7.0 FINAL SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) EVALUATION

Transcription

1 7.0 FINAL SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) EVALUATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the existing conditions and potential effects to public parklands, recreational resources, and historic properties as they relate to the provisions of Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as well as parklands and recreational resources protected under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act. In this section, there are three areas of consideration: (1) North Metro corridor study area, (2) Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area, and (3) direct impact area. The North Metro corridor study area is divided into two sections: (1) Southern Section (Denver Union Station [DUS] access to 84 th Avenue) and (2) Northern Section (84 th Avenue to the 162 nd Avenue area). The Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area is defined as 300 feet from the centerline of the alignment and station footprints. The direct impact area is defined as follows: The direct impact area is defined as the area that would be physically disturbed by construction of the alignment and stations as well as measures to mitigate project impacts. Along the alignment, the direct impact area includes the toe of slope for project improvements or the width of a bridge structure. The direct impact area for the stations is the station footprint. The direct impact area also includes the toe of slope for mitigation measures such as improvements to roadways, trails, and drainage. A 15-foot buffer has been added to these areas to account for the current level of design and potential construction and maintenance impacts. Specific areas where staging for construction activities is anticipated to occur are also included in the direct impact area, where they are known. The direct impact area was minimized to avoid or reduce impacts to private property, community resources, and natural resources to the extent practicable. 7.2 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES Summary of Results The Preferred Alternative would affect 111 historic and archaeological resources and 15 parks and recreational resources for which Section 4(f) was determined to be applicable Historic and Archaeological Resources The vast majority of the historic and archaeological sites would be affected indirectly. The indirect impacts would not substantially impair the features and attributes that qualify the resources for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and therefore, would not result in a use of the property as defined in Section 4(f). RTD has received written concurrence from State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on a finding of no adverse effects for direct impacts to nine resources with a finding of no adverse effect on one additional resource (BNSF Railway) pending. RTD will inform the SHPO of the intent to make a finding of de minimis (negligible) impact for these resources when written concurrence on the finding of effect for the BNSF Railway is received. A finding of de minimis impact enables RTD to proceed with no analysis of avoidance and minimization alternatives. Direct impacts to three resources would have adverse effects and thus a full Section 4(f) evaluation was completed for these resources which include Quimby Railroad Stop (5AM2111), Eastlake Railroad Stop (5AM2114), and a historic farmstead (5AM2158). 7-1 January 2011

2 Parks and Recreational Resources Of the 15 public parks and recreational resources that would be affected, direct impacts to one resource, Globeville Landing Park, would have adverse impacts and thus a full Section 4(f) Evaluation was completed for this resource. Direct impacts to an additional 12 resources would have no adverse impacts (with consideration of proposed mitigation). Therefore, RTD pursued a finding of de minimis (negligible) impact through coordination with the respective officials with jurisdiction. Concurrence from these officials has enabled RTD to proceed with no analysis of avoidance and minimization alternatives for these resources. Temporary impacts to two resources (with no long-term impacts) would result in a temporary occupancy, which does not constitute a use as defined by Section 4(f) Relevant Law Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended and codified in Title 49 United States Code (USC) