural design of Albert Kahn Listed 1973; Designated NHL 1978

4-30 30 Bartlett 30 Bartlett Street Eligible under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Street association with Highland Parker Determined Newspaper Eligible 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-57 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-31 Detroit Spanning Woodward Eligible under A No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: Terminal Avenue between Bartlett and C for No anticipated No anticipated No anticipated No anticipated Railroad Street and Midland Street association with impacts to historic impacts to historic impacts to historic impacts to historic Bridge early Depression-era elements; no elements; no elements; no elements; no public works adverse effect to adverse effect to adverse effect to adverse effect to Determined projects and as Art integrity integrity integrity integrity Eligible 2010 Deco-style railroad bridge

4-37 Woodford 10 Ferris Street Eligible under A as No effect No effect No effect No effect Apartments apartment building integral to City of Determined Highland Park’s Eligible 2011 development

4-44 18-20 18-20 Church Street Eligible under C for No effect No effect No effect No effect Church apartment Street complex’s unique plan Determined Eligible 2011

4-46 First United 16300 Woodward Avenue Listed under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Methodist example of Arts and Church of Crafts-influenced, Highland Gothic Revival-style Park religious architecture Listed 1982

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-58 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-63 Palmer Park Bounded by Covington Listed under A, B, No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No effect Apartment Drive on the north, and C for No property No property No property Buildings Woodward Avenue on the associations with acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within Historic east, McNichols Road on garden suburb plan district or adverse district or adverse district or adverse District the south, and West and prominent effect to integrity effect to integrity effect to integrity Pontchartrain Boulevard Detroit residents, Listed 1983 on the west and as early-to-mid 20th- century apartment and religious buildings

4-65 Palmer Park Palmer Park, north of Eligible under B and No effect No effect No effect No effect 0 Log Cabin intersection of Merrill C for association Plaisance Street and Third with local politician Determined Street and philanthropist Eligible 2010 Thomas Palmer and as Rustic-style resort architecture in Detroit

4-123 Merrill Palmer Park, located near Eligible under C as No effect No effect No effect No effect Fountain park’s southeast corner excellent work of and north of intersection public sculpture Determined of Merrill Plaisance Street designed by Carrere Eligible 2011 and Second Boulevard & Hastings

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-59 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-66 Palmer Park Palmer Park, just north of Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Substation intersection of Woodward and C for Avenue and Merrill association with Determined Plaisance Street Detroit Electric Eligible 2010 Company’s distribution of electricity to streetcar lines and as early 20th -century, Neoclassical-style utility building

4-78 The First 17816 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Romanian association with Baptist Detroit’s Romanian- Church American community Determined Eligible 2011

4-81 17950 17950 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward and C for Avenue association with Detroit’s Romanian-

Determined American Eligible 2011 community and as post-World War II era, Art-Moderne- style funeral home building

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-60 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-94 18750 18750 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward association with Avenue 1940s healthcare development in Determined residential Eligible 2011 neighborhoods

4-95 18800 18800 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Woodward association with Avenue 1940s healthcare development in Determined residential Eligible 2011 neighborhoods

4-101 Sydney Bogg 18932 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A for No effect No effect No effect No effect Candy association with Factory and north-side Detroit Store commercial history

Determined Eligible 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-61 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-124 West Bounded by West Eligible under C for No effect No effect No effect No effect Goldengate – Goldengate Street on the collection of early to West Hildale north, Charlotte Street on mid-20th century – West the east, West Grixdale eclectic residential Grixdale Street n the south, and architecture Historic Woodward Avenue on the District west

Determined Eligible 2011

4-115 Palmer Roughly bounded by Listed under C for No effect No effect No effect No effect Woods Evergreen Cemetery on high-style houses Historic the north, Woodward executed by master District Avenue on the east, West architects and for Seven Mile Road on the unique landscape Listed 1983 south, and Strathcona architecture and Drive on the west design

4-120 Woodlawn 19975 Woodward Avenue Eligible under A No effect No effect No effect No effect Cemetery and C for association with Determined landscape lawn Eligible 2010 cemetery movement, and for landscape lawn plan and high-style, architect-designed funerary architecture

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-62 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-118 Michigan Within Michigan State Listed under A and No effect No effect No effect No effect State Fair Fairgrounds at 20110 C for associations Riding Woodward Avenue with Michigan State Coliseum, Fair and Dairy Cattle development of Building, State agriculture, Agricultural and for Building Neoclassical-style, early 20th-century, Listed 1980 exhibition architecture

4-119 Michigan Bounded by 8 Mile Road Eligible under A No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: No adverse effect: State on the north, the Detroit and C for Minor parcel Minor parcel Minor parcel Minor parcel Fairgrounds Terminal Railroad on the association with acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within acquisition within Historic east, West State Fair district boundary; district boundary; district boundary; district boundary; District Avenue on the south, and legacy, and for no adverse effect no adverse effect to no adverse effect to no adverse effect Woodward Avenue on the exhibition to integrity integrity integrity to integrity Determined west architecture and Eligible 2010 facilities unique to 20th-century fairgrounds planning

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-63 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Determination of Effect Survey NRHP Address NRHP Criteria Photograph ID Status Alternative A1 Alternative B2 Alternative B3 Alternative A4

4-121 Woodward The entire length of Eligible under A No adverse effect: Adverse effect: Adverse effect: No adverse effect: Avenue Woodward Avenue and B as major No impacts to Visual adverse Visual adverse No impacts to between its intersections transportation historic elements; effect to feeling effect to feeling historic character; Determined with Jefferson Avenue and corridor and for no adverse effect from stations within from stations within no adverse effect Eligible 2010 M-102/Eight Mile Road, association with to integrity proposed historic proposed historic to integrity. ‡ spanning the existing Judge Augustus B. boundary boundary right-of-way and including Woodward the median where applicable Update: Billboards Update: Billboards are no longer are no longer included as part of included as part of this alternative. this alternative. Therefore, FTA has Therefore, FTA has determined that determined that there would be no there would be no adverse effect to this adverse effect to this historic property. historic property.

* Pending NRHP listing. † Determined eligible as part of prior, unrelated Section 106 project review; no documentation on file. Updated determination of eligibility provided in Phased Section 106 Submittal: Interstate 75/Fisher Freeway to Grand Boulevard (September 2010). ‡ A portion of Woodward Avenue, as part of the Historic Woodward Avenue Plan of 1805, was previously determined eligible in 1979. All effects determinations include noise and vibration assessments. In cases where there is a potential for noise and vibration effects, FTA will implement measures to avoid adverse effects and testing/monitoring to confirm that no adverse effects to historic properties are present. .

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-64 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Short-Term Construction Effects Historic properties located adjacent to the alignment will experience short-term noise and vibration impacts related to construction; however, all buildings located adjacent to the Corridor will experience these impacts. Historic properties are not likely to experience anything different during construction than experienced by other properties adjacent to the alignment. No preliminary sites for CSAs have been located within the boundaries of historic properties or districts or would affect access to any historic properties; however, these sites would be subject to additional analysis during the ongoing Section 106 c onsultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties. See the Section 4.5 Noise and Section 4.6 Vibration for additional details. Mitigation Findings of adverse effect to historic properties require efforts to resolve these effects by developing and evaluating alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. Efforts were made to avoid physical impacts to historic properties, and efforts would be made to avoid impacts during construction of the Project as well. For adverse effects that cannot be avoided, FTA and the City of Detroit developed a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Preferred Alternative (A4) in consultation with the Michigan SHPO, NPS, and other consulting parties. The MOA is available in Appendix G. The City intends to build the entire 9.3 mile LRT system at once, which includes Phase I and Phase II. H owever, if phased construction is warranted, Phase I will be built first, and Phase I mitigation will be implemented. When Phase II is built, the City will implement the mitigation described for Phase II, though for Section 106, the mitigation (described below) is the same for both phases. To mitigate visual adverse effects on historic properties related to the placement of stations near historic properties, the City of Detroit would require the Final Design contractor to design project elements consistent with its historic context. The Project design would not include or allow the placement of large advertising billboards above any station where it would visually affect any of the historic properties within the Preferred Alternative (A4) APE. The City of Detroit would also hold design workshops with the SHPO and consulting parties for all elements of the Project on which FTA made an adverse effect determination. T he City of Detroit would also submit the resulting design from each of these workshops to the SHPO for comment and approval. In addition, the City of Detroit would prepare the documentation necessary to nominate the adversely affected Gabriel Richard Building and the Woodward-West Palmer-Cass-West Kirby Historic District to the NRHP. As discussed earlier, the City of Detroit would conduct detailed vibration and ground-borne noise analyses during Final Design. The City of Detroit would mitigate any vibration and ground-borne noise impacts to historic properties eligible for or listed in the NRHP within the APE to below impact levels set in FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance (2006). Mitigation for noise and vibration would not involve modifications to any historic properties or visually affect any historic property. 4.4.2 Archaeological Resources Legal and Regulatory Context The archaeological investigation was coordinated with the Section 106 process as described for historic resources, and the guidelines for such surveys established by MDOT and the State Archaeologist within the SHPO. As part of this investigation, FTA invited Native American

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-65 Final Environmental Impact Statement

comment and input on the proposed project. This included communications with 12 federally- recognized tribes and two State-recognized tribes that might have an interest in the Project. While Section 106 consultation is ongoing, there has been minimal response to date by the tribes, as documented in the Public Participation Technical Report (2011). Methodology FTA and the City of Detroit conducted a Phase I archaeological literature review, and land use history and archaeological disturbance assessments to determine the Project’s potential to affect archaeological sites that may be eligible for the NRHP. The APE for archaeological resources included all areas within one-quarter mile of the Project to determine the potential for finding archaeological resources. This distance was established in consultation with FTA, MDOT, and SHPO. T he APE for assessment of effects involves the direct project footprint including the LRT tracks, stations, TPSS, and the VMSF. Project staff conducted field inspections consisting of visual inspection and photo documentation of the Woodward Avenue Corridor and the potential VSMF sites. Details of the archaeological investigation are provided in the Archaeological Resources Technical Report’s Phase I Archaeological Literature Review, Land-Use History, and Disturbance Assessment, Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project, City of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan. Existing Conditions The literature review revealed that 55 previously-documented archaeological sites exist within the Archaeological Study Area (ASA) as documented in the Archaeological Resources Technical Report. Many were identified in 27 archaeological survey reports on file with the SHPO. The documented archaeological sites are concentrated in Downtown along the waterfront and south of Grand Circus Park. The density of reported sites decreases northward along Woodward Avenue due to the fact that more projects occurred in the Downtown area than in the northern sections of Woodward Avenue. A number of large archaeological investigations explored the archaeological potential of Downtown, whereas fewer projects have been initiated along the more northerly sections of the Woodward Avenue. Two documented sites are solely prehistoric resources; three have both prehistoric and historic components. Thirteen sites have not been field verified; they are documented through historic cartography, deed records, unconfirmed field inspection, and historic documentation. Five of the 55 previously documented sites have been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. All are located in Downtown. All of the eligible sites date to the late 18th and early to mid-19th centuries. Three of these eligible sites had archaeological data-recovery excavations completed previously, though not associated with this project. Only one of the eligible sites, Capitol Park, falls within the Project alignment or at a LRT station location. This site reportedly contains the remnants of the first territorial capitol building and at least one historic burial. Of the remaining sites, 14 were determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and 36 require additional information before a final determination can be made. At least six archaeological sites occur in or adjacent to the Project alignment in Downtown. These include Capitol Park, and Fort Lernout, which includes the 18th century palisaded city, covering an area roughly from the intersection of Fort and Shelby Streets to the intersection of Jefferson and Cass Avenues, and the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Griswold Street. In the 18th century, this area was highly developed and contained densely packed military, domestic, and commercial structures on streets that do not correspond to the modern, post-1805 street grid. Another potentially significant site of note is the Original Protestant Cemetery. Intact burials from this late 18th and early 19th century resource were previously discovered beneath the

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-66 Final Environmental Impact Statement

northern sidewalk of Larned Street at the northeast corner of Larned Street and Woodward Avenue. Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative As the No Build Alternative does not involve construction at the sites of identified archaeological sensitivity, it would have no impact on extant archaeological resources. The Project Implementation of the Project within the rights-of-way established in Detroit’s 1805 plan (the modern street grid) would have no impact on significant archaeological resources. That street grid has changed little since it was established, and in-street utility installation and infrastructure improvements have compromised any archaeological resource that may have been present. The only element of the post-1805 city that may be impacted by the Project is Capitol Park, adjacent to State Street, which may be affected by curbside construction in that area. The archaeological reports reviewed by the SHPO reveal that circa 1880 to 1920, residential and industrial sites may exist in the Amsterdam Street VSMF site, and 20th century industrial deposits may exist at the Highland Park Ford Plant VSMF site. However, the reports are clear that 20th century redevelopment and urban renewal projects have destroyed or compromised archaeological remains in many areas. Unassociated privy vaults, drains, and building foundations lacking solid interpretive contexts are not likely to be considered NRHP-eligible. The Amsterdam Street VSMF site was entirely undeveloped until the end of the 19th century, when a small portion was occupied by sheds and lumber piles for a nearby lumberyard. By 1910, almost the entire site was occupied by the Cadillac Car Company. By 1949, all structures in the VSMF site’s limits had been razed and converted to automobile parking, a function that continues today. The Highland Park Ford Plant VSMF site was not intensely developed, despite its proximity to the Highland Park Ford Plant National Historic Landmark. The property was entirely undeveloped until circa 1915 when it held athletic fields, three small paint sheds, three small underground storage tanks, and a series of railroad sidings for the Ford Plant. In the mid- 20th century, the entire area was converted to materials storage; the standing structures were razed by the end of the century. (See the Archaeological Resources Technical Report for site mapping). Short-Term Construction Effects In the event of the unanticipated discovery of human remains or potentially significant archaeological sites during Project construction, all work in the vicinity would stop. Work would not proceed until an appropriate treatment plan for the resource is developed through coordination with the SHPO. If the discovery involves human remains, local law enforcement officials would be notified immediately of the discovery, prior to consultation with the above agencies. Mitigation Mitigation for archaeological resources is detailed in the Section 106 MOA included in Appendix G. Once the site layout and facility design plans, including specific information on the horizontal and vertical extent of excavation, are advanced during Final Design, Phase I archaeological field investigations would be completed. Such investigations would be guided by the recommendations discussed below. With three exceptions (Fort Lernout, the Original Protestant Cemetery, and Capitol Park), there is no potential for the Project in the proposed street rights-of-way to impact intact archaeological

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-67 Final Environmental Impact Statement

sites; no further work is necessary for the majority of the area. As there is likely historic and cultural significance attached to any sites associated with the pre-1805 city, particularly those of Fort Lernoult, the 18th century palisaded city, and the Original Protestant Cemetery, the City of Detroit would prepare a construction-phase monitoring plan and have a qualified archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s qualifications present for all excavations extending more than 24 inches below current ground surface above or adjacent to those potential resources for construction of the Project. Excavation along the north side of State Street adjacent to Capitol Park would also be monitored for evidence of the Capitol Park archaeological site. No additional archaeological investigation is warranted for either the Amsterdam Street or Highland Park Ford Plant VSMF sites. 4.5 Noise 4.5.1 Legal and Regulatory Context FTA noise criteria are used to assess potential noise impacts of transit projects (74 Federal Register 12518, March 2009). FTA guidelines categorize noise impacts based on three primary land use categories (Table 4-6).

Table 4-6. FTA Guidelines on Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Land Use Noise Metric Description of Land Use Category Category (dBA) Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element of the land’s intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity 1 Outdoor L (h) eq and quiet and used as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, and NHLs with significant outdoor use. Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category 2 Outdoor Ldn includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening uses. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important 3 Outdoor L (h) eq to avoid interference with activities such as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006

The land use categories in Table 4-6 are relevant because the noise sensitivity of land uses with primarily daytime activity differ from those where nighttime quiet is of paramount importance, such as where people normally sleep. Leq is a measure of sound energy that is used to assess the impact for institutional and other land uses that do not have nighttime noise sensitivity. Leq(h) is a measure of sound energy over a one-hour period that is referred to as the equivalent noise level and is used here to designate the noise during the noisiest hour of project-related activity. Ldn is a 24-hour noise descriptor referred to as the day-night noise level and is used to assess noise impacts for land uses where people sleep. As a result, there is heightened sensitivity to nighttime noise. For each of the land use categories, FTA has noise impact criteria to determine if transit noise impacts would occur by comparing the existing outdoor noise levels with the noise level generated by the proposed project.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-68 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-2 shows, for various levels of existing noise on the x-axis, what level of project noise (y-axis) would result in no impact, a moderate impact, and a severe impact. The unit used, A- weighted decibels or dBA, is a measure of sound loudness adjusted for the hearing range of the human ear. For example, at a given residential property (a Category 2 land use) with an existing day-night noise level (Ldn) of 60 dBA, the predicted day-night noise level generated by the rail vehicles moving along the tracks over a 24-hour period would be a moderate impact if it is predicted to be in the range of 58 to 63 dBA, a severe impact if it is predicted to be 64 dBA or greater, and no impact if it is predicted to be under 58 dBA.

Figure 4-2. FTA Noise Impact Criteria

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-69 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.5.2 Methodology Existing Noise Existing noise levels within the Corridor were assessed based on noise measurements collected at representative sites. Noise-sensitive locations were selected for noise monitoring based on the proposed alignments and the potential locations of the VSMF. These specific noise-sensitive sites were selected in order to consider both stationary and mobile sound sources, represent different types of land uses along the alignments, and to provide adequate geographic coverage for the Project’s different alternatives. Seventy sites were selected along the Project’s mainline alignment (Figure 4-4) and the alignments of the Project’s Downtown design options (Figure 4-5). Twenty-four-hour noise measurements were taken at 38 sites (sites R#) where people sleep and have sensitivity to nighttime noise. Noise measurements during the 7:00-8:00 a.m. and 5:00-6:00 p.m. peak periods were taken at 23 sites (sites S#) where sensitivity to noise is limited to the daytime. At nine additional sites (sites M#), existing noise levels were derived from noise readings collected at 24-hour and peak-hour measurement sites that were close enough to the nine sites to represent noise levels at those sites. All noise measurements were taken at exterior areas of each of the properties. Future Noise Future noise exposure in the study area from the Project was predicted in accordance with analysis procedures defined in Chapter 6 o f FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). The project-generated noise level at each noise-sensitive property or “receptor” is calculated by determining four principal components: the noise level generated by LRT, the hour-by-hour number of LRT operations over a 24-hour time period, the speed at which the LRT travels between train stations, and the distance between the LRT and a given receptor. The final calculated noise level is determined after applying adjustments for shielding provided by intervening buildings, special trackwork adjustments where track switches are planned, and adjustments for wheel squeal where there are curves in the tracks. For land uses where people normally sleep, noise impact is assessed using the 24-hour day-night noise level (Ldn). For land uses involving daytime activities, noise impact is assessed using the peak hour equivalent noise level (Leq). All measured and calculated noise levels are adjusted to the “A” weighted scale, which best accounts for perception of loudness by the human ear. Representative common noise sources and their associated dBA levels are shown on the right side of Figure 4-3. The application of this methodology for analysis of the Project is detailed in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (2011). Traffic data used in the noise and vibration analyses are detailed in the Transportation Technical Report (2011).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-70 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-3. Sound Pressure and Sound Pressure Levels of Common Noise-Generating Activities

Source: Brüel and Kjær. Environmental Noise, Sound and Vibration Measurements, 2000

4.5.3 Existing Conditions Existing noise levels throughout the study area are typical of noise levels found in urban communities. Motor vehicles are the principal source of noise within the study area. As the Project’s Build Alternatives would follow existing travel routes, most communities adjacent to the Project alignments are currently exposed to moderate to high ambient noise levels. Existing noise levels in the study area range from a m aximum of 80 dBA at Our Lady of the Rosary

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-71 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parish (Site R15) to 56 dBA at a residence at 600 West Grixdale Street (Site 34). The existing noise levels for each of the noise-sensitive receptor sites are listed in Table 4-7.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-72 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-4. Mainline Noise and Vibration Measurement Site Locations

Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2010-2011 Note: See Table 4-7 for receptor site descriptions

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-73 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-5. Downtown Noise and Vibration Measurement Site Locations

Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2010-2011 Note: See Table 4-7 for receptor site descriptions

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-74 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-7. Downtown Noise and Vibration Measurement Site Locations Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) MAINLINE R6 1450 Woodward 2 73 66 / 72 63 No Impact Avenue R6 1450 Woodward 2 71 66 / 71 60 No Impact Avenue (4th Floor) R9 2440 Woodward 2 73 66 / 72 60 No Impact Avenue R10 3501 Stimson Street 2 70 65 / 70 60 No Impact R11 Bi-Centennial Tower – 2 68 63 / 69 51 No Impact 4 Alexandrine Street R12 4501 Woodward 2 74 66 / 73 62 No Impact Avenue, Apartment 2 R13 Hannah House – 4750 2 72 66 / 72 60 No Impact Woodward Avenue R14 5501 Woodward 2 68 63 / 69 60 No Impact Avenue R15 Our Lady of the 3 80 71 / 81 58 No Impact Rosary Parish – 5930 Woodward Avenue R16 5979 Woodward 2 71 66 / 71 55 No Impact Avenue R17 Metropolitan United 2 71 66 / 71 62 No Impact Methodist Church – 7730 Woodward Avenue R18 42 Chandler Street 3 63 65 / 71 59 No Impact R19 8285 Woodward 2 68 63 / 69 54 No Impact Avenue R20 The Family Place – 3 70 65 / 70 55 No Impact 8726Woodward Avenue R21 53 Chicago Boulevard 2 60 58 / 63 55 No Impact R22 Blessed Sacrament 3 63 65 / 71 57 No Impact Cathedral – 9844 Woodward Avenue R23 11501 Woodward 2 62 59 / 65 56 No Impact Avenue/10 Lawrence Street R24 Normandie Hotel – 2 65 61 / 67 63 Moderate 11626 Woodward Impact Avenue R25 10 Tuxedo Street 2 62 59 / 65 54 No Impact R26 Massachusetts Avenue 3 61 64 / 70 52 No Impact Park R27 2 Buena Vista Street 2 65 61 / 67 53 No Impact

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-75 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) R28 Labelle Towers 2 67 63 / 68 52 No Impact Apartments – 33 Labelle Street R29 Charter 3 67 68 / 72 56 No Impact Communications – 15120 Woodward R30 16140 Woodward 3 66 67 / 73 59 No Impact Avenue R31 21 Moss Street 2 66 62 / 68 53 No Impact R32 303 Covington Drive 2 63 60 / 66 52 No Impact R33 324 West Montana 2 61 59 / 65 58 No Impact Street R34 600 West Grixdale 2 56 56 / 63 59 Moderate Avenue Impact R35 19300 Afton Road 2 59 58 / 63 54 No Impact R36 19390 Woodward 2 61 59 / 65 54 No Impact Avenue R37 State Fair Apartments 2 60 58 / 64 54 No Impact – 1231 West State Fair R38 Evergreen Cemetery 2 62 59 / 65 56 No Impact S6 American Red Cross – 3 70 70 / 75 60 No Impact 3510 Woodward Ave S7 Woodward Avenue at 3 73 71 / 77 58 No Impact Canfield Street S8 Whitney House – 3 69 69 / 75 55 No Impact 4421 Woodward Avenue S9 4420 Woodward 3 70 70 / 75 58 No Impact Avenue S10 Wayne State 3 78 71 / 79 59 No Impact University, Welcome Center S11 Detroit Institute of 3 68 68 / 74 52 No Impact Arts S12 Detroit Academy – 3 78 66 / 76 57 No Impact 8401 Woodward Avenue S13 People’s Community 3 72 66 / 71 60 No Impact Church – 8601 Woodward Avenue S14 Northern High School 3 74 66 / 73 53 No Impact S15 Massachusetts Avenue 3 62 64 / 70 48 No Impact Park S16 Park United 3 74 71 / 78 56 No Impact Presbyterian Church S17 Highland Park – 2 2 65 61 / 67 54 No Impact

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-76 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) East Buena Vista S18 Manchester Street to 3 71 71 / 76 61 No Impact McNichols Road S19 Highland Park 3 61 64 / 70 49 No Impact Community High School – 15900 Woodward Avenue S20 McNichols Road to 7 2 61 59 / 65 58 No Impact Mile Road S21 Palmer Park – Tennis 3 61 64 / 70 51 No Impact Courts S22 7 Mile Road to State 2 62 59 / 65 54 No Impact Fair S23 1120 West State Fair 3 58 62 / 68 48 No Impact Avenue Symphony Orchestra S24 3 67 68 / 73 44 No Impact Building School Playground S25 Area facing Cass 3 60 63 / 69 52 No Impact Avenue School Near Classroom window S26 3 63 65 / 71 54 No Impact adjacent Amsterdam Street Apartment Building at S27 2 69 64 / 70 63 No Impact 41 Burroughs Street M1 Park Shelton 2 70 65 / 70 65 Moderate Apartments Impact M1 Park Shelton 2 66 62 / 68 56 No Impact Apartments (10th Floor) M2 10 Edison Street 2 74 66 / 73 60 No Impact M3 Church – 13158 3 65 66 / 72 57 No Impact Woodward Avenue M4 Apartments – 15948 2 65 61 / 67 63 No Impact Woodward Avenue M5 Soul Harvest 3 64 66 / 71 58 No Impact Ministries M6 Apartments – 16360 2 70 65 / 70 63 No Impact Woodward Avenue M7 Apartments – 211 2 68 63 / 69 60 No Impact Merton Road ALTERNATIVE A1 R3 Hotel at 2 Washington 2 70 65 / 70 57 No Impact Boulevard – 4th Floor

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-77 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) R1 Tennis Court of 2 68 63 / 69 54 No Impact Millender Center Apartments – 548 Brush Street – 5th Floor S1 Kids Space 3 65 65 / 71 53 No Impact Montessori at R2 Cadillac Square 2 72 66 / 71 54 No Impact Apartments – 111 Cadillac Square R2 Cadillac Square 2 69 64 / 70 48 No Impact Apartments – 111 Cadillac Square – 29th Floor M8 Holiday Inn Express 2 75 66 / 74 62 No Impact M8 Holiday Inn Express – 2 66 62 / 68 53 No Impact 16th Floor S4 Capitol Park 3 64 66 / 71 48 No Impact

S2 Stevens Building 2 72 66 / 72 69 Moderate Apartments – 1260 Impact Washington Boulevard S2 Stevens Building 2 63 60 / 66 63 Moderate Apartments – 1260 Impact Washington Boulevard - 7th Floor S3 Washington Square 2 72 66 / 72 58 No Impact Apartments – 1431 Washington Boulevard S3 Washington Square 2 67 63 / 68 49 No Impact Apartments – 1431 Washington Boulevard - 27th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 71 66 / 71 61 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard R4 The Westin Book 2 70 65 / 69 53 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 4th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 63 60 / 66 47 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-78 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Boulevard – 35th Floor R5 Industrial Building 2 74 66 / 72 65 No Impact Apartments – 232 Grand River – 4th Floor R5 Industrial Building 2 65 61 / 67 51 No Impact Apartments – 232 Grand River – 21st Floor S5 Maybury Park at 3 65 65 / 71 57 No Impact Corner of Woodward Avenue and Adams R7 Central United 2 66 62 / 68 57 No Impact Methodist Church – 23 East Adams Avenue M9 Fox Theater – 2211 3 66 67 / 73 63 No Impact Woodward Avenue R8 Saint John’s Episcopal 3 68 68 / 74 53 No Impact Church – 50 East Fisher Freeway ALTERNATIVE B2 R3 Hotel at 2 Washington 2 70 65 / 70 58 No Impact Boulevard – 4th Floor R1 Tennis Court of 2 68 63 / 69 55 No Impact Millender Center Apartments – 548 Brush Street – 5th Floor S1 Kids Space 3 65 65 / 71 52 No Impact Montessori at Wayne County Building R2 Cadillac Square 2 72 66 / 71 52 No Impact Apartments – 111 Cadillac Square – R2 Cadillac Square 2 69 64 / 70 48 No Impact Apartments – 111 Cadillac Square – 29th Floor M8 Holiday Inn Express 2 75 66 / 74 67 Moderate Impact M8 Holiday Inn Express – 2 66 62 / 68 53 No Impact 16th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 71 66 / 71 60 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-79 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Boulevard

R4 The Westin Book 2 70 65 / 69 58 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 4th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 63 60 / 66 48 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 35th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 77 66 / 75 69 Moderate Cadillac Detroit – Impact 1114 Washington Boulevard – at State Street R4 The Westin Book 2 72 66 / 72 64 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 4th Floor at State Street R4 The Westin Book 2 63 60 / 66 48 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 35th Floor at State Street S4 Capitol Park 3 64 66 / 71 57 No Impact S5 Maybury Park at 3 65 65 / 71 57 No Impact Corner of Woodward Avenue and Adams R7 Central United 2 66 62 / 68 64 Moderate Methodist Church – Impact 23 East Adams Avenue M9 Fox Theater – 2211 3 66 67 / 73 64 No Impact Woodward Avenue R8 Saint John’s Episcopal 3 68 63 / 69 59 No Impact Church – 50 East Fisher Freeway ALTERNATIVE B3 R6 1450 Woodward 2 73 66 / 72 67 Moderate Avenue Impact R6 1450 Woodward 2 70 65 / 70 61 No Impact Avenue - 4th Floor S5 Maybury Park at 3 65 65 / 71 57 No Impact Corner of Woodward Avenue and Adams

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-80 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) R7 Central United 2 66 62 / 68 64 Moderate Methodist Church – Impact 23 East Adams Avenue M9 Fox Theater – 2211 3 66 67 / 73 64 No Impact Woodward Avenue R8 Saint John’s Episcopal 3 68 63 / 69 59 No Impact Church – 50 East Fisher Freeway PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - A4 R3 Hotel at 2 Washington 2 70 65 / 70 58 No Impact Boulevard – 4th Floor R1 Tennis Court of 2 68 63 / 69 55 No Impact Millender Center Apartments – 548 Brush Street – 5th Floor S1 Kids Space 3 65 65 / 71 53 No Impact Montessori at Wayne County Building R2 Cadillac Square 2 72 66 / 71 52 No Impact Apartments – 111 Cadillac Square R2 Cadillac Square 2 69 64 / 70 48 No Impact Apartments – 111 Cadillac Square – 29th Floor M8 Holiday Inn Express 2 75 66 / 74 67 Moderate Impact M8 Holiday Inn Express – 2 66 62 / 68 53 No Impact 16th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 71 66 / 71 60 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard R4 The Westin Book 2 70 65 / 69 58 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 4th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 63 60 / 66 48 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 35th Floor R4 The Westin Book 2 77 66 / 75 69 Moderate Cadillac Detroit – Impact 1114 Washington

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-81 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Receptor Receptor FTA Land Existing Noise Impact Predicted Noise Number (Site Description) Use Noise Thresholds Noise Impact Category Level (moderate/severe) Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Boulevard – 4th Floor at State Street R4 The Westin Book 2 72 66 / 72 64 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 4th Floor at State Street R4 The Westin Book 2 63 60 / 66 48 No Impact Cadillac Detroit – 1114 Washington Boulevard – 4th Floor at State Street S4 Capitol Park 3 64 66 / 71 57 No Impact

S5 Maybury Park at 3 65 65 / 71 57 No Impact Corner of Woodward Avenue and Adams R7 Central United 2 66 62 / 68 64 Moderate Methodist Church – Impact 23 East Adams Avenue M9 Fox Theater – 2211 3 66 67 / 73 64 No Impact Woodward Avenue R8 Saint John’s Episcopal 3 68 63 / 69 59 No Impact Church – 50 East Fisher Freeway Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011 Note: Refer to Figures 4-4 and 4-5 for receptor locations

4.5.4 Long-Term Effects Impact thresholds were taken from FTA’s Transit Noise and V ibration Impact Assessment (2006) for each receptor based on its land use category and the existing noise level (Table 4-7). The future predicted noise level of the Project was then compared to the impact thresholds in order to determine the existence and severity of noise impacts. The distance of the receptor from the LRT is factored into the determination of the Project’s predicted future noise level at that receptor. No Build Alternative With the No Build Alternative, noise levels in the study area would continue to be generated principally from motor vehicles traveling on the study area’s roadways. In the absence of planned roadway improvements or other major developments that would alter traffic patterns to a great degree, future No Build noise levels can be expected to increase slightly due to projected traffic growth of one percent per year by 2030. However, the increase in noise would not be perceptibly different from existing noise levels.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-82 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Build Alternatives Traffic Noise The noise from automobile traffic is not expected to change measurably as a result of the Project. If there were any change at all, it would be a small reduction in noise from automobiles, because the Project is expected to reduce automobile use, and the speed of the remaining would be slightly reduced. The slightly reduced speeds and reduced traffic noise would be the result of the former general traffic lanes on Woodward Avenue being devoted primarily to light rail transit vehicles. Transit Noise Alternative A1 Moderate noise impacts are predicted at five receptor sites (Table 4-7), including residences at the Stevens Building Apartments (Site S2) and at 600 G rixdale Avenue (Site R34), Apartments (Site M1) and the Normandie Hotel (Site R24). Impacts predicted at the Stevens Building Apartments would occur from the building’s ground floor to the seventh floor (of 22 floors), comprising two distinct receptor sites analyzed. Alternative B2 Moderate noise impacts are predicted at six receptor sites (Table 4-7) including the Holiday Inn Express, the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, and the Normandie Hotel (Sites M8, R4, R24, respectively), as well as residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1) and 600 Grixdale Avenue (Site R34). A moderate impact is also predicted at the Central United Methodist Church (Site R7) where noise sensitivity is limited to daytime hours. Alternative B3 Moderate noise impacts are predicted at five receptor sites (Table 4-7), including the Normandie Hotel (Site R24), and residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1), 1450 Woodward Avenue (Site R6) and 600 Grixdale Avenue (Site R34). A moderate impact is also predicted at the Central United Methodist Church (Site R7) where noise sensitivity is limited to daytime hours. Alternative A4 (Preferred Alternative) Moderate noise impacts are predicted at six receptor sites (Table 4-7) including the Holiday Inn Express, the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, and the Normandie Hotel (Sites M8, R4, R24, respectively), and residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1) and 600 Grixdale Avenue (Site R34). A moderate impact is also predicted at the Central United Methodist Church (Site R7) where noise sensitivity is limited to daytime hours. 4.5.5 Mitigation of Operational Noise According to FTA’s noise guidance (Transit Noise and V ibration Impact Assessment, 2006), mitigation of moderate noise impacts depends on the number of receptors affected at a particular location, the magnitude of the exceedance of the threshold for moderate noise impacts, the noise sensitivity of the receptor, and the cost and effectiveness of feasible approaches to mitigation at that location, among other considerations. Feasible approaches to noise mitigation in an urban setting include the relocation of special trackwork, the automatic lubrication of tracks on tight curves, wheel dampeners, vehicle skirts (extensions of the side body of a transit vehicle to cover the wheels), undercar absorption, and building insulation. Most of the moderate impacts of the Project are at the low end of the moderate-impact range and affect few receptors. No mitigation is proposed in most cases. S everal moderate impacts, including one at the high end of the moderate range (Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, a hotel) are

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-83 Final Environmental Impact Statement

due to wheel squeal at a left or right turn of the track at that location. The moderate noise impact at these locations would be mitigated through automatic track lubrication devices installed on the track curves or on the vehicles with activation at the track curves. The need for these devices would be verified during Final Design. The mitigation of noise impacts would not require any project activity within the boundaries of a property in, or eligible for, the NRHP. The specification for the TPSSs ensures no noise impact is caused by any substation. T he location of the substations away from any noise-sensitive receptor is the primary means of avoiding noise impacts by the substations. Noise insulation would be required in the design specification of the substation if a substation must be located close enough to a noise-sensitive receptor where a moderate or worse noise impact would occur. 4.5.6 Short-Term Construction Effects Noise from construction activities would temporarily impact properties in the immediate vicinity, resulting in elevated noise levels for people in adjacent properties. The level of impact would depend on the time of day during which the construction activity occurs, the noise characteristics of the equipment being used, the duration of each of the impact-causing construction activities, the construction staging schedule, and the distance between the noise-generating equipment and the noise-sensitive properties. 4.5.7 Mitigation of Construction Noise The Project would be required to comply with all State and local noise ordinances which would apply to construction. All construction activities would have to comply with the requirements of Chapter 10-5 of the City of Detroit Noise Ordinance. The noise control measures listed below are examples of actions that could be written into contractor specifications. These potential measures should be evaluated during Final Design because impacts to noise- sensitive properties cannot be accurately determined without detailed construction plans and schedules of construction activities. Typical construction noise control measures include the following: • Informing the public when work is going to be performed; • Limiting the number and duration of idling equipment on site; • Installing mufflers on equipment; • Maintaining all construction equipment in good repair; • Reducing noise from all stationary equipment with suitable enclosures; • Minimizing the use of back-up alarms; • Scheduling and spacing truck loading and unloading operations; • Limiting the noisiest activities, such as operation of heavy equipment, to daylight hours; and, • Locating equipment and vehicle staging areas as far from noise-sensitive areas as possible.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-84 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.6 Vibration 4.6.1 Legal and Regulatory Context FTA impact criteria for ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise from LRT operations relate to maximum vibration and ground-borne noise levels associated with a single event (Table 4-8), such as the pass-by of a light rail vehicle or train. This approach is unlike the previously discussed criteria for air-borne noise levels (Section 4.5), which are associated with air-borne noise levels over a one-hour or 24-hour period. To address the more disruptive effect of multiple vibration events (i.e., the number of times that trains pass by the receptor in a 24-hour period), the criteria are divided into “frequent” and “infrequent” event categories, with more stringent criteria applying to frequent events. “Frequent Events” are defined as more than 70 vi bration events per day. M ost rapid transit projects fall into this category. “ Infrequent Events” are defined as fewer than 70 vibrations events per day. This category includes most commuter rail systems. As the Woodward Avenue LRT would have more than 70 vibration events (more than 70 pass-bys of LRTs) per day, vibration impacts are evaluated using the “frequent events” criteria.

Table 4-8. FTA Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Ground-Borne Vibration Ground-Borne Noise Impact Levels Impact Levels Land Use Category Frequent Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Events Events Events Events Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior 65 VdB 65 VdB NA NA operations. Category 2: Residences and buildings 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA where people normally sleep. Category 3: Institutional land uses with 75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA primarily daytime uses. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006 Notes: Vibration levels expressed in VdB are 1 micro inch/sec and ground-borne noise levels expressed in dBA.

4.6.2 Methodology Vibration levels were estimated in accordance with the General Vibration Assessment procedures defined in Chapter 10 of FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). T he method uses a generalized curve of vibration as a function of distance from the track to the building, and then adjusts the result to take into account LRT vehicle speeds, vehicle specifications, track conditions, geological transmission conditions, and interior building transmission conditions. 4.6.3 Existing Conditions The FTA impact assessment procedure does not require measurement of existing vibration levels as a b aseline against which to compare vibration from LRT operations. In the study area, existing vibration levels are generated principally from medium- and heavy-duty truck movements. Vibration levels caused by truck traffic are typically in the 50 to 60 VdB range and are below the threshold of perception of people inside adjacent buildings. They are also below the FTA criteria for frequent events.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-85 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.6.4 Long-Term Effects The vibration analysis findings presented in this document are limited to those receptors where the operation of the Woodward Avenue LRT system would result in vibration impacts. The detailed analysis findings at all 70 s ites evaluated are contained in the Noise and V ibration Technical Report (2011). The FTA vibration impact criteria are set at vibration levels that would disturb the building’s occupants. Vibration levels would have to be significantly above the FTA vibration impact criteria to result in structural damage to the building, so structural damage is generally not an issue. No Build Alternative In the absence of any nearby railroad improvements, future No Build vibration levels can be expected to remain similar to existing levels, which are typically in the 50 to 60 VdB range and would remain below the threshold of human perception. Build Alternatives Estimated vibration levels generated by LRT operations are expected to remain below FTA impact thresholds at most properties evaluated in the study area. A few properties are expected to experience vibration levels at or slightly above the vibration impact criteria level. However, these vibration levels represent a worst-case scenario, because potential vibration-dampening effects of soil conditions are not accounted for in vibration estimates. S oil borings would be taken during Final Design to determine soil conditions and any dampening effects more accurately, so actual vibration impacts may ultimately be less than what is predicted at this point. No property is expected to experience vibration levels in the range that would result in structural damage to buildings. Predicted ground-borne noise would likely be inaudible as both existing and predicted airborne noise levels would exceed the noise levels caused by ground-borne vibration of the affected structures at the receptor sites analyzed. Alternative A1 Vibration levels at the FTA impact threshold are predicted at the Stevens Building Apartments (Site S2) on the ground floor. Ground-borne noise levels at or slightly above the FTA ground- borne noise impact threshold are predicted at four sites: the Fox Theater (Site M9) and at residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1), 4501 Woodward Avenue (Site R12), and the Stevens Building Apartments (Site S2). (See Table 4-9). Alternative B2 Vibration levels at the FTA impact threshold are predicted at the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit (Site R4). G round-borne noise levels at or slightly above the FTA impact threshold are predicated at five sites: residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1) and 4501 Woodward Avenue Site (R12), and at the Holiday Inn Express (Site M8), the Fox Theater (Site M9), and the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit (Site R4). (See Table 4-9). Alternative B3 Vibration levels at the FTA impact threshold are predicted at the Fox Theater (Site M9). Ground-borne noise levels at or slightly above the FTA impact threshold are predicted at four sites: residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1), 1450 Woodward Avenue (Site R6), and 4501 Woodward Avenue (Site R12), and at the Fox Theater (Site M9). (See Table 4-9). Alternative A4 (Preferred Alternative) Vibration levels at the FTA impact threshold are predicted at the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit (Site R4). Ground-borne noise levels at or slightly above the FTA impact threshold are predicted at five sites: residences at the Park Shelton Apartments (Site M1) and 4501 Woodward Avenue

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-86 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Site R12), and at the Fox Theater (Site M9), the Holiday Inn Express (Site M8), and the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit (Site R4). (See Table 4-9). 4.6.5 Mitigation of Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impacts During Final Design, the need for mitigation at all buildings where vibration impacts are predicted would be evaluated, and that evaluation would take into account the results of a detailed study of soil conditions and building foundations through which vibration impacts would be transmitted to upper, inhabited stories of the building. Wherever the FTA criteria for vibration or ground-borne noise for frequent events is exceeded, mitigation would be used to eliminate the impact. Typical mitigation methods for vibration and ground-borne noise impacts include moving special trackwork, using resilient wheels (steel wheels with a flexible material between the running surface and the hub in order to reduce noise radiation), track fasteners or track frogs (a structure used at the intersection of two running rails to provide support for wheels and passageways for their flanges, thus permitting wheels on either rail to cross the other), using resilient track support systems, and modifying the building itself. If, during Final Design, soil conditions and building foundations are found to transmit vibration or ground-borne noise into the following buildings, mitigation other than alteration of the building itself would be explored: Park Shelton Apartments, Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, Stevens Building Apartments, Fox Theater, and 1540 Woodward Avenue. These buildings are in or eligible for the NRHP, or are contributing elements of a historic district that is in or eligible for the NRHP.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-87 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-9. Vibration Impacts from the Project Ground- Ground- FTA Ground- Site Number Vibration Vibration Borne Borne Land Vibration Borne and Name Criteria Level Noise Noise Use Impact Noise (VdB) (VdB) Criteria Level Category Impact (dBA) (dBA) Alternative A1 S2 - Stevens Building 2 72 72 Impact 35 37 Impact Apartments M9 - Fox 3 72 70 No Impact 35 36 Impact Theater M1 - Park Shelton 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Apartments R12 - 4501 Woodward 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Avenue Alternative B2 M1 - Park Shelton 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Apartments M8 - Holiday 2 72 71 No Impact 35 36 Impact Inn Express M9 - Fox 3 72 72 Impact 35 37 Impact Theater R4 - Westin Book 2 72 72 Impact 35 37 Impact Cadillac Detroit R12 - 4501 Woodward 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Avenue Alternative B3 M1 - Park Shelton 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Apartments M9 - Fox 3 72 72 Impact 35 37 Impact Theater R6 – 1450 Woodward 2 72 71 No Impact 35 36 Impact Avenue R12 - 4501 Woodward 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Avenue Alternative A4 (Preferred Alternative) M9 - Fox 3 72 70 No Impact 35 36 Impact Theater M1 - Park Shelton 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Apartments M8 - Holiday 2 72 71 No Impact 35 36 Impact Inn Express

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-88 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ground- Ground- FTA Ground- Site Number Vibration Vibration Borne Borne Land Vibration Borne and Name Criteria Level Noise Noise Use Impact Noise (VdB) (VdB) Criteria Level Category Impact (dBA) (dBA) R4 - Westin Book 2 72 72 Impact 35 37 Impact Cadillac Detroit R12 - 4501 Woodward 2 72 70 No Impact 35 35 Impact Avenue Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011.

4.6.6 Short-Term Construction Effects Construction of the Project may result in short-term increases in vibration levels at properties in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Common vibration-producing equipment includes jackhammers, pavement breakers, hoe rams, augur drills, bulldozers, and backhoes. Pavement breaking and soil compaction would probably produce the highest levels of construction-related vibration. Potential vibration-related impacts to nearby building occupants would include shaking inside lower floors of buildings within 200 feet of the construction activity. Actual distances at which effects would occur would depend on the type of construction equipment used and soil characteristics in the study area. Construction of an LRT line in an existing street usually does not require an extended construction period that would make construction vibration a concern. The Project’s construction would be required to comply with all State and local ordinances. 4.6.7 Construction Mitigation Vibration-control measures that can be used to reduce vibration-related effects at properties affected by the construction include: • Specifying vibration limits in contract documents; • Monitoring vibration levels at nearest vibration-sensitive structures to ensure these levels do not exceed FTA limits throughout the construction period; • Communicating with residents and businesses near construction activities about the potential for possible elevated vibration levels; and, • Measuring how well vibration is transferred through the soil. Prior to construction of the Project, transfer mobility tests would be completed to establish the vibration/soil characteristics of the area and confirm the need for mitigation as part of Final Design. 4.7 Resources with Limited or No Effect Environmental resource categories on which the Project would have a limited or no effect are discussed briefly below. Limited effects are considered to be minor impacts that can be readily mitigated.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-89 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Limited Effects This section describes resources on which the Project would have only limited effect. 4.7.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy Methodology Land use, zoning, and public policy information were obtained from field surveys and from agencies of the Cities of Detroit and Highland Park, including the DEGC. Potential impacts were identified through review of the Project alignment and construction staging areas, TPSS sites, and VSMF sites relative to existing and future land use patterns in the study area. Existing Conditions Land Use Land use in the study area comprises commercial, residential, institutional, entertainment, and cultural uses; concentrations of industrial uses; and scattered vacant and underutilized sites (Figure 4-6). The southern end is characterized by high-density commercial uses and a mix of government, residential, retail, entertainment, and cultural land uses. Beginning north of Grand Boulevard, major institutional uses (e.g., , ) are interspersed among heavier residential concentrations. Land uses along Woodward Avenue south of Highland Park transition from commercial to single-family residential districts, while lower density residential use lies north of Highland Park. The Michigan State Fairgrounds and the Woodland and Evergreen cemeteries lie at the north end of the study area. The study area has experienced economic redevelopment activity since 2000, most notably in Downtown, Midtown, and New Center. Zoning There are 16 z oning designations within the study area, comprising residential, business, and special districts. There are a number of historic districts along Woodward Avenue, which are subject to regulations and development standards designed to preserve their historic character. Plans and Policies Plans and policy documents pertinent to the study area include the City of Detroit Master Plan of Policies (May 2008 draft adopted by City Council), Highland Park Master Plan (Draft 2010), Detroit Zoning Ordinance, Highland Park Zoning Ordinance, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, and Wayne County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (2006-2010).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-90 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-6. Existing Land Use

Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2005 Adopted Forecast.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-91 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative Land use in the future without the Project would be similar to existing land use; no substantial change is anticipated in the pattern of development in the study area. The Project The location and operation of LRT would not directly affect land use as it would be within existing roadway rights-of-way already traveled by autos, buses, and trucks. In general, existing plans and policies are transit-supportive, and Woodward Avenue is designated as a mass transit and non-motorized route. The City of Detroit and M-1 Rail have undertaken the Woodward Avenue Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Strategy project, which is being conducted separate from this FEIS. The City intends to build the entire 9.3 mile LRT system at once, which includes Phase I and Phase II. However if Phase I is built before Phase II, the Project would include a temporary VSMF at the Amsterdam Street site for Phase I and a permanent VSMF at the Highland Park Ford Plant site for Phase II. The facilities would be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity of the Amsterdam Street and Highland Park Ford Plant sites, which are situated near railroad and industrial uses, respectively. A TPSS may have visual impacts on surrounding land uses. Therefore, the potential sensitivity of surrounding land uses to such impacts was considered in the identification of TPSS sites, requiring approximately 0.5 a cre of properties along the Corridor. O f the nine TPSS sites preliminarily identified (Figures 2-3 through 2-6), a TPSS on four of the sites along Woodward Avenue between Downtown and Middle Woodward would be compatible with on-site and surrounding land uses. A TPSS on t he five remaining sites, also along Woodward Avenue, would be adjacent to residential uses. Mitigation Context-sensitive design of the TPSS would mitigate the facilities’ potential impacts on nearby residential uses. 4.7.2 Neighborhood Character Methodology Five areas were identified for purposes of evaluating potential impacts on ne ighborhood character (Figure 4-7). While the City of Detroit has designated Planning Clusters used for grant applications and planning, they are too large for meaningful analysis of the Woodward Avenue LRT study area, and they exclude Highland Park. Existing Conditions Existing neighborhood character is summarized in Table 4-10. Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative Existing neighborhood character would not be expected to be noticeably impacted, based on adopted plans. The ongoing Detroit Works Project could have an effect, depending on its final recommendations. The Project LRT operation would not result in any residential displacements nor adversely affect community cohesion in the study area’s neighborhoods. It would improve mobility in the study area and thereby enhance economic development opportunities, without adverse impact on neighborhood

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-92 Final Environmental Impact Statement

character. The Amsterdam Street VSMF and Highland Park VSMF sites are within areas of principally industrial and government/institutional uses, though visible from some residential uses and Highland Park High School, respectively. Neighborhood character would not be altered by the five TPSS’s proposed to be sited near residential uses because it would be consistent with the urban setting of the Project area.

Table 4-10. Neighborhood Planning Areas Neighborhood Planning Description Area Downtown Detroit High concentration of retail and commercial buildings; urban (between and I-75) development density typical of a Central Business District Lower Woodward (between I-75 Includes Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District; institutional and and I-94) commercial buildings; active entertainment and theater district Middle Woodward (between I-94 New Center redevelopment area and several Detroit institutions and City of Highland Park) including Henry Ford Medical Center and Wayne State University; experiencing population increase; areas west of Woodward are more stable, east of Woodward has more blight Upper Woodward (between City Historic residential districts with single- and multi-family residences, of Highland Park and 8 Mile numerous churches, schools, sports, and recreational uses; Michigan Road) State Fairgrounds located at north end City of Highland Park Surrounded by the Cities of Detroit and Hamtramck; home to historic Ford Plant; declining population, some new retail and employment Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011

Mitigation Ongoing coordination with the public and the study area’s neighborhoods would be used to establish the Project’s interface with surrounding uses and incorporation in the fabric of the neighborhoods. Project planning to minimize construction effects on ne ighborhood activity patterns in the study area, particularly near the four proposed construction staging areas, would include appropriate signage and notifications of roadway and sidewalk detours and closures. 4.7.3 Community Facilities and Services Methodology An inventory was compiled through review of aerial maps and available records, a field survey, and contact with City officials. Potential impacts were identified through review of the Project alignment and VSMF sites relative to identified community facilities and services, including schools, places of worship, libraries, police and fire stations, parks, and recreation centers. Existing Conditions Existing community resources are located throughout the study area with the heaviest concentration directly along Woodward Avenue (Figure 4-8).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-93 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-7. Neighborhood Planning Areas

Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-94 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-8. Community Facilities and Services

Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-95 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative No significant change is anticipated to community facilities and services in the future without the Project. The Project Pedestrian and vehicular access to community facilities and services on Woodward Avenue, and along the alignments of Alternatives A1, B2, B3, and A4 (Preferred Alternative) would be affected by LRT operations due to changes in traffic circulation patterns during and after construction. However, traffic signal timing to accommodate LRT vehicles’ passage along the alignments and through intersections and signalized pedestrian crosswalks would maintain safe operations and access to community facilities and services. None of the VSMF sites would directly affect community facilities and services. Short-Term Construction Effects While construction would occur within roadway rights-of-way, it would result in temporary impacts due to interruptions to through traffic and direct access to community facilities and services. Residents will still be able to access community facilities and services, but they need to utilize alternative routes and/or detours to reach their destinations. Mitigation DDOT would install required safety equipment to ensure a safe environment for operation of and access to community facilities and services. Measures would include enhanced traffic signals, crosswalks, striping, signage, and notifications of road and sidewalk closures and detours during construction. 4.7.4 Parkland Legal and Regulatory Context Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 ( 49 U.S.C. 303) protects significant publicly-owned public parks and recreation areas, as well as wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites, and directs conditions under which such properties may be used. (Chapter 5 pr ovides the Section 4(f) Evaluation.) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965, a s amended, (16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.) protects recreational lands purchased or improved with LWCF program funds. Methodology Public parklands in the study area were identified from parcel data obtained from the City of Detroit Planning and Development Department, tax assessment records, and via field survey. Potential impacts to parklands were determined through overlay of the Project on m apping of identified areas. Existing Conditions Thirty-six parks and open space areas owned by the Detroit Recreation Department and the City of Highland Park lie within the study area; nine have frontage on W oodward Avenue. Major parks include Campus Martius Park, Grand Circus Park, and Palmer Park (see Table 5-1). Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative No parkland impacts would occur with the No Build Alternative.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-96 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Project No parkland would be impacted by Alternatives A1, B2, B3, or A4 (Preferred Alternative) or by any of the VSMF or TPSS sites. The proposed LRT stations and required infrastructure (e.g., rails, catenary wires, TPSS, VSMF) would be visible to users of some of the parklands, but consistent with the otherwise urban visual environment. Short-Term Construction Effects Construction activities would temporarily disrupt vehicular and pedestrian access to public parklands in the study area. Mitigation Where parkland access is affected during construction of the Project, alternative access points would be identified and marked. Coordination with the Detroit Recreation Department has been initiated to identify opportunities to minimize the Project’s effect on pa rk users’ during construction. 4.7.5 Visual and Aesthetics Methodology Guidelines established by the American Association of State Highway Officials (1991) and FHWA (1981) were followed to define the study area’s visual setting, identify areas of differing visual character, and define landscape units and visual quality. Existing Conditions Woodward Avenue was designated by FHWA in 2002 as an All American Road and in 2009 as a National Scenic Byway under the National Scenic Byways Program. It is managed by the Woodward Avenue Action Association, which comprises MDOT, local municipalities, public transit providers (DDOT and SMART), Wayne and Oakland counties, and local businesses. Woodward Avenue’s visual character varies as the Project alignment traverses south to north and is described below. • Downtown (near Jefferson Avenue to I-75 Prominent land uses include the Financial District, businesses/offices, and transportation (People Mover and Rosa Parks Transit Center). Typical of a CBD’s urban character, the views are dominated by large-scale buildings and structures, including prominent theater, entertainment and sports facilities. Visual continuity follows directly from these features. • Midtown (Fisher Freeway [I-75] to the Ford Freeway [I-94]) Cultural and university districts and educational and health-care institutions, including Wayne State University and the Detroit Medical Center, dominate this area. Distinctive cultural centers include the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Public Library, and the College for Creative Studies. New residential development is also present. • New Center (north from crossing of I-94 to Euclid Street) Prominent visual features include the historic headquarters of , new residential development, commercial buildings, and the railroad overpass south of Grand Boulevard. This section generally comprises mixed land uses and stages of development. • Middle Woodward (Euclid Street to southern Highland Park limit) This section transitions to the historic Boston Edison/Arden Park residential neighborhoods with some scattered commercial development. When combined with local businesses, worship centers, and school complexes, this residential stretch is more suburban in its visual character.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-97 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Highland Park One of the more visually diverse sections, Highland Park has several business and commercial shopping centers, industrial lands, a crossing of the Davison Freeway, and scattered single- and multiple-family residential areas. The Woodward Avenue right-of- way narrows to four lanes from six lanes, creating a m ore intensively developed character. • Upper Woodward (McNichols Road to 8 Mile Road) This is the most visually open section with Palmer Park, a wooded area and golf course, Woodlawn and Evergreen Cemeteries, and the Michigan State Fairgrounds. Woodward Avenue transitions to a six-lane cross-section with median. Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative No impacts would occur with the No Build Alternative, as development would continue consistent with land use plans and development initiatives. The Project As design elements of the Project (e.g., structures, construction materials, brand of vehicles, colors, etc.,) have not been determined, the following assessment of effects is based on typical LRT design features and locations of the Project’s design options. • Transitway - Tracks are typically embedded in existing pavement and are about 12 feet wide in the direction of travel. Although embedded tracks have little to no visual impact, they are often delineated by using different paving materials or striping to keep motor vehicles and bicycles from mistakenly traveling on t hem. Physical barriers such as low mountable curbs may be used.

• Catenary - Visual impacts are not significant, given the catenary system’s comparable size and appearance with existing electric and telephone poles.

• Stations - Shelter designs would have conventional and elevated canopy designs interspersed with other built structures along the alignment. The design and character of the facility would be defined during future design workshops held in conjunction with the SHPO and Section 106 consulting parties. T he station design would blend in with the existing urban and development setting of the study area.

• Vehicle Storage and M aintenance Facility - There is little visual contrast and more consistent appearance near the temporary Amsterdam site (if it is built) so the VSMF would blend with the existing visual setting. Siting of the VSMF at the permanent Highland Park Ford Plant site would be minimally disruptive as it would be about 1,000 feet east of Woodward Avenue and generally removed from view due to the intervening industrial structures.

• Traction Power Substations - These relatively small facilities (typically 25 feet by 60 feet) would not create substantial impacts to visual resources, given their size and the architectural treatment or visual screening that would enclose the substation facilities. The design and character of the facility would be defined during future design studies. Several of the candidate locations are situated in proximity to commercial or transportation land uses which would also help to minimize the visual contrast of these facilities.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-98 Final Environmental Impact Statement

In summary, the LRT would be generally compatible with the character of roadways and neighborhoods in the study area. The Project’s infrastructure would have some visual effect, but would still be suitable to the Corridor. The greatest visual effect of the Project, from Alternative B2, would be along Washington Boulevard, where much of the existing landscaped median would be displaced which, along with one of a proposed TPSS sites, would potentially alter the boulevard’s scenic qualities. Short-Term Construction Effects Construction activities would temporarily impact the visual environment, varying by construction type. Typically, impacts result from movement of equipment, placement of construction fences and screens, and material storage. During Final Design, construction measures would be developed to mitigate potential impacts in a more site-specific manner. Mitigation Design and construction of the Project would result in some visual impact with introduction of new visual elements where no similar facilities exist. Coordination with appropriate agencies (such as the SHPO) would establish visual design guidelines, potentially including context- sensitive station facility design for each station’s, VSMF’s, and TPSS’s visual setting. This would include vegetation, street trees and landscaping, station and maintenance facility design to reduce lighting impacts from glare, and minimization of structural bulk, where appropriate. 4.7.6 Utilities Methodology and Existing Conditions The study area has a network of utilities below and above the roadbeds where the Project would be constructed and operated. Known utilities in the study area include DTE Energy, AT&T, Michigan Intelligent Transportation System, Detroit Water and Sewage Department, Detroit Public Lighting Department, and MISS Dig Systems, Inc. Utility details have not been determined; the assessment of potential impacts is qualitative. Long-Term Effects Implementation of the Project would likely require replacement or reconstruction of some existing utilities and the introduction of some new infrastructure to support the LRT system, but it is not expected that there would be any long-term project-related utility effects. Short-Term Construction Effects Manhole entrances, overhead utilities, and other aboveground utility elements may require relocation or restoration. Some older utilities may need to be replaced, adjusted, or reinforced within or beyond the area of impact. Temporary service disruptions would be expected during any required utility relocations, and such relocations would affect traffic flows, likely requiring temporary detours. Plans to safeguard construction workers’ safety would be developed and implemented. Mitigation A thorough utility search to identify size, age, and location of underground utilities and to develop strategies for maintaining, protecting, or relocating them would be developed during Final Design. Construction activities would be planned and scheduled to minimize utility service outages to the greatest extent possible. All work involving utility relocation and protection would be coordinated with the City and the respective utility owner. Any planned outages would require notification of affected utility users.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-99 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.7.7 Energy Methodology Transportation energy comprises direct and indirect energy. Direct energy includes all energy for vehicle propulsion; is a function of traffic characteristics (e.g., volume, speed, distance traveled, vehicle mix, thermal value of fuel); and includes LRT electrical requirements. Indirect energy consumption includes non-recoverable, one-time energy expenditures associated with construction of the transportation infrastructure. A qualitative assessment was performed. Existing Conditions Specific figures on energy consumption are not available for the study area. Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative With the No Build Alternative, direct energy use would likely increase in the study area due to increased auto travel, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and associated fuel consumption. The Project The Project is expected to lead to decreased VMT and decreased travel speeds, thereby reducing fuel need and direct energy use. The additional electricity to power the Project is expected to be less than the energy saved through VMT reduction in the study area, resulting in an overall decrease in direct energy use. Short-Term Construction Effects Detailed VMT and construction data are not yet available for the Project. However, it can be assumed that construction of the Project would increase indirect energy consumption. Mitigation Planned energy conservation with the Project would focus on f acility design, construction, operation and maintenance, and may entail recycling materials, using indigenous plants for landscaping, and applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for maintenance and energy efficiency, among other measures. 4.7.8 Construction Impacts Methodology The City intends to build the entire 9.3 mile LRT system at once, which includes Phase I and Phase II. However, if phased construction is warranted, Phase I will be built first, followed by Phase II. Construction activities would include the following: • Demolition where required (the Gateway Center Building) • Site preparation and grading • Installation of foundations • Erections of VSMFs and TPSSs • Installation of trackwork and pavements • Site aesthetic improvements such as landscaping Existing Conditions The environment along Woodward Avenue is a typical urban environment, populated with mixed land uses.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-100 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative No impacts would occur with the No Build Alternative, as development would continue consistent with land use plans and development initiatives. The Project Short-Term Construction Effects The entire construction process for both phases would occur over a 36-42 month period, with the entire line operational by 2016. Construction of the LRT would employ conventional techniques and equipment typically used in the Midwest region and would follow all applicable Federal, State, and local laws for building and safety. Typical equipment could include excavators, loaders, lifts, backhoes, bulldozers, compactors, cranes, pavers, graders, jackhammers, and trucks. During the construction period, adjoining property owners would experience increases in noise, dust, construction traffic, and visual changes. E xamples of visual changes may include construction-related signage, stockpiling of dirt and materials, construction workers, and heavy equipment. These issues would be comparatively minor because the surrounding uses are commercial and industrial and located in a built-out urban environment. Construction vehicles may temporarily impede traffic mobility in areas of construction and truck routes or lane closures may be required during construction (see Chapter 3.0 and the Transportation Technical Report (2011)). C onstruction of the LRT would be limited to specific areas where the LRT system would operate, and nighttime construction would not be required. Mitigation Mitigation measures during construction will employ BMPs commonly used in the construction of LRT systems. For security and safety purposes, construction staging areas would be fenced during construction and security lighting may be used. Additional mitigation may include the placement of concrete barriers and fencing along the perimeter of the construction area. Other BMPs may include watering and/or covering with tarps exposed surfaces and dirt and debris piles to prevent the generation of dust plumes; using tarps on trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials; maintaining equipment and vehicle engine conditions; prohibiting idling of heavy-duty trucks for certain periods of time; using diesel engine retrofit technology on diesel- powered vehicles and equipment; using grease traps, sediment traps, detention basins and/or temporary ditches to control runoff pollution; and notifying businesses and residents of specific construction activities. 4.7.9 Roadways and Level of Service Methodology FHWA guidelines were used to develop VISSIM models, using VISSIM 5.10 software. VISSIM determines seconds of delay at signalized intersections, which is then equated to a level-of- service (LOS) ranging from A (least delay) to F (highest delay). The City of Detroit and MDOT have determined LOS A through D to be acceptable. Existing Conditions Based on results from VISSIM modeling, all major signalized intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (D or better). The only signalized intersection in the study area where the side street operates at LOS E is at Woodward Avenue and Charlotte Street. Details of the analyses are documented in the Transportation Technical Report (2011). See Chapter 3.0 for more details.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-101 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative SEMCOG’s travel demand forecasting model predicts minimal differences in morning and evening peak-period traffic volumes between 2005 and 2030. Through consultation with the City of Detroit and MDOT, a 1-percent growth rate per year was used to increase traffic volumes from 2009 t o 2030. A t several intersections, either the overall intersection of an individual approach would operate at LOS E or F. With signal-timing adjustments, LOS could be improved to LOS D or better. The Project All major signalized intersections would operate at LOS D or better for all approaches. Short-Term Construction Effects While traffic re-routings and detours would be required along discrete alignment segments during Project construction, one lane of traffic would be maintained in each direction, with reasonable access provided to all businesses and residences. Mitigation Mitigation would include traffic signal retiming at intersections to allow for additional time for vehicle travel on W oodward Avenue and in portions of Downtown. A comprehensive Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan would be developed and implemented in conjunction with MDOT and DDOT. 4.7.10 Stormwater Management Existing Conditions Stormwater runoff is generated when precipitation flows over impervious surfaces and does not percolate into the ground. The volume of stormwater generated is directly proportional to the amount of impervious surface cover in an area, and the quality of the stormwater is dependent on the land use over which the stormwater runoff travels. The stormwater runoff from the City of Detroit and Highland Park is conveyed through a combined sewer system using a single pipe to convey sanitary waste from residences, industries and businesses, along with stormwater drainage. The combined sewers convey flow to the wastewater treatment plant at 9300 W . Jefferson in Detroit, in accordance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. T he wastewater treatment plant provides primary and secondary treatment with phosphorus removal, disinfection, and dechlorination prior to discharge to the Detroit River. The NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of combined sewage during wet weather events when the transport and treatment capacity of the collection system and the wastewater plant is exceeded. There is minor treatment during wet weather events, so that stormwater and sanitary effluent are not simply released into the Detroit River. Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not result in an increase in stormwater volume as there would be no increase in impervious cover. The Project The Project may slightly increase the study area’s impervious surface, thus increasing the volume of stormwater runoff potentially requiring new stormwater management structures. New station sites are in areas of existing impervious surfaces; VSMF sites are vacant or undeveloped. Non-point source pollutants currently entering the stormwater management system would continue to do s o, with no substantial increase because of the limited increase of stormwater

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-102 Final Environmental Impact Statement

entering the storm sewer system. Stormwater runoff at the station sites would be directed toward existing urban stormwater conveyance systems. However, the VSMF sites would likely require a separate stormwater management system to separate and treat vehicle cleaning discharges containing oil and grease before releasing it into the existing stormwater management system. The post-construction stormwater discharge rate would not increase because appropriate detention methods would be implemented. Short-Term Construction Effects Stormwater runoff may increase slightly, because construction equipment may need to be washed down occasionally due to dirt and debris accumulating during construction activities. Wastewater may experience a temporary increase in dirt, debris, oil, grease, and soils as a result. Mitigation Potential water quality impacts would be minimized via adherence to approved sediment- and erosion-control plans, including BMPs. The City would also need to obtain a NPDES permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (see Table 4-11).

Table 4-11. Permits and Approvals Permit/Approval Responsible Agency Comments Obtain Section 402/Part Michigan Department Regulates stormwater runoff 31 – National Pollutant of Environmental Discharge Elimination Quality System (NPDES) Permit Source: Woodward Avenue LRT Project Team, 2011 Stormwater management plans would be designed to conform to requirements for construction site stormwater runoff control. Temporary soil disturbance during construction would be addressed through project compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control law. Permanent mitigation measures for stormwater runoff would be determined during Final Design and site plan approval. 4.8 Resource Categories of No Concern Several resource categories are of no concern for impact analysis as the resources are absent from the urbanized study area. These include wetlands, natural habitats, threatened and endangered species, floodplains, prime and unique farmlands, and surface water features. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (letter dated August 19, 2010) stated that a review of information did not suggest the presence of wetlands or floodplains within the Project area. Also, records do not indicate the presence of any species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened, species proposed for listing, candidate species, designated critical habitat, or areas proposed as critical habitat in the immediate project area. Correspondence received from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (letter dated August 23, 2010) indicated the Project should have no i mpact on rare species or unique natural features within the Project vicinity. 4.9 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 4.9.1 Legal and Regulatory Context The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 require an assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts for federally-assisted projects.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-103 Final Environmental Impact Statement

According to 40 CFR § 1508.8, indirect impacts are defined as “effects which are caused by the [proposed] action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.” As defined in 40 CFR § 1508.7, a cumulative impact is “the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.” Cumulative impacts include the direct and indirect impacts of a proposed project together with impacts of other reasonably foreseeable future actions. 4.9.2 Methodology Indirect impacts were assessed using information from the land use and socioeconomic analyses of the Project and policy/plan information obtained through interviews with the Detroit Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC). Cumulative impacts were assessed based on c onsideration of the Project’s potential direct impacts on resources as well as past, current, and future planned development in the study area. This analysis was conducted pursuant to the following guidance: “Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)” and “Questions and Answers Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process” (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/qaimpact.asp). The timeframe for considering cumulative impacts extends from past known effects to future predicted effects. While Detroit grew rapidly from 1900 t o 1930, and somewhat more slowly between 1930 and 1950, its population has declined substantially since 1950. Because of the substantial population change since 1950, t he period from 1950-2010 was selected for consideration of past actions. The time for consideration of future actions is between 2010 and 2030, the long-range planning horizon as defined by the 2030 RTP. The study area for assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts includes the following geographic areas: • Project region - Wayne County, MI (includes Detroit and Highland Park) (Figure 4-7); • Study area - one-half mile on either side of Woodward Avenue between the Detroit River and 8 Mile Road, in both Detroit and the City of Highland Park (Figure 4-7); and • LRT station areas - areas within one-half mile radius of each proposed LRT station (see Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-6 for proposed LRT station locations). 4.9.3 Indirect Effects No Build Alternative The anticipated indirect effect of the No Build Alternative is a continuation of present development activity and land-use patterns. These development decisions would assume continuation of existing bus service in the study area and implementation of existing land-use controls and development policies. The Cities of Detroit and Highland Park and private entities have plans for development in the study area. These plans, among others, include continued expansion of the Detroit Medical

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-104 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Center and Wayne State University in Lower and Middle Woodward, respectively, and the Shoppes at Detroit’s Gateway Park near 8 Mile Road in Upper Woodward. Employment densities in the study area resulting from such development would follow a pattern similar to existing development, with the highest densities in Downtown Detroit, New Center, and in the vicinities of Wayne State University and the Detroit Medical Center. This development pattern is expected to remain constant between 2010 and 2030. There were approximately 85,000 p eople and 115,000 jobs in the study area in 2005. These numbers are not expected to increase substantially, based on the SEMCOG forecasts to 2030. Future private development would be driven by market conditions in the study area and by regional and national economic trends. Future institutional development, such as expansion at Wayne State University and the Detroit Medical Center, would continue based on t he development plans of each institution in the study area. The City-initiated Detroit Works Project, to be concluded in late 2011, targets selected underdeveloped and vacant parcels for development. Based on t he existing pattern of development, growth in Upper Woodward area would likely be automobile-oriented. Degradation of the walking/transit environment in the study area may continue over time as automobile-oriented land uses grow and the number of automobile trips increases relative to transit trips. The Project Like all large infrastructure projects, the Woodward Avenue LRT Project could play an important role in determining the amount, density, and pace of land use development. However, market demand, local planning policies, land availability, and the availability of other infrastructure are also other factors which determine the amount and type of additional growth in the study corridor. The Project will result in a temporary increase in construction jobs and a long-term increase in administrative, maintenance, and operations jobs. The Project is not predicted to generate new regional population growth.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-105 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-9. Existing and Planned Developments in the Study Area

Source: City of Detroit Planning Department and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, 2010

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-106 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Project could support the City of Detroit’s existing land-use plans or future land-use plans to alter development near LRT stations, bringing higher densities than presently planned or could otherwise be developed in these areas. New development would be concentrated near key LRT stations in areas that are already well developed, namely in Downtown Detroit and in the Lower and southern Middle Woodward segments of the study area. These land-use effects may take the form of TOD, generally defined as more concentrated development patterns in transit station areas. TOD features a mix of land uses, moderate- to higher-density development, convenient pedestrian access to transit, and managed parking. The Cities of Detroit and Highland Park have transit-supportive policies. The Detroit Master Plan of Policies (2008) stresses development in concert with a transit system, including higher densities, mixed uses, and reduced parking. Although the addition of transit does not directly cause development to occur, transit-supportive plans and policies would encourage new development to be located near transit stations. Higher density development and market interest for such development included in the plans supported by the Project could increase property values in the vicinity of LRT stations. The City of Highland Park’s 2010 Draft Comprehensive Master Plan includes recommendations for a mix of land uses, economic development sites, open space, and infrastructure improvements that are generally consistent with development of an expanded transit system with LRT service. Woodward Avenue bisects Highland Park and is identified in the City’s Master Plan as the City Center—the hub for economic redevelopment. Each of the Downtown Alternatives for the Project would be located in highly developed areas. The Project has the potential to effectively support Detroit plans to encourage infill redevelopment of the underutilized or vacant parcels within the area. Land-use and development patterns within segments of the study area and the potential for TOD in those study area segments are briefly described below. Based on t he number of venues for sports, entertainment, and conventions in and near the study area (Figure 4-9), it is expected that the Project would be used by patrons traveling to these destinations from origins throughout the region. Downtown Detroit (Between the Detroit River and I-75) Downtown is a dense concentration of retail, office, and institutional uses. General Motors and Compuware Corporation have relocated their headquarters there. Three large casinos and three professional sports venues generate a high number of visitor trips. There is a concentration of other entertainment venues, such as restaurants, bars, and music clubs. Major transportation uses (People Mover and Rosa Parks Transit Center) are located in Downtown. Existing and planned future high-density, mixed-use development in the area is transit-oriented. Strong TOD-supportive public policies favor this area, especially nearest Woodward Avenue. Also, Detroit’s Master Plan of Policies promotes efforts to reestablish Woodward Avenue as a major shopping destination. Lower Woodward (Between I-75 and I-94) Major institutions, including Wayne State University, the Detroit Medical Center, the Detroit Institute of Art, the , and the College of Creative Studies are located here. Wayne State University has nearly 33,000 s tudents, more than 1,800 f aculty and 2,300 staff (http://wayne.edu/keyfacts.php, 2010). The Detroit Medical Center is the largest health care provider in Southeast Michigan with more than 2,000 b eds, 3,000 affiliated physicians, and 10,000 staff (http://www.dmc.org, 2010).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-107 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Development near Wayne State University, cultural attractions, and the Detroit Medical Center is already transit-oriented. Therefore, proposed LRT station areas with vacant and underutilized parcels in Lower Woodward may be attractive for redevelopment as recognized in Detroit’s Master Plan of Policies, which encourages high density and mixed uses. Middle Woodward (Between I-94 and City of Highland Park) The New Center area is considered the northern anchor of Downtown Detroit with 400,000 square feet of retail space, 2,400 housing units, and 6.9 million square feet of office space. The area includes NHL office buildings and the architecturally-significant Fisher and buildings. Tech Town, a research and technology park has been developed and is undergoing expansion in conjunction with Wayne State University. The LRT stations in the southern portion of this segment of the study area have the most TOD potential, particularly at New Center and Piquette Street, because of the existing Amtrak station and planned Ann Arbor commuter rail station. MDOT has indicated that a new intermodal center is planned here, which could increase TOD potential. The northern stations have low TOD potential, despite ample vacant land, largely because of the low-density character of the existing development. Stabilization and priority infill development is supported by Detroit’s Master Plan of Policies. The potential Amsterdam Street VSMF site is consistent with current land use and, due to its proximity to the Amtrak station, certain types of future TOD in this segment. City of Highland Park Highland Park is surrounded by the City of Detroit. Its population was less than 17,000 in 2000 and it continues to decrease. SEMCOG projects the downward trend will continue through 2030 but at a s lower rate. With progressive planning policies, the City is continuing its efforts to attract new housing and retail development, including the Woodward Center, Model T Plaza, and new residential housing near Woodward Avenue. While there is much vacant and underutilized land in the Highland Park segment of the study area, past development plans have yet to be realized. Development potential will increase gradually with the Project as public planning policy supporting TOD is activated and implemented. The possible location of the Project’s VSMF near the Highland Park Ford Plant could affect redevelopment, depending on V SMF siting and design. However, the proposed VSMF is set behind the NHL away from the Woodward Avenue streetscape and would be consistent with the industrial setting of the former Ford Plant. Upper Woodward (Between Highland Park and 8 Mile Road) The predominant land uses in Upper Woodward are historic residential districts with single- and multi‐family housing, commercial areas, numerous churches, schools, sports and recreational uses, including a golf course and tennis courts. The Palmer Park Apartment Buildings Historic District is architecturally significant. The former Michigan State Fairgrounds, at the northern end of this segment of the study area, represents a very large land parcel that could be redeveloped, but within constraints of its historic designation. The Project’s proposed park-and-ride lot at the Shoppes at Detroit’s Gateway Park, while not designed as TOD, could be transit-friendly and be supportive of development in this segment of the study area. The planned Shoppes at Detroit’s Gateway Park would be an auto-oriented suburban shopping center, but there is a large transit-dependent population nearby. The area is surrounded by low-density, stable, automobile-oriented, suburban-type residential neighborhoods. In the Palmer Park area, Detroit’s Master Plan of Policies recognizes that there

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-108 Final Environmental Impact Statement

is little opportunity for increased density or redevelopment, although the City of Detroit PDD has identified areas with opportunity for limited and priority infill development. Property Values Changes in property values resulting from construction and operation of a new transit system are not considered an indirect impact of the Project because these effects are too complex to be attributable to any one factor such as the presence of a transit project. While transit projects can support and influence how an area develops, many factors beyond transit access affect property values. These factors include market demand and investment in an area, city-supportive policies for higher density land use, access to schools, parks, and jobs, and walkability of an area. Working in concert, the infrastructure and plans and policies can increase demand for an area and, therefore, increase property values. For residential properties, property value increases could be indicative of better access to transit service, the implementation of plans and policies, or reductions in household transportation costs. For commercial properties, transit proximity can potentially broaden the customer base, increase foot traffic near the business, and contribute to employee accessibility to the place of employment. Transit may also have a negative impact on real estate values due to “nuisance” effects such as noise, unsightly infrastructure, transit parking lots, and increased bus traffic. These factors may reduce the desirability of properties near a transit station or fixed guideway. However, since the Project would result in travel-time savings and its alignment would be within an existing roadway right-of-way, the likelihood of negative impacts on real estate values in the study area is expected to be minimal. 4.9.4 Cumulative Effects Past Actions The most notable past action affecting the study area was the urban and suburban development of Detroit beginning in the 1940s and continuing in the post-World War II years. By 1950, the study area was virtually built out between Downtown and 8 Mile Road. Since then, the suburban areas north of 8 Mile Road have been developing at a faster pace than in the study area. Construction of the I-75 and M-10 freeways redefined the boundaries of existing neighborhoods in Lower Woodward and supported this outward push into the northwestern suburbs. The construction of other highways, such as I-94 and I-96, while helping to improve accessibility between Downtown Detroit and its western suburbs, altered neighborhood character by segmenting Downtown and promoted suburbanization and dispersion of employment centers by encouraging development farther outside the City. Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Planned and reasonably foreseeable development within the study area would contribute to cumulative impacts. Within Downtown Detroit, many upper floors of previously used office buildings have been reprogrammed and continue to be converted to residential uses for sale and rent. The new enclosed Rosa Parks Transit Center opened in 2009 and has experienced increased bus ridership by 11 percent because of its quality and comfort for patrons, compared to previous outdoor locations in Cadillac Square and Capitol Park. The Project would attract some ridership from existing Woodward Avenue bus routes and from possible new feeder bus routes, which may experience an increase in ridership. Other completed projects in Downtown Detroit include the following:

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-109 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• The Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority’s $200 million redesign and facility upgrades to the Cobo Center convention facility; • The Campus Martius development, including the $300 million Compuware Corporation headquarters and $15 million Campus Martius Park; • Construction of two casino and hotel facilities with estimated total investments of approximately $1 billion; and • More than $45 million in roads, streetscape, and facade improvements. Lower Woodward is experiencing major development around Wayne State University, including more than 160,000 s quare feet of new medical, engineering, and retail space; 128 residential units; and a parking garage. Middle Woodward is the site of the terminus of the proposed commuter rail line from Ann Arbor at the Amtrak station. It is also the site of TechOne, a 100,000-square-foot rehabilitated structure, and the first phase of Tech Town (research start- ups). The New Center Council is sponsoring more than $257 million in office, residential, and retail development. Portions of the areas to be redeveloped are designated Renaissance Zones and Neighborhood Enterprise Zones. Mixed-use and redevelopment opportunities are abundant along Woodward Avenue and are encouraged by the City of Detroit according to the Detroit Master Plan of Policies. The former General Motors headquarters has undergone major renovation and will house State of Michigan offices. This renovation retained 4,000 State employees at New Center. The continuing increase in activity in Downtown Detroit, Lower Woodward, and Middle Woodward would likely generate additional transit ridership and pedestrian activity in this part of the study area. The City of Highland Park has not announced any major new developments. H owever, the City’s policies encourage development of this section of Woodward Avenue as the City’s “Main Street,” which, if implemented, would also support transit ridership. The planned Shoppes at Detroit’s Gateway Park in Upper Woodward is automobile-oriented. Increased automobile traffic would be expected in Upper Woodward, because it is the northern terminus of the Project and would attract riders from the suburbs with parking provided at the park-and-ride lot (Michigan State Fairgrounds). The Project is included in the SEMCOG 2035 RTP. At the study area level, the Project would be consistent with the development policies of the Detroit Master Plan of Policies and the Highland Park Comprehensive Plan. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not add to or alter past or future impacts due to displacements, noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment. Current development patterns and increased traffic congestion along Woodward Avenue and in the study area would continue. Future private-market demand for new development may be limited despite progressive public planning policy since there would be no improvement in study area accessibility. The Project Over time, the potential increase in study area development densities and land values, particularly in key LRT station areas, may adversely affect low- and moderate-income households near these stations, although housing prices and rents in the study area are relatively low compared with the suburbs. This potential impact would likely be slow and would be

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-110 Final Environmental Impact Statement

mitigated through adherence to City and State policies that encourage a wide variety of housing types, including affordable and low-income housing. Potential cumulative impacts anticipated with the Project are summarized below. Transportation Although regional traffic congestion is forecast to increase in the future, the degree would be moderated with the Project compared with the No Build Alternative. The Project is projected to reduce travel time using transit by 10 minutes in the study area, compared to bus service in the future without the Project. In conjunction with the planned Ann Arbor-Detroit Commuter Rail Project, the Project may reduce traffic volumes, particularly in the Lower Woodward area near the commuter rail station. The LRT in station areas would affect transportation and traffic by shifting a portion of the overall trips associated with increased land-use densities from automobiles to transit. While there would still be an increase in VMT in the study area, a larger portion of trips would be captured by non-motorized and transit modes. Neighborhoods The Project would not result in any displacements nor adversely affect community cohesion in the study area’s neighborhoods. The Project and Detroit plans and policies may have a cumulative impact on n eighborhood character depending on de nsity, design, and location of future new development near a LRT station in an existing neighborhood. The redevelopment of vacant lots and abandoned buildings over time may result in a positive cumulative impact, depending on the rate and intensity of growth. TOD may contribute to the cumulative impact by helping to revive neighborhoods and make them more vibrant. Economic The Project, in combination with other economic development initiatives, particularly in the southern end of the study area, would improve mobility. This in turn would be supportive of not only economic development opportunities in the southern end of the study area, but in the northern end as well, which would be a positive effect. Environmental Justice Environmental justice (EJ) populations, which are more transit-dependent than the general population, would benefit from the addition of an improved transit travel option in the study area. The right mixture of market demand, investment, and implementation of City policies encouraging higher densities near new LRT stations, particularly in Downtown, Lower Woodward, and New Center, combined with other planned developments in these areas, could potentially change land values, which may affect small businesses and limit affordable housing opportunities. However as stated earlier, adherence to policies at the City and State level that encourage a wide variety of housing types, including affordable and low-income, could mitigate effects on environmental justice populations. For a more detailed discussion on environmental justice, see Section 4.10. Visual As discussed with PDD, TOD and future zoning rules may modify the height limit and/or setback distances near LRT stations. In general, TOD and redevelopment may result in a change in visual character and design in station areas and to a somewhat lesser degree, elsewhere in the study area. This may be either a negative or positive impact. Viewsheds may change with the introduction of new development and may limit views, but the addition of new buildings may make an area more vibrant and aesthetically pleasing.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-111 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Historic and Cultural The Project, in combination with current and other planned developments, may stimulate interest in historic or cultural resources, and thus stimulate redevelopment of historic or cultural resources at a greater rate than would the No Build Alternative. Redevelopment may alter the surroundings of historic resources and thereby detract from their setting. Conversely, redevelopment pressures could stimulate efforts to preserve and rehabilitate historic resources. Natural Resources As there are no na tural resources of concern (e.g., wetlands, waterways, habitat) in the study area, there would be no cumulative effects to natural resources due to the Project. 4.10 Environmental Justice 4.10.1 Legal and Regulatory Context Issued on F ebruary 11, 1994, E xecutive Order (EO) 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898) directs Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that their programs, policies, and activities may have on minority and low- income populations. Following the direction of EO 12898, Federal agencies developed their own guidelines to implement EJ. USDOT Order 5610.2 defines the fundamental principles of EJ as follows: • Avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on m inority populations and low-income populations; • Ensuring full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; and • Preventing the denial of, reduction in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations (USDOT, 1997). USDOT Order 5610.2 requires the following: • Consideration of mitigation and enhancement measures to benefit the affected minority and/or low-income population and all off-setting benefits to the affected populations, as well as the design, comparative impacts, and the relevant number of similar existing system elements in non-minority and non-low-income areas; • Evaluation of whether all alternatives or mitigation measures are practical; and • Documentation of the findings, determinations, and/or demonstration made in accordance to the Order in the environmental document prepared for the program, policy, or activity. This analysis was developed in accordance with the USDOT Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order 5610.2), and the Council on E nvironmental Quality’s (CEQ) Environmental Justice – Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 4.10.2 Methodology Race and income are socioeconomic characteristics critical to the consideration of a project’s impacts on minority and low-income populations, or EJ populations. CEQ guidance defines a ‘minority person’ as any individual who is a member of any of the following population groups:

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-112 Final Environmental Impact Statement

American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. Low-income is defined as a person whose household income is at or below the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual statistical poverty thresholds, which are based upon Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. The methodology for analyzing the effects of the proposed project on EJ populations (any populations meeting the requirements for minority or low-income) consists of the following steps: • Define the Project area boundary and identify census block groups in the study area; • Determine thresholds for minority and low-income populations to identify potential locations of EJ populations based on data from the 2000 Census; • Identify the location of EJ populations based on thresholds and additional information; • Analyze the location and severity of impacts associated with the alternatives; and, • Determine disproportionately high and adverse impacts (if any). 4.10.3 Existing Conditions According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Detroit is the ninth most populous city in the U.S. With nearly a quarter of the region’s population, Detroit is one of the most densely populated areas in the seven-county region. The study area is defined by the geographic boundary extending approximately one-half mile to the east and west of Woodward Avenue. T he study area represents nearly 8 percent of Detroit’s population. There are 87 U.S. Census block groups in the study area, with a total population of 74,922. Three block groups have no population and, therefore, were not considered for this analysis, leaving 84 block groups. The EJ analyses in this FEIS uses 2000 Census data, which indicates an impact on EJ populations, and therefore likely encompasses the most conservative impact assessment. While U.S. Census data for 2010 was released prior to the publication of the FEIS, its analysis would not result in any additional impacts that have not already been addressed in this FEIS, because the population numbers used were higher than those reported in the 2010 U.S. Census data. CEQ guidance defines the threshold for determining a minority population of the affected area as either (a) exceeding 50 percent of the affected area’s population or (b) being meaningfully greater than the minority percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (“meaningfully greater” is not specifically defined in CEQ guidance). As the study area lies in the Cities of Detroit and Highland Park in Wayne County, the county was identified as the reference area, per CEQ guidance. Based on U.S. Census 2000 data, 61,514 persons in the study area identified themselves as a minority, as defined by CEQ Guidance, and 24,626 met the definition of low-income. These numbers, as a percent of the total population, are higher than both the State of Michigan and metropolitan Detroit (Table 4-12).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-113 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-12. Population Statistics Characteristic Study Area Wayne County Michigan Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 74,922 4,043,467 2,061,162 9,938,444 Population Minority 61,514 82.1% 1,322,778 32.7% 1,032,998 50.1% 2,133,119 21.5% Population1 Low-Income 24,262 34.0% 442,086 11.1% 332,598 16.4% 1,021,605 10.5% Population2 Source: U.S. Census 2000 SF3 1Minority persons include Hispanic individuals who can be of any race 2Poverty status is determined for all people except institutionalized people, people in military and group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old.

Using Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3), which is a U.S. Census dataset containing socioeconomic and demographic information at the block-group level, the minority percentage was calculated for each block group located fully or partially within the study area. A block group having either greater than 50 percent minority population or a minority population larger than the average in all of Wayne County was considered a minority population area for the purposes of this EJ assessment. On that basis, 78 of the 84 block groups contain 50 percent or more minority populations and, therefore, were determined to be EJ populations (Figure 4-10). Thresholds for low-income populations were also set using CEQ guidance, which states that the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual statistical poverty threshold (annual household income, in dollars, linked to household size) should be used to define “low-income.” As the guidance does not prescribe the population threshold for identifying the presence of such low-income populations, the same threshold criteria used for minority were applied using the U.S. Census Bureau poverty threshold. On that basis, 16 of the 84 block groups have 50 p ercent or more low-income populations. S ince Wayne County (16.4 percent) has a higher proportion of low-income populations than does Metropolitan Detroit (11.1 percent) or the State of Michigan (10.5 percent), Wayne County was selected as the reference area (Figure 4-11). Census 2000 SF3 data were used to determine the presence of transit-dependent households in the study area (Figure 4-12). Transit-dependent populations are defined as persons who live in a household with one or no a uto, or any readily identifiable group of persons who live in geographic proximity in zero-auto or one-auto households. There are also several socioeconomic indicators correlated to transit-dependence. The transit-dependent population is represented by households in poverty (26 percent), households with no ve hicle (22 percent), households with one vehicle (44 percent), and households aged 65 and over (11 percent). See Table 1-2 for additional details. Based on Census 2000 SF3 data, 24,870 households in the study area are identified as zero-auto or one-auto households. On that basis, 79 percent of households in the study area were determined to be transit-dependent. Eighty-seven percent of these 24,870 households are within block groups with transit-dependent populations exceeding 50 percent.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-114 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-10. Locations of Minority EJ Populations. Figure 4-11. Locations of Low-Income EJ Populations.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF3

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-115 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-12. Transit-Dependent Populations in Study Area Figure 4-13. Limited English Proficiency Populations in the Study Area

Source: 2000 U.S. Census, SF3”

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-116 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Census 2000 SF3 data were also used to determine the presence of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations in the study area. LEP populations are defined as readily identifiable groups of persons who do not speak English well or at all, and who may require language-specific outreach to be able to participate in the EIS process (FTA Circular 4702.1A, May 2007; Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons, [70 FR 74087]). The Census Bureau obtains LEP information for population segments that are five years or older. Therefore, the population total used in this EJ analysis is 70,000 persons, (ie., those five years or older) rather than the total study area population of 74,922. Figure 4-13 displays the LEP populations in the study area. Based on Census 2000 SF3 information, 1,397 persons in the study area identified themselves as LEP, representing two percent of the total LEP population. However, when examined at the block-group level, concentrations of LEP populations are considerably higher and concentrated within certain neighborhoods. Block groups with the highest LEP populations are Downtown, bounded by I-75, Woodward and Gratiot Avenues, and near the proposed 7 M ile Road LRT Station. In all, 81 out of the 84 bl ock groups under consideration meet the threshold for a minority population, a low-income population, or both, and are considered EJ populations. This mean 96 percent of block groups within the Project study area contain EJ populations. Public participation by EJ populations during preparation of the DEIS process was solicited via various customized outreach methods. Flyers were issued on DDOT’s Woodward Avenue Route 53 buses to communicate Project information, including the times, dates, and locations of scoping meetings and public hearings; Project history; the environmental review process; and Project milestones. Project presentations were made to the Local Advisory Council. Project materials were made available through limited door-to-door distribution to study area residents, at the neighborhood Citizens District Council, small businesses, laundromats, convenience stores, and meetings of various community associations. In addition, two community meetings geared toward the EJ populations were held on March 8 and March 10, 2011. Public participation during preparation of the DEIS, including outreach efforts to EJ populations, is summarized in Chapter 6; details are provided in the Public Participation Technical Report (2011). Environmental Justice Analysis A disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations is defined as an effect that is predominately borne by, or would be suffered by an EJ population or that is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than adverse effects suffered by a non-EJ population. In general, the determination of disproportionately impacted EJ populations is done by analyzing the pattern of overall environmental or human health impacts in relation to identified areas of EJ populations. Adverse effects are the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-117 Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.10.4 Long-Term Effects No Build Alternative This analysis considers the effects of the No Build Alternative as outlined in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered on EJ populations. Additionally, the potential cumulative and indirect effects of this alternative are considered in Section 4.9 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, of this document. The effects of the construction and operation of the No Build Alternative upon EJ populations are discussed below. As noted in the statement of Purpose and Need, the study area is a heavily used transit corridor due to its density, the number and variety of destinations, and the high number of transit- dependent persons living and/or working in and visiting the study area on a daily basis. Figure 4- 12 displays the transit-dependent populations in the study area. The existing transit service is prone to overcrowding and slow travel speeds. Although existing transit service is frequent, transit demand exceeds the supply, and Route 53, the principal bus service along Woodward Avenue, exceeds seated capacity during weekday peak times. The buses are early, late, or no- shows due to operational issues, peak-hour traffic congestion, and extended dwell times at stops due to overcrowding. With future traffic growth and without transportation improvements in the study area, transit travel time will likely lengthen as speeds decrease. The Detroit-Ann Arbor region is nonattainment for particulate matter (PM2.5) and a maintenance area for CO. SEMCOG forecasts show that traffic congestion will worsen in the region with consequent impacts on air quality as well as mobility. These long-term effects of the No Build Alternative related to transportation would result in adverse effects that would not be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. However, these effects would also occur throughout the region and study area as well as the Corridor. Therefore, these effects would not be disproportionately high and adverse related to EJ populations. As discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality, the CO hotspot analysis predicted no violations of the CO NAAQS at any intersection with the No Build Alternative. SEMCOG’s RTP, Direction2035 and TIP, have been found by SEMCOG, FHWA, and FTA to conform in accordance with the USEPA’s regulation on transportation conformity (40 CFR part 93) with the Project included. Therefore, it can be concluded that the plan and TIP would not conform if the LRT Project is not constructed. This would result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ populations. As discussed in Section 4.3 Hazardous Materials, with no Project-related construction or VSMF- related property acquisition, there would be no anticipated hazardous materials impact. Therefore, there would be no di sproportionately high and adverse effects on E J populations related to hazardous materials under the No Build Alternative. As discussed in Section 4.5 Noise, noise levels in the study area under the No Build Alternative would continue to be generated principally from motor vehicles traveling on the study area’s roadways. In the absence of planned roadway improvements or other major developments that would alter traffic patterns to a great degree, future No Build noise levels can be expected to increase slightly due to projected traffic growth of one percent per year by 2030. However, the increase in noise would not be perceptibly different from existing noise levels. With no adverse effects related to noise, there would be no di sproportionately high and adverse effects on E J populations under the No Build Alternative.

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-118 Final Environmental Impact Statement

As discussed in Section 4.6 Vibration, the FTA impact assessment process does not require estimation of what vibration levels will be under future No Build conditions. In the absence of any nearby railroad improvements, future No Build vibration levels can be expected to remain similar to existing levels, which are typically in the 50 to 60 VdB range and would remain below the threshold of perception. With no a dverse effects related to vibration, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations under the No Build Alternative. The Project This analysis considers the effects of the proposed Project and its ancillary facilities as outlined in Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered. Additionally, the potential cumulative and indirect effects of the Project are considered in Section 4.9 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. The effects of the construction and operation of the Project and the potential VSMF sites upon EJ populations are discussed below. As discussed in Chapter 3 Transportation, the proposed LRT services, combined with bus services along Woodward Avenue, would result in transit service with six-minute headways in the morning and evening peak periods and 7.5-minute headways in the off-peak period, including weekends. LRT travel times on Woodward Avenue between State Fair Avenue and Adams Street would be 8 to 11 minutes faster than by bus under No Build conditions. Compared to the No Build Alternative, this would result in an increase in frequency of 25 percent in peak inbound, 67 pe rcent in peak outbound, and 33 percent in off-peak weekday transit trips and would be monitored and adjusted based on demand. LRT travel times for the Preferred Alternative would be approximately 14 m inutes faster than by bus under the No Build Alternative. Additionally, the LRT will provide direct connectivity between Woodward Avenue and the Rosa Parks Transit Center, providing enhanced connectivity for EJ populations with other transit options including SMART and the DPM. Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations related to transportation under the Project. As discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality, the Project would reduce the number of through highway lanes on Woodward Avenue. However, the highway has excess capacity for much of the day, so the Project would not significantly affect highway congestion and emissions. Furthermore, the Project may attract some people out of their automobiles and thereby offset any increase in emissions associated with the change in the highway’s capacity for automobiles. Additionally, the CO hotspot analysis predicted no vi olations of the CO NAAQS at any intersection affected by the proposed Project. The Project is included in SEMCOG’s conforming RTP and TIP, and it will not cause or contribute to any localized violations of the NAAQS. Therefore, the Project conforms to the purposes of the Michigan SIP for metropolitan Detroit, and there would be no adverse long-term effect on air quality. With no adverse effects related to air quality, there would be no di sproportionately high and adverse effects on E J populations under the Project. Furthermore, EJ populations would benefit from reduced emissions and improved air quality as a result of the LRT system. As discussed in Section 4.3 Hazardous Materials, a modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified about 300 c ontaminated or potentially contaminated REC properties of concern along the length of the Project. Any existing hazardous material condition along the alignment would have no long-term effect on the operation of the LRT. Although localized areas may contain elevated levels of contamination, the Project would not exacerbate or make the existing contamination worse. LRT technology uses electricity to power the LRT vehicles via an

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-119 Final Environmental Impact Statement

OCS. This power source would have no long-term anticipated hazardous materials impact to the environment. Additionally, the two potential sites for the VSMF contain RECs, based on the completed ESAs. The VSMF would be a full-service facility providing on-site light maintenance repairs with indoor and/or outdoor storage and administrative offices. The facility is expected to include a vehicle wash, paint booth, body shop, and other general repair, including maintenance pits and work areas that would store and use several types of hazardous and petroleum-based chemicals. BMPs and pollution prevention techniques would ensure that a low risk exists for any potential impacts to the VSMF and/or environment. No hazardous materials would be used within the TPSS; therefore, there would be no long-term effects. The implementation of the Project would result in no long-term effects related to hazardous materials, due to mitigation during the construction phase. T herefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on E J populations related to hazardous materials under the Project. As discussed in Section 4.5 Noise, noise levels are not expected to change measurably as a result of the Project. A small reduction in traffic noise would occur because fewer automobiles would be on the streets, and the speed of the remaining cars may be slightly reduced. However, under the Project, noise levels would exceed FTA impact thresholds for moderate impacts at several sites along the four alignment options. Given the high concentrations of EJ populations along the Project alignment, there would be high and adverse effects from noise impacts, which would be borne disproportionately by these groups. However, mitigation would be implemented where noise levels exceed FTA thresholds for moderate impacts. Therefore, with mitigation, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations related to noise from the Project. As discussed in Section 4.6 Vibration, vibration levels at the FTA impact threshold are predicted at the Stevens Building Apartments (S2), the Fox Theater (Site M9), and the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit (Site R4) for the four alignment options. Ground-borne noise levels at or slightly above the FTA impact threshold are predicated at several sites for all four alignment options. During Final Design, the need for mitigation at all buildings where vibration impacts are predicted would be evaluated, and that evaluation would take into account the results of a detailed study of soil conditions and building foundations through which vibration impacts would be transmitted to upper, inhabited stories of the building. Wherever the FTA criteria for vibration or ground-borne noise for frequent events is exceeded, mitigation would be used to eliminate the impact. Therefore, with mitigation, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations related to vibration from the Project. All other environmental resource categories were determined to have limited or no effects and thus are not further considered in the context of EJ impacts. Project Benefits Transportation equity and EJ considerations used to evaluate the Project Alternatives are two- fold: 1) the extent to which an alternative would improve transit service to various population segments, particularly those that are transit-dependent; and 2) the incidence of any substantial environmental impacts and their distribution among various population segments in the study area, particularly in terms of whether an alternative would have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ populations. Socioeconomic indicators for the study area indicate the presence of a high number of transit-dependent persons living and/or working in and visiting the

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-120 Final Environmental Impact Statement

study area on a daily basis (See Chapter 1, Table 1-2). The study area’s residential neighborhoods are comprised principally of EJ populations. The Project would improve transit service within the study area for persons residing and/or working there and for visitors traveling to its attractions. Benefits, such as access to an additional travel mode, reduced transit travel times, and improved connectivity with the existing transit system, would accrue for all population segments, though transit-dependent populations would likely receive the greatest benefit of the transit improvements. While the Project’s transportation benefits vary somewhat for the various evaluation measures (Executive Summary, Table ES-1), each would provide transit improvements for travelers to, from, and within the study area that would not occur with the No Build Alternative. Each of the Project Alternatives would result in some adverse environmental impacts. However, EJ populations would benefit from the Project’s transit service improvements, including the indirect benefit of enhanced economic development potential, particularly near LRT stations, which would not occur with the No Build Alternative. Transit typically serves a diverse population: 86 percent of station areas along existing transit corridors in the U.S. are more economically and/or racially diverse than similar neighborhoods that lack transit access.1 Connecting lower-income neighborhoods to job centers enhances equity by increasing access to jobs and economic opportunity and by reducing transportation costs for residents, which creates greater spending power. H owever, because the demand for housing often increases in neighborhoods where the introduction of transit improves access to jobs, residents who live in these places can be displaced when rents and housing prices increase. This process is called gentrification and can be a concern in older neighborhoods that are built out and have limited land available for new housing. Involving community groups and affordable housing advocates in the Corridor planning process from the beginning can limit gentrification. The development of policies, particularly at the regional and local level, that would preserve affordable housing and provide subsidies for new affordable units can also help address the issue. Consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed action, the Project would improve public transit service and provide greater mobility options for the Woodward Avenue Corridor, which has a high representation of minority and low-income residents. The majority of LRT stations along the Project alignments are within walking distance for minority and/or low-income areas, which would benefit these EJ populations. Minority and low-income residents would enjoy improved mobility and access to community facilities, housing, and services near the Project alignment. The Project would also improve linkages to major activity centers along the Corridor and support the City’s economic development goals and encourage reinvestment in Detroit’s urban core. For residents who are members of EJ populations, particularly those who are low- income, access to major activity centers and economically developed areas in the City’s urban core could represent opportunities for employment. The majority of the study area block groups (96 percent) contain EJ populations; therefore disproportionate adverse impacts exist for those resource areas where impacts occur. The majority (91 percent) of public comments received on the DEIS were in support of the Project, indicating overall public support. As noted previously, a public involvement strategy that focused on EJ communities was developed and is described in

1 Center for Transit-Oriented Development. “Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods,” October 2006.

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-121 Final Environmental Impact Statement

more detail in Chapter 6, Public Participation and A gency Consultation and C oordination (2011). 4.10.5 Short-Term Construction Effects No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative includes no Project construction. Therefore, there would be no Project- related adverse impacts to EJ populations. The Project As discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality, the Preferred Alternative would result in limited to short-term increases in fugitive dust and mobile-source emissions during construction. However, BMPs would be applied. As discussed in Section 4.3 Hazardous Materials, the Project construction would be limited to near-surface, at-grade work and is not expected to significantly disturb the subsurface; therefore, it would require limited mitigation, including proper handling and disposal of contaminated materials. Contamination found during construction activities would be properly handled, removed, and disposed, improving the environmental condition of the study area. As discussed in Section 4.5 Noise, noise from construction activities would temporarily impact properties in the immediate vicinity of construction activities, resulting in elevated noise levels for people at adjacent properties. Construction of the Project would be required to comply with all State and local noise ordinances. As discussed in Section 4.6 Vibration, construction of the Project could result in short-term increases in vibration levels at properties in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Potential vibration-related impacts to nearby building occupants would include limited shaking inside lower floors of buildings within 200 feet of the construction activity. Actual distances at which effects would occur depends on the type of construction equipment used and soil characteristics in the study area. Construction of an LRT line in an existing street usually does not require an extended construction period that would make construction vibration a serious concern. The Project would comply with all State and local ordinances, including those related to construction. 4.10.6 Mitigation As discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality, long-term mitigation is not required as the operation of the Project would not result in any adverse air quality impact. The Project would result in limited short-term increases in fugitive dust and mobile-source emissions during construction. During construction, the City of Detroit would adhere to State and local regulations regarding dust control. Additionally, FTA would require the use of diesel engine retrofit technology on diesel construction vehicles and diesel-powered equipment. As discussed in Section 4.3 Hazardous Materials, contamination found during construction activities would be properly removed and disposed. Mitigation measures would be needed only along the Project alignment in areas where construction activities encounter known or suspected contaminated soil or groundwater. Even where the alignment is located near or over part of a known contaminated site, the depth of excavation may be sufficiently shallow to avoid exposure of contaminated soil or groundwater. If contaminated soil or groundwater is suspected, based on visual and/or olfactory evidence of contamination during subsurface construction activities, the soil or groundwater would be tested to evaluate whether it is contaminated. If it is found to be contaminated, that material would be properly classified and if necessary, disposed of as non-

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-122 Final Environmental Impact Statement

hazardous or hazardous waste using appropriate waste management (i.e., removal, handling, transport, and disposal) practices. In the event contamination is discovered during rail construction activities, a remediation plan will be developed to address the contamination. The remediation plan would be completed according to the NREPA, 1994 PA 451, as amended. As discussed in Section 4.5 Noise, noise mitigation strategies include the relocation of special trackwork, the automatic lubrication of tracks on tight curves, wheel dampeners, vehicle skirts, undercar absorption, and building insulation. Most of the moderate impacts of the Project are at the low end of the moderate-impact range and affect few receptors. No mitigation is proposed in most cases. Several moderate impacts, including one at the high end of the moderate range at the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, a hotel, are due to wheel squeal at a left or right turn of the track at that location. The moderate noise impact at these locations would be mitigated through automatic track lubrication devices installed on t he track curves or on the vehicles with activation at the track curves. The need for these devices would be verified during Final Design. Construction of the Project would comply with all State and local noise ordinances. Typical construction noise control measures include the following: • Informing the public when work is going to be performed; • Limiting the number and duration of idling equipment on site; • Installing mufflers on equipment; • Maintaining all construction equipment in good repair; • Reducing noise from all stationary equipment with suitable enclosures; • Minimizing the use of back-up alarms; • Scheduling and spacing truck loading and unloading operations; • Limiting the noisiest activities, such as operation of heavy equipment, to daylight hours; and, • Locating equipment and vehicle staging areas as far from noise-sensitive areas as possible. As discussed in Section 4.6 Vibration, typical mitigation methods for vibration and ground-borne noise impacts include moving special trackwork, using resilient wheels, track fasteners or track frogs, using resilient track support systems, and modifying the building itself. Vibration-control measures that can be used to reduce vibration-related annoyance at properties affected by the construction include: • Specifying vibration limits in contract documents; • Monitoring vibration levels at nearest vibration-sensitive structures to ensure these levels do not exceed FTA limits throughout the construction period; • Communicating with residents and businesses near construction activities about the potential for possible elevated vibration levels; and, • Measuring how well vibration is transferred through the soil. Prior to construction of the Project, transfer mobility tests would be completed to establish the vibration/soil characteristics of the area and confirm the need for mitigation as part of Final Design.

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-123 Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page intentionally left blank.

4Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 4-124 Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.0 Section 4(f) Evaluation

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page intentionally left blank.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.0 Section 4(f) Determinations

5.1 Legal and Regulatory Context 5.1.1 Section 4(f) Statute and Regulation A Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-funded project must comply with the provisions of law at 49 U.S.C. § 303 (hereinafter referred to as “Section 4(f)”) and that statute’s implementing regulation. T he implementing regulation (23 CFR part 774) provides certain protections for public parklands and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. These resources are referred to as Section 4(f) properties. In compliance with Section 4(f), FTA may not approve the use of a Section 4(f) property unless FTA determines that: • there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of land from the property and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such use; or • the use results in impacts to the Section 4(f) property that are de minimis, as defined in the regulation. Avoidance of the use of Section 4(f) property is at the heart of the Section 4(f) regulation, unless that use would not adversely affect the attributes, features, and activities that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection. 5.1.2 Section 4(f) Definition of “Use” Use of a protected Section 4(f) property (23 CFR part 774.17) occurs when any of the following conditions is met. Direct Use A direct use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when property is permanently incorporated into the transportation project. This incorporation may occur as a result of partial or full acquisition through a fee simple interest, permanent easements, or temporary easements that exceed regulatory limits. Constructive Use Constructive use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when a transportation project does not touch the property, but the proximity of the project results in impacts so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired or substantially diminished (23 CFR part 774.15). Temporary Occupancy, Which May or May Not Be a Use Use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when there is temporary occupancy of the property that is adverse in terms of the preservation purpose of the Section 4(f) statute. Under the Section 4(f) regulation (23 CFR part 774.13), a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) property does not constitute a use of the property when certain conditions specified in the regulation are satisfied. A Use with De Minimis Impact Certain Section 4(f) requirements are satisfied if the use of a Section 4(f) property by the transportation project would have “de minimis impact” on t he Section 4(f) property. The provision allows mitigation and enhancement measures that are incorporated into the project to be considered in making the de minimis impact determination. The agencies with jurisdiction must concur in writing that the project, including any committed mitigation and enhancement

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

measures, would not adversely affect the Section 4(f) resource. De minimis impact is defined as follows (23 CFR part 774.17): • For parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, the use has de minimis impact if FTA finds that it would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f), and the official with jurisdiction over the park or refuge concurs in writing; and, • For historic sites, de minimis impact means that FTA has determined, in accordance with the implementing regulation for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), that the project would have “no adverse effect” on t he property in question. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), if ACHP is actively involved in the Section 106 process, must concur in writing with the FTA finding of “no adverse effect” under the Section 106 process. 5.2 Description of the Preferred Alternative (A4) The Preferred Alternative (A4) consists of 19 LRT stations and supporting facilities, including trackwork, one vehicle storage and maintenance facility (VSMF), a t raction power electrical system consisting of an overhead catenary, the poles supporting the catenary, and traction power substations (TPSS). Two of the southernmost Downtown stations are curbside stations within the existing transportation right-of-way. The Downtown end-of-line station (Rosa Parks Station) will be built on City-acquired property. The other 16 stations are center-running stations built entirely within the existing transportation right-of-way, except that the northern end-of-line station at the Michigan State Fairgrounds will have a pedestrian access facility occupying a small plot of adjacent property. The Preferred Alternative (A4) does not require the use of any Section 4(f) resource, and as a result, alternatives to avoid a Section 4(f) resource have not been considered in this Final EIS. 5.3 Identification of Section 4(f) Properties 5.3.1 Public Parks and Recreational Areas Public parks (Chapter 4, Section 4.7) located near the Preferred Alternative (A4) are described in Table 5-1. No public school playgrounds, ball fields, or recreational areas would be used by the Preferred Alternative (A4). 5.3.2 Historic Sites FTA, in consultation with SHPO, identified the historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and located within the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (Chapter 4, S ection 4.4), in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Of those historic properties considered in the Section 106 review, the Section 4(f) determinations herein consider only those historic properties that might be used by the Preferred Alternative (A4), where the meaning of “use” is as defined in the regulation and summarized above. Each NRHP and NRHP-eligible site that was considered in accordance with Section 4(f) is listed in Table 5-1; the physical relation of the Preferred Alternative (A4) to that historic resource is described, and FTA’s Section 4(f) determination for that resource is stated. Figures 5-1 through 5-4 show the relationship of the Preferred Alternative (A4) and the other alternatives considered in the FEIS to NRHP and NRHP-eligible historic districts.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-2 Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.3.3 Archaeological Sites An archaeological literature review revealed that 55 previously documented archaeological sites exist within the Archaeological Study Area of the Project. The extent and integrity of sites associated with the pre-1805 City of Detroit, particularly the sites of Fort Lernoult and the Original Protestant Cemetery, are not known but may have historic significance. T herefore, construction-phase monitoring would be required for all excavations extending more than 24 inches below current ground surface on or immediately adjacent to those sites. For the Preferred Alternative (A4), excavation along the north side of State Street would be monitored for evidence of the potential Capitol Park archaeological site. No additional archaeological investigation is warranted for either the Amsterdam Street or Highland Park Ford Plant site for the VSMF. If archaeological properties are encountered during construction and are determined to be eligible for the NRHP, a separate Section 4(f) evaluation would be prepared in accordance with 23 CFR part 774.9(e). 5.3.4 Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges in the Project area. 5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Properties FTA’s Section 4(f) determinations are presented in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status

Park Properties

Grand Circus 1600 Woodward 4.6 acres. City of Detroit Recreation Preferred Alternative Park Avenue Department. P lazas, fountains, planting (A4): LRT elements, beds, planter seat walls, trash including a station, will be receptacles, paved walks, civic located entirely on monuments and sculptures, parking transportation right-of-way garage ramps, lighting. that passes through the park. FTA finds there is no use of this park by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Campus 800 Woodward 2.5 acres. Public/private ownership Preferred Alternative (A4): Martius Park Avenue, between City of Detroit Recreation Guideway alignment will be between Fort Department and Detroit 300 located on streets around the Street and Conservancy. Plaza, extensive park. The overhead catenary Michigan Avenue landscaping, fountains, moveable system will be partially seating, performance stages, seasonal ice located on sidewalks around rink, one-story restaurant building, the park, but not on park NRHP-listed, Michigan Soldier’s & property. FTA finds there Sailors Monument. is no use of this park by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Capitol 150 State Street 0.4 acres. City of Detroit Recreation Preferred Alternative (A4): Square Park Department. Raised planters, trees, bus No project element on pa rk shelters, benches, trash receptacles, property. FTA finds there historic markers, paved urban plaza and is no use of this park by the walks, lighting, ticket booth, civic statue, Preferred Alternative (A4). sculpture.

Maiullo Park 1 Chicago 0.8 acres. City of Detroit Recreation Preferred Alternative (A4): Boulevard Department. Undeveloped open space No project element on pa rk planned as future park. property. FTA finds there is no use of this park by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Lawrence 11491 0.1 acres. City of Detroit Recreation Preferred Alternative (A4): Parklot Woodward Department. Undeveloped open space No project element on pa rk Avenue planned as future park. property. FTA finds there is no use of this park by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Future Park Northeast corner 3.3 acres. City of Highland Park. Preferred Alternative (A4): of Woodward Undeveloped open space planned as No project element on pa rk Avenue and future park, with parking area. property. FTA finds there California Street is no use of this park by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-4 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Massachusetts Southeast corner 0.3 acres. City of Highland Park. Preferred Alternative (A4): Block Club of Woodward Undeveloped open space planned as No project element on pa rk Park Avenue and future park. property. FTA finds there Massachusetts is no use of this park by the Street Preferred Alternative (A4).

Hildale- 18428 1 acre. City of Detroit Recreation Preferred Alternative (A4): Grixdale Woodward Department. Largely undeveloped open No project element on pa rk Parklot Avenue space, three separate parcels at end of property. FTA finds there two residential blocks, neighborhood is no use of this park by the sign, trees, small planting bed. Preferred Alternative (A4).

Palmer Park 19021 281 acres. City of Detroit Recreation Preferred Alternative (A4): Woodward Department. R egional Park with full No project element on pa rk Avenue complement of active and recreational property. FTA finds there amenities, including ball fields, courts, is no use of this park by the swimming pool, golf course, historic Preferred Alternative (A4). features, etc.

Historic Properties

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Detroit Eight blocks in Historic office buildings and financial Preferred Alternative (A4): Financial Downtown core contains 36 buildings, all but one This alternative has tracks District Detroit roughly constructed between 1900 and 1964. and a station entirely within bounded on the Historic Most buildings are in the Neoclassical transportation ROW within south by West District Jefferson style; Renaissance, Romanesque, the historic district. A street Avenue, east by Commercial, Art Deco, and International used by this Alternative Listed 2009 Woodward styles are also represented. (Woodward Avenue) is a Avenue, north contributing element of the by Lafayette historic district. However, Avenue, and the Preferred Alternative west by The district was listed in the NRHP 2 (A4) will not adversely Washington under Criteria A, B, and C. Boulevard affect this contributing element of the historic district. No other contributing element of the historic district is used by the Preferred Alternative (A4). FTA finds there is no use of this historic district by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

2 Criteria for Evaluation Criteria for Evaluation of NRHP Eligibility: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-6 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Gabriel 305 Michigan Early 20th-century, 10-story, steel-frame Preferred Alternative (A4): Richard Avenue office building in the Commercial Style No project elements are Building by architectural firm Marshall & Fox. within the boundary of the NRHP-eligible property. Determined FTA finds there is no use eligible 2010 The property was determined eligible for of this historic property by the NRHP under Criterion C. the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Washington Washington Three blocks along Washington Preferred Alternative (A4): Boulevard Boulevard Boulevard composed of twelve The Preferred Alternative Historic between contributing buildings, from 2 to 36 (A4) is outside of this District Michigan and stories in height. Contributing buildings historic district. FTA finds Clifford streets represent Art Deco, Beaux Arts, there is no use of this Listed 1982 on the east and Chicago, Romanesque, and Tudor Gothic historic district by the between State styles. Preferred Alternative (A4). and Grand River streets on the west The district was listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Grand Circus Roughly Collection of late 19th- and early 20th- Preferred Alternative (A4): Park Historic bounded by century high-rise commercial buildings The Preferred Alternative District Clifford Street surrounding a semi-circular public park. (A4) has its tracks and a on the south and station entirely within Listed 1982 west, John R. Street on the transportation right-of-way within the historic district. south and east, The district was listed in the NRHP and the north under Criteria A and C. The street used by the side of Adams Preferred Alternative (A4) Street on the (Woodward Avenue) is a north contributing element of the historic district. However, the Preferred Alternative (A4) will not adversely affect this contributing element of the historic district. No other contributing element of the historic district is used by the Preferred Alternative (A4). FTA finds there is no use of this historic district by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Central 23 East Adams Late 19th-century, Gothic Revival-style Preferred Alternative (A4): United Avenue church designed by architect Gordon W. No project elements are Methodist Lloyd. within the boundary of this Church NRHP property. FTA finds there is no use of this Listed 1983 Within Grand Circus Park The property was listed in the NRHP historic property by the Preferred Alternative (A4). Historic District under Criterion C and Criteria Consideration A.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-8 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Midtown Approximately Thirteen commercial and residential Preferred Alternative (A4): Woodward two blocks of buildings constructed in early 20th The Preferred Alternative Historic Woodward century representing Renaissance (A4) has tracks and the District Avenue between Revival, Neoclassical, Chicago Style, electrical catenary system Charlotte and and Art Deco architectural styles. entirely within transportation Listed 2008 Stimson Streets, right-of-way within the including two historic district. The street buildings at 14 The district was listed in the NRHP used by the Preferred Charlotte Street Alternative (A4) (Woodward under Criteria A and C. and 25 Avenue) is a contributing Peterboro Street element of the historic district. However, the Preferred Alternative (A4) will not adversely affect this contributing element of the historic district. No other contributing element of the historic district is used by the Preferred Alternative (A4). The Preferred Alternative (A4) does not include the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard site for the vehicle storage and maintenance facility (VSMF). FTA finds there is no use of this historic district by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Clarence 3420 Cass School building of red brick and Preferred Alternative (A4): Burton School Avenue embellished by limestone trim, No elements of the Preferred decorative brick and terra-cotta panels, Alternative (A4) are within Nominated and large window bays; it is indicative of the boundary of the NRHP- 2010 the Collegiate Gothic-style and Arts and eligible property. The Crafts aesthetic. Constructed in 1912 by Preferred Alternative (A4) local Detroit firm Malcomson & does not include the Martin Higginbotham. The building was Luther King Jr. Boulevard nominated to the NRHP in 2010 under site for the vehicle storage Criteria A and C. and maintenance facility (VSMF). FTA finds there is no use of this historic property by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Cass- 3527, 3550, and Four, early twentieth-century apartment Preferred Alternative (A4): Davenport 3566 Cass buildings representing the Beaux Arts, No elements of the Preferred Historic Avenue, and Neoclassical Renaissance Revival, Alternative (A4) are within 149 Davenport District Italian Renaissance, and Tudor Revival the boundary of the historic Street styles. The district was listed in the district. FTA finds there is Listed 1997 NRHP under Criteria A and C. no use of this historic district by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Hotel 40 Davenport Eight-story, brown brick-clad, Georgian Preferred Alternative (A4): Stevenson Street Revival-style apartment hotel building. No elements of the Preferred Constructed in 1913 by an unknown Alternative (A4) are within Listed 1997 architect and owned by prominent local the boundary of this NRHP leader and businessman Charles Hugh property. FTA finds there Stevenson. It was primarily occupied by is no use of this historic automotive workers for much of its early property by the Preferred twentieth-century history. Alternative (A4).

The building was listed in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, and C.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-10 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status David 4421 Woodward An irregularly massed, three-story, Preferred Alternative (A4): Whitney Avenue Romanesque Revival-style mansion No elements of the Preferred House constructed from 1890 to 1894. The Alternative (A4) are within property was listed in the NRHP under the boundary of this NRHP Listed 1972 Criteria B and C. property. FTA finds there is no use of this historic property by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Colonel Frank 5510 Woodward Imposing three-story mansion in a Preferred Alternative (A4): J. Hecker Avenue Châteauesque style distinguished by No elements of the Preferred House three corner towers; a similarly styled Alternative (A4) are within carriage house is located at the the boundary of this NRHP Listed 1973 property’s southeast corner. Constructed property. FTA finds there in 1888. is no use of this historic property by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

The property was listed in the NRHP under Criteria B and C.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status East Ferry Approximately Twenty-four large, single-family houses Preferred Alternative (A4): Avenue three blocks of constructed between 1885 and 1920 The Preferred Alternative Historic East Ferry representing the progression of (A4) has its tracks and a District Avenue between residential architecture in Detroit; station entirely within Woodward including Queen Anne, Romanesque transportation right-of-way Listed 1980 Avenue and Revival, Colonial Revival, within the historic district. Beaubien Street Mediterranean Revival, and Arts and The street used by the Crafts styles. Preferred Alternative (A4) (Woodward Avenue) is a contributing element of the historic district. However, The district was listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C. the Preferred Alternative (A4) will not adversely affect this contributing element of the historic district. No other contributing element of the historic district is used by the Preferred Alternative (A4). FTA finds there is no use of this historic district by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-12 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status New Center Properties along Fifteen late 19th- and early-20-century Preferred Alternative (A4): Commercial Woodward commercial buildings located along The Preferred Alternative Historic Avenue from Woodward Avenue; eleven buildings are (A4) has its tracks, electrical Baltimore system, and a station entirely District contributing resources. The district Avenue to within transportation right- includes two architecturally notable Determined Grand of-way within the historic Boulevard buildings: an Art Deco-style commercial district. The street used by eligible 2010 building and Neoclassical bank branch the Preferred Alternative

building. (A4) (Woodward Avenue) is a contributing element of the historic district. However, the Preferred Alternative The district was determined eligible for (A4) will not adversely the NRHP under Criterion A. affect this contributing element of the historic district. No other contributing element of the historic district is used by the Preferred Alternative (A4). FTA finds there is no use of this historic district by the Preferred Alternative (A4). Temple Beth- 8801 Woodward Three-story, Neoclassical former Preferred Alternative (A4): El Avenue synagogue with massive, full-height No elements of the Preferred Ionic portico on facade. Constructed in Alternative (A4) are within Listed 1982 1921 and designed by Detroit architect the boundary of this NRHP Albert Kahn. property. FTA finds there is no use of this historic property by the Preferred Alternative (A4). The property was listed in the NRHP under Criterion C and Criteria Consideration A.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status St. Joseph’s 8850 Woodward English Gothic Revival-style church Preferred Alternative (A4): Episcopal Avenue building defined by a prominent gabled No elements of the Preferred Church facade with a large, Gothic-arched Alternative (A4) are within central entrance. An L-shaped parish the boundary of this NRHP Listed 1982 house wing is connected to the church by property. FTA finds there a buttressed tower. is no use of this historic property by the Preferred Alternative (A4). The property was listed in the NRHP under Criterion C and Criteria Consideration A.

Central 9000 Woodward Late Gothic Revival-style, L-shaped Preferred Alternative (A4): Woodward Avenue church building distinguished by a No elements of the Preferred Christian prominent facade entrance oriented to Alternative (A4) are within Church Woodward Avenue; a two-and-a-half the boundary of this NRHP story parish house wing is located at the property. FTA finds there Listed 1982 east (rear) elevation. Constructed in 1928 is no use of this historic and designed by local architect George property by the Preferred D. Mason. Alternative (A4).

The property was listed in the NRHP under Criterion C and Criteria Consideration A.

Woodlawn 19975 A sprawling, turn-of-the-century, Preferred Alternative (A4): Cemetery Woodward landscape lawn cemetery containing an No elements of the Preferred Avenue abundance of high-style monuments, Alternative (A4) are within mausoleums, chapels, and accessory Determined the boundary of this NRHP eligible 2010 structures. The site is distinguished by winding paths, large plots, extensive property. FTA finds there vegetation, and various other park-like is no use of this historic amenities. The property was determined property by the Preferred eligible for listing in the NRHP under Alternative (A4). Criteria A and C and Criterion Consideration D.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-14 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Michigan Bounded by 8 The district is comprised of 22 buildings, Preferred Alternative (A4): State Mile Road on 8 open-air structures, and a number of All LRT elements at the Fairground the north, parks and open spaces, built between Fairgrounds, except a 1922 and 1985. The north section pedestrian facility for access Historic Detroit Terminal comprises the Riding Coliseum and to the Fairgrounds, will be District Railroad on the Agricultural Building, the Dairy Cattle located in the center of east, West State Building, the Poultry Building and the Woodward Avenue. The Determined Fair Avenue on Whitehall Building, and seven additional pedestrian facility will pass eligible 2010 the south, and buildings, barns, and riding arenas. The over the northbound lanes of Woodward Ave south section includes the Band Shell, Woodward Avenue and on the west the Administration Building, the come down partially on Community Arts Building, the Ulysses Fairgrounds property and S. Grant house, and several support will occupy a small piece of buildings. The majority of the buildings land inside the boundary of were designed in the Neoclassical style the Fairgrounds Historic typical of fairground architecture during District. The land within the the early twentieth century. Fairgrounds Historic District on which the pedestrian The district was determined eligible facility will rest is not a under A and C for association with contributing element of the Michigan State Fair legacy, and for historic district. FTA finds exhibition architecture and facilities th there is no use of the unique to 20 -century fairgrounds Fairgrounds Historic planning. District by the Preferred Alternative (A4).

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties and Determinations Name of Use of Section 4(f) Historic Location or Description of Property Property and Property and Address Determination NRHP Status Woodward Woodward A northwest-southeast running road that Preferred Alternative Avenue Avenue between originates in Downtown Detroit and (A4): Under Section 106, its intersections passes through 11 municipalities before FTA has determined that the its termination 27 miles northwest in the Project will not adversely Determined with Jefferson eligible 2010 City of Pontiac. affect Woodward Avenue, a Ave historic transportation The 8-mile portion of Woodward (Downtown) facility that historically Avenue between Jefferson Avenue and 8 and M-102/8 carried electric transit Mile Road was determined eligible for vehicles (streetcars). The A portion of Mile Road, listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and adverse effects anticipated Woodward spanning the B. Avenue, as part existing right- by the Draft EIS were the result of proposed of-way and of the Historic advertising billboards Woodward including the located on top of the LRT Avenue Plan of median stations. Consideration of 1805, was wherever one the billboards has now been determined exists. dropped by the City. The eligible in Preferred Alternative (A4) does not include any 1979. billboards and therefore will not adversely affect historic Woodward Avenue. Under 23 CFR part 774.13(a), Section 4(f) does not apply to a historic transportation facility if the Section 106 review results in a no- adverse-effect determination with appropriate concurrences. Section 4(f) does not apply.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2011 5.4.1 Public Park and Recreational Resources The Preferred Alternative (A4) would not use any land from a public park or recreational resource (Table 5-1). Where the Preferred Alternative (A4) passes through or alongside a park, it is entirely on existing transportation right-of-way and would not substantially diminish the park’s activities, features, or attributes. None of the parks has activities or features that would be substantially impaired by the noise or visual effects of the Preferred Alternative (A4). Specifically, none of the park activities at these parks is sensitive to noise. T he Preferred Alternative (A4) is visually consistent with the urbanized setting of the parks. Where parkland access would be affected during construction of the Preferred Alternative (A4), alternative points of access to the park would be identified and marked and publicly noticed. The City of Detroit would direct the Detroit Recreation Department to take action during construction to minimize its effect on park users. No temporary occupancy of parkland is anticipated.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-16 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Michigan State Fairgrounds has been closed to the public for several years. Therefore, it is not a public recreational facility protected by Section 4(f). However, FTA determined that, in light of the multiple historic buildings located on the Fairgrounds and its historic function, the Fairgrounds is a historic district eligible for the NRHP. The Section 4(f) consideration of the Fairgrounds in that regard appears below in Section 5.4.5. 5.4.2 Detroit Financial District Historic District The Preferred Alternative (A4) has a westbound side-platform station at Cobo Center within the boundary of the Financial District Historic District which is on the NRHP. The station would be within existing transportation right-of-way that is not a contributing element of the district, but the station would be close (roughly 15 feet) to contributing buildings of the historic district. The tracks and electrical system of the Preferred Alternative (A4) would also be on existing, non- contributing transportation right-of-way within the historic district. The district has 36 multi- story office buildings that relate to its historic function as Detroit’s financial and commercial center, especially for the automotive industry, and offer examples of high-style architecture, some by master architects. The historic automotive and financial significance of the district is not affected by the Preferred Alternative (A4). The architectural historic features and attributes of the district, which are dimensionally large in area and in building height, would not be substantially impaired by a 10-foot to 14-foot-high LRT station alongside two (of the 36) tall buildings that comprise the district. Therefore, FTA finds that the Preferred Alternative (A4) does not make constructive use of the historic district. 5.4.3 Washington Boulevard Historic District The Preferred Alternative (A4) does not penetrate this historic district, but it does include an end- of-line station on n ewly acquired property just outside of the district. The three-block-long historic district contains 12 contributing buildings that represent a wide range of styles popular in the late 19th to early 20th century, from Beaux Arts to Art Deco. The new station just outside of the district, to be called the Rosa Parks Transit Center, would not substantially impair the features, attributes, or activities that qualify the district for Section 4(f) protection. Therefore, FTA finds the Preferred Alternative (A4) does not create a constructive use of the Washington Boulevard Historic District.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f) Properties – Downtown Detroit

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-18 Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.4.4 Other Historic Resources North of Grand River Avenue The other 15 stations of the Preferred Alternative (A4) north of Grand River Avenue would be located in the center of Woodward Avenue. The 10-foot to 14-foot high station canopy in the center of the street would be at least 40 feet from the edge of the Woodward Avenue right-of- way and would therefore be more that 40 feet from any building. In the center of Woodward Avenue, the stations would not substantially impair the features, attributes, or activities of the historic buildings along Woodward Avenue or the historic districts through which Woodward Avenue passes. T he historic buildings and contributing elements of historic districts facing Woodward Avenue remain visible from the sidewalk or a portion of the street in front of the building, and upper stories of taller historic buildings and contributing elements remain visible from across Woodward Avenue. The plan presented in the DEIS of designing the stations to include advertising billboards on top of the stations was dropped from consideration by the City, so views of historic buildings will not be obscured by the billboards. Along this entire section of the Preferred Alternative (A4), the overhead catenary and supporting poles would also be located in the center of Woodward Avenue. T he substantial distance of these visually minor Project elements from historic buildings and contributing elements of historic districts facing Woodward Avenue would not substantially impair the features, attributes, or activities of those historic resources. Most of the historic buildings and historic districts along Woodward Avenue are historically significant for architectural reasons embodied in Criterion C. Such historic significance would not be substantially diminished by a moderate noise impact on t he people using the building. Any operational vibration impacts and ground-borne noise impacts verified during Final Design would be mitigated and would not substantially diminish the features, attributes, and activities that qualify the building or district for Section 4(f) protection. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (A4) north of Grand River Avenue does not substantially impair the historic features of any buildings or districts in or eligible for the NRHP. FTA finds the Preferred Alternative (A4) does not make constructive use of these historic resources.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 5-2. Section 4(f) Properties – Midtown Woodward Historic District

5.4.5 Michigan State Fairgrounds Historic District The Michigan State Fairgrounds Historic District comprises 22 buildings, 8 open-air structures, and a number of parks and open spaces, built between 1922 a nd 1985. T he northern section comprises the Riding Coliseum and Agricultural Building, the Dairy Cattle Building, the Poultry Building, the Whitehall Building, and seven additional buildings, barns, and riding arenas. The southern section includes the Band Shell, the Administration Building, the Community Arts Building, the Ulysses S. Grant house, and several support buildings. The majority of the buildings were designed in the neoclassical style typical of fairground architecture during the early twentieth century. The Fairgrounds district was determined eligible for the NRHP for its association with the Michigan State Fair legacy and for exhibition architecture and facilities unique to 20th-century fairgrounds planning. The station of the Preferred Alternative (A4) at the Michigan State Fairgrounds would be located in the center of Woodward Avenue. A pedestrian facility accessing the Fairgrounds would pass over the northbound lanes of Woodward Avenue and come down onto transportation right-of- way and Fairground’s property. The 10-foot to 14-foot high station canopy in the center of the

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-20 Final Environmental Impact Statement

street would be at least 40 feet from the edge of the Woodward Avenue right-of-way and would therefore be more than 40 feet from any Fairgrounds building contributing to the historic district. The station itself would not substantially impair the features, attributes, or activities of the Fairground buildings and structures contributing to the historic district. The station’s pedestrian facility for access to the Fairgrounds would occupy a small piece of land inside the boundary of the Fairgrounds Historic District. T he land within the Fairgrounds Historic District on which the pedestrian facility would rest is not a contributing element of the historic district. Therefore, FTA finds there is no use of the Fairgrounds Historic District by the Preferred Alternative (A4). Figure 5-3. Section 4(f) Properties – East Ferry Avenue Historic District and New Center Commercial Historic District

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 5-4. Section 4(f) Properties – Remaining Properties North of Grand River Avenue

5.4.6 Woodward Avenue An eight-mile portion of Woodward Avenue between its intersections with Jefferson Avenue in Downtown Detroit and M-102/8 Mile Road was determined eligible for the NRHP during the Section 106 review of this Project. Woodward Avenue was determined eligible under Criteria A and B as a historically significant major transportation corridor that has contributed to Detroit’s history and development, and as the central element of the plan for the City of Detroit created by Judge Augustus B. Woodward in 1805. The Preferred Alternative (A4) would follow Woodward Avenue for most of its length and would include LRT stations, tracks, and the electrical system within the boundary of the road. Section 4(f) approval is not needed for a historic transportation facility, such as Woodward Avenue, if the Section 106 process results in a no-adverse-effect determination for the historic transportation facility. FTA determined that the Preferred Alternative (A4) will not have an adverse effect on Woodward Avenue because Woodward Avenue has historically carried transit in various forms, including electric streetcars with overhead power wires. The SHPO concurred in this Section 106 determination. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply to Woodward Avenue. Woodward Avenue passes through Detroit’s Financial District, Historic District, the Grand Circus Park Historic District, the Midtown Woodward Historic District, the East Ferry Avenue Historic District, and the New Center Commercial Historic District and is a contributing element of those historic districts. The Preferred Alternative (A4) has stations, tracks, and an electrical system on Woodward Avenue, but the Preferred Alternative (A4) would not adversely affect this contributing element of the historic districts because Woodward Avenue has historically carried

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-22 Final Environmental Impact Statement

electric transit vehicles. Thus, pursuant to 23 CFR part 774.13(a), the Preferred Alternative (A4) would not “use” this contributing element of the historic districts. 5.5 Measures to Avoid the Use of Section 4(f) Resources The Preferred Alternative (A4) would not use any Section 4(f) public parkland. At every public park encountered by the Preferred Alternative (A4), it would only occupy existing transportation rights-of-way in passing alongside or through the park. During construction, no temporary occupancy of parkland would occur. The City of Detroit would direct the Recreation Department to take action during construction to maintain public access to each park and to minimize construction’s proximity effects on park users, vegetation, and wildlife. During construction, all excavations that may extend more than 24 inches below current ground surface on or immediately adjacent to the site of Fort Lernout and the Original Protestant Cemetery would be monitored by an archaeologist who satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications for that profession. If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, construction in that location would be paused while the archaeological resource is evaluated for NRHP eligibility; if it is determined eligible, a separate Section 4(f) evaluation would be prepared in accordance with 23 CFR part 774.9(e) and its results would be carried out. Within each NRHP or NRHP-eligible historic district, the Preferred Alternative (A4) would only occupy existing transportation right-of-way. For individual historic properties outside of the historic districts, the Preferred Alternative (A4) would not use any NRHP or NRHP-eligible property.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 5-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.0 Public Participation and Agency Consultation and Coordination

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page intentionally left blank.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.0 Public Participation and Agency Consultation and Coordination

This chapter summarizes public participation and agency consultation and coordination during development of the environmental studies, preparation of the DEIS, public hearings, and preparation of this FEIS. Details of the public outreach, coordination, meetings, notifications, and public hearings transcripts are provided in the Public Participation and Agency Consultation and Coordination Technical Report (2011). 6.1 Notice of Intent The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project was issued in the Federal Register by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on July 30, 2010. It provided information regarding the scoping process purpose and meeting logistics, the Project’s proposed purpose and need, location and environmental setting, possible alternatives, possible effects, FTA procedures, and other pertinent Project information. 6.2 Public Participation A Public Involvement Plan was developed in August 2010 and revised in September 2010 outlining participation strategies and activities to disseminate Project information. A Coordination Plan outlining agency responsibilities and coordination was developed, per Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU (23 USC 139). Public and agency input and comments on Project- related issues, concerns, and potential environmental impacts of the Project were solicited using various tools to inform the public and encourage participation during the Project development. Activities and results, to date, are summarized below. 6.2.1 Community/Stakeholder Outreach Two public scoping meetings were held on August 14, 2010 (11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) at the Considine Little Rock Family Life Center (Auditorium) in Detroit, located at 8904 Woodward Avenue in a central part of the Project corridor. A number of outreach strategies were employed to advertise the scoping meeting and encourage public attendance and participation. Print advertisements were placed in key newspapers accessible to constituents within and beyond the study area. Ads were placed in the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press on J uly 30, 2010. Spanish- and Arabic-language ads were placed, respectively, in the El Central Hispanic News on August 7, 2010, and the Arab American News on August 5, 2010, to accommodate the diversity of the communities in the vicinity of the Project. In addition to print advertising, 1,400 invitation postcards were printed and distributed. Of these, 350 were sent via first-class mail 10 days before the scoping meetings to study area community groups; key transit, planning and other agencies; churches and block clubs; members of Detroit Department of Transportation’s (DDOT’s) Local Advisory Counsel; a list of invitees who had attended previous DDOT events; and Woodward Avenue Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) workshop attendees. Remaining postcards were hand-distributed five days before the scoping meetings on board DDOT’s 53 Woodward Avenue bus route and at heavily patronized locations in the north Woodward section of the study area. These locations included businesses in New Center One and the ; two CVS locations; the Michigan

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Secretary of State’s Office; the NAACP Detroit office; the main branch of the Detroit Public Library; the Rosa Parks Transit Center; and business and civic locations in Highland Park. Approximately 75 e lectronic invitations were sent eight days before the scoping meetings to those who had provided email addresses at previous meeting opportunities and occasions. 6.2.2 Public Scoping Meetings More than 120 individuals attended the Public Scoping meetings. At the meetings, participants were provided an overview of the Project and afforded an opportunity to provide verbal and written comments. The formal 30-day scoping comment period began on August 14, 2010, and closed on September 13, 2010. A total of 260 comments were received. One hundred and eighty-one (181) comments were submitted via email to the Project website (http://woodwardlightrail.com/) and 34 were sent via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Eleven written and 34 verbal comments were submitted at the meetings. 6.2.3 Website A public website was established for the Project (http://woodwardlightrail.com/). Persons visiting the website can obtain information on t he status of the Project, reference material regarding studies completed to date, and news articles. The website is a comprehensive source of Project information. It also provides a means for the public to provide comments. Since July 2010, the site has registered about 31,000 hits. In addition to providing general Project information, the Project website includes a n ews and events archive; copies of material provided at the Public Scoping meeting and the Public Hearing; technical studies; Frequently Asked Questions; and background information on t he National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The DEIS and technical reports are also kept on the website. 6.2.4 DEIS Availability and Public Hearings The DEIS was completed and its Notice of Availability (NOA) for review published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2011. Hard copies of the DEIS were available at local libraries along the Corridor, the DDOT offices, and the City of Highland Park. An electronic copy of the DEIS was also available on the Project website. A 45-day comment period, beginning on January 28, 2011 a nd ending March 14, 2011, w as provided for the public to review and comment on the DEIS. Two public hearings were held on February 12, 2011: one at 11:00 a.m. and a second at 4:00 p.m. at the Detroit Public Library, Main Branch. Paid legal Public Notices were placed in newspapers announcing the availability of the DEIS and the public hearing date, times, location, and contact information. T he Public Notice included specific contact information offering assistance to the public with special needs. It was also translated into Arabic and Spanish and advertised in Arabic and Spanish communities’ newspapers. The translated Public Notices were distributed as flyers within the communities and provided to Arabic and Spanish news broadcast radio and television stations. In addition to the legal notice in the newspapers, an extensive distribution of the Public Notice was provided throughout the communities to encourage participation and attendance at the public hearings. The Public Notices were advertised through radio and television news broadcasts, community newspapers, emails, flyer distribution, and postings at venues throughout the

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-2 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Downtown, Lower Woodward, Middle Woodward, Highland Park, and Upper Woodward communities. T he Public Notices were placed on buses and within community centers, city halls, gas stations, grocery/convenience stores, laundromats, and recreation centers. Placards were also placed at the Rosa Parks Transit Center and panels were placed inside DDOT buses to advertise the public hearing. Approximately 355 people attended the public hearings; 223 people were present in the morning and 132 w ere present in the evening. Representatives from FTA and DDOT provided Project information and encouraged comments. Three interpreters, an Arabic interpreter, a Spanish interpreter, as well as a sign language interpreter, were also present at the meeting to assist attendees. An overview of the Project and opportunities for verbal and written comments were provided during each of the public hearings. USPS and email addresses were also provided to the attendees to mail in comments following the hearings. A total of 74 comments, both verbal and written, were received at the public hearing. The public hearings were recorded and transcripts prepared as an official record of the presentations and public comments shared during the public hearings. T he transcripts are included in the Public Participation and A gency Coordination Technical Report (2011). All comments received since the completion of the DEIS are summarized in Section 6.4. Responses to the specific comments provided by the public are included in Appendix H. Responses to Public Comments. 6.2.5 Environmental Justice Community Meetings The City of Detroit held two additional public meetings on March 8 and 10, 2011, within the DEIS 45-day comment period, as an outreach effort to engage environmental justice communities. These meetings provided additional opportunities for public comments to be received and included in the FEIS. The March 8th meeting was held at 9:00 a.m. at the Hannan House, and the March 10th meeting was held at 6:30 p.m. at the Mount Olive Baptist Church. Both locations are served by proximate public transit stops and were selected based on their easy access to public transit and location in relation to environmental justice (EJ) populations. The meeting locations are in proximity to the southern and northern borders of census block-groups that represented higher concentrations of low income and minority populations. Both sites are handicapped accessible, offer ample parking options, and are considered safe and well-known to community residents. The meetings supplemented the formal February 12th public hearings held at the Detroit Main Public Library. Dates and times of these March meetings were chosen based on the success of past community meetings held at those times. The morning meeting was designed for seniors, disabled individuals who work in the evening, and those who work, but may not live along the Corridor. The evening meeting was designed to accommodate neighborhood residents who may work during the day in or outside of the Project area. Extensive tools and strategies were used to promote and encourage participation at these two meetings, including: • Press release to a broad cross-section of local media; • Extensive outreach to individuals and community groups; approximately 850 pos tcard invitations via USPS, and approximately 150 additional invitations via email;

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Twenty-five hundred (2,500) fliers distributed to key locations throughout the Corridor; and, • Fliers distributed to individuals who attended meetings held independently by Transportation Riders United (TRU), a local transit-advocate organization. A total of 22 people attended the meetings, and there were a combined total of 73 comments received at both public meetings. Comments varied greatly and included a broader range of topics than those expressed at the February 12, 2011, public hearing. Expanded topics such as LRT operation, funding sources, snow removal, bus level of service, and additional transit facilities were mentioned at the March 10, 2011, public meeting. LRT operation was the most common topic of concern and employment opportunities, traffic, funding sources, and design comprised the second-most prevalent topics. Comments and questions from the public at these meetings, as well as responses, were incorporated into the Responses to Public Comments Table provided in Appendix H. 6.2.6 Phone Hotline The City of Detroit set up a telephone hotline that provided a recorded message with information on the date, time, and location of the public hearings and the locations of copies of the DEIS prior to the public hearings. Following the public hearings, the message provided listeners with locations where copies of the DEIS could be obtained. 6.2.7 DEIS Newsletter The DEIS newsletter, available in the Public Involvement Technical Report (2011), was published and distributed to all agencies and everyone on the Project mailing list following the DEIS public hearing. The newsletter was provided as supplemental information to further inform people about the Project background and encourage the public to continue providing comments on the DEIS through the comment period ending March 14, 2011. The newsletter also included answers to Frequently Asked Questions, a summary of the events and information exchanged at the public hearings, and Project contact information. 6.2.8 Future Outreach Activities Public participation for the Woodward LRT Project is ongoing. Activities following the publishing of this FEIS include advertisements notifying the public of the availability of the FEIS; mailing a Project newsletter; and periodic updates to the Project website. 6.3 Agency Coordination and Consultation 6.3.1 Technical Committee A Technical Committee was established during an early scoping process for the Woodward LRT Project in 2007 t o provide technical input and guidance during the preparation of preliminary studies and technical reports that support the DEIS. The Technical Committee comprised resource agencies, stakeholders, and applicable City departments. Meetings were held regularly to present and discuss technical assumptions and findings of the environmental studies. The technical committee concluded meeting in 2009. 6.3.2 Transportation Working Group A Transportation Working Group with representatives from FTA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), the City of Detroit, and their consultants was established to discuss safety and operation concerns. Sixteen meetings

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-4 Final Environmental Impact Statement

were held on a bi-weekly schedule to discuss topics such as: de sign standards, intersection geometry, parking, and non-motorized vehicle access. Additional information regarding these meetings and the resulting analyses are provided in the Transportation Technical Report (2011). 6.3.3 Interagency Coordination Cooperating agencies are those with jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding a proposed action. The FHWA, MDOT, and the NPS are cooperating agencies for the Project, the latter joining in September 2010. P articipating agencies are those that may have an interest in the Project. The City partnered with M-1 Rail, a consortium of private investors pledging funds to the Project. FTA designated M-1 Rail as a Participating Agency, which is defined at 23 USC 139. M-1 Rail has been included as a P articipating Agency and is involved in coordination meetings with the other Cooperating and Participating agencies. As a private institution, and in accordance with FTA regulations at 23 CFR 771.109(c)(6), they were afforded the opportunity to provide comments and participate in the EIS process. However, the final selection of a Preferred Alternative was made by the City of Detroit. The following agencies were represented at an Interagency Scoping meeting on August 17, 2010, in addition to FTA and the City of Detroit, which was represented by several departments: • Michigan Department of Transportation; • Federal Highway Administration; • City of Detroit, Planning Commission, Detroit Historic Commission, Municipal Parking Department; • Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG); • Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC); • Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART); • M-1 Rail; • Wayne County; and, • Detroit Transportation Commission (DTC). Cooperating agencies’ comments addressed many issues, including concept-level design details of the Downtown Design Options, traffic operations, parking impacts, pedestrian and non- motorized safety, business access during construction, utility relocation, and potential Section 4(f) and 6(f) issues. Participating agencies’ comments addressed a similar range of issues, along with the following: regional transit needs, parking impacts, non-motorized travel, access to businesses, methodologies for assessing historic resources, station location, EJ, and air quality considerations. The cooperating agencies also offered assistance in collecting data for the impact analyses and commented on findings, as presented in the technical studies that were completed during the Detroit Transit Options for Growth Study. The cooperating agencies also provided input into the preparation of the DEIS and FEIS and also assisted with reviewing the DEIS prior to its publication. Agency coordination meetings were held on October 13 and December 2, 2010, and included a discussion of scoping comments received, the DEIS annotated outline, a phased DEIS submission schedule, and other matters related to preparation of the DEIS. Additional agency meetings were held after the publication of the DEIS on January 27, February 17, and March 24,

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement

2011. Discussions at these meetings included DEIS availability, public hearings, public comments, the FEIS annotated outline, and FEIS preparation and revisions. An additional agency coordination meeting was held on A pril 28, 20 11, to discuss the Preferred Alternative (A4). Discussions at this meeting included the Preferred Alternative, status of the FEIS, and the revised Project schedule. Comments from these meetings were incorporated into the Project studies and NEPA documentation. 6.3.4 DEIS Review and Comments The DEIS was published and available for agency and public review on January 28, 2011. T he DEIS was circulated to local, State, and Federal agencies for review and comment. Comments received on the DEIS are included in the attached DVD and were incorporated into this FEIS as indicated in the Responses to Public Comments table, also included in Appendix H. 6.3.5 Other Coordination Coordination with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) began with a June 24, 2010, tour of the Project area. FTA and the City of Detroit held a meeting with the SHPO on July 12, 2010 to further discuss the Project and the schedule for the Section 106 pr ocess. Subsequently, coordination efforts were formally initiated for consideration of historic resources pursuant to requirements of the Section 106 consultation process (36 CFR part 800). While this process is separate from the NEPA environmental review process, Section 106 consultation has been done concurrently with NEPA for the Woodward Avenue LRT Project, given the Federal action and funds involved in constructing the proposed Project. Following issuance of the NOI, Section 106 C onsulting Party meetings were held on S eptember 8, 2010, October 13, 2010, December 2, 2010, and January 27, 2011. Discussion focused on a phased schedule for submission of Eligibility Determination and Effects Assessment reports, methodologies used in preparing the Eligibility Determinations and Effects Assessments, progress on these deliverables, and issues regarding the findings. Three additional consultation meetings were held following the public hearings. Two were held on February 17 and March 24, 2011, and included discussions on adverse effect determinations, remaining questions on eligibility determinations, preparation of a Supplemental Eligibility and Effects Assessment report, and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The third meeting was held on April 28, 2011, following the selection of the Preferred Alternative. An update on the FEIS process, the Preferred Alternative, and a revised schedule were discussed at this meeting. The revised MOA reflecting Alternative A4 as the Preferred Alternative and applicable mitigation was also distributed for comment to the SHPO and consulting parties. For more information on t he Section 106 pr ocess, please see Chapter 4, Section 4.4 H istoric and Archaeological Resources. FTA determined the Project would have an adverse effect on historic properties and notified the ACHP, as required under Section 106 r egulations. Please refer to Appendix G for the Section 106 MOA. 6.4 Project Comment Summary The DEIS was circulated on January 28, 2011. T here was an opportunity for the public to provide comments through March 14, 2011. Public Hearings were held on February 12, 2011, and two additional public meetings were held on March 8 and 10, 2011, to encourage additional public comments within the EJ communities. Since January 28, 2011, a total of 517 comments have been received from the public, including local, State, and Federal agencies. A table listing all comments received is included in Appendix

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-6 Final Environmental Impact Statement

H. Responses to Public Comments (enclosed on DVD). Responses to the comments and references to the FEIS chapters where the comments are addressed are also included in the table. Table 6-1 provides the submittal method of comments. Note that while some individuals submitted their comment via multiple methods, an effort was made to eliminate these redundancies in the final count.

Table 6-1. Number of Respondents

Submittal Method Total

Comments Email 364 U.S. Mail 80

Public Hearing 65 Drop Box 8 Grand Total 517 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2011

The comments were generally categorized by the relevant substantive issue and by tone for substantive and non-substantive comments. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 indicate the number of comments per issue and the respective percentage of each. Please note the total comments listed exceed the number of responses, since many of the received comments addressed multiple content areas. The issue that received the most comments was transportation, with 31 percent of all comments, followed closely by alternatives, with 30 percent of all comments. The vast majority of comments were made in support of the Project, with 91 percent of people expressing support.

Table 6-2. Number and Percentage of Substantive Comments by Issue Substantive Issue Total Percentage Comments Transportation 182 31% Alternatives 163 30% Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 97 18% Environmental Justice 26 5% Historic Resources 19 4% Public Participation 17 3% Noise and Vibration 10 2% Purpose and Need 7 1% Section 4(f) 7 1% Air Quality 6 1% Hazardous Materials 3 1% Resources with Limited or No 1 <1% Effect Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2011

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6-3. Number of Non-Substantive Comments by Tone Non-Substantive Tone Total Percentage Comments Support 350 91%

Oppose 24 6%

Neutral 11 3%

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2011 6.5 Appreciation to Public and Agencies FTA appreciates the time, energy, and efforts extended by the Detroit public and all of the agencies associated with the scoping, environmental studies, documentation, and public meetings for this Project. The public and agency input into the development of this Project was a valuable and important aspect in developing alternatives and evaluating impacts. FTA thanks all the participants for their input into the transportation decision-making process.

Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project 6-8 Final Environmental Impact Statement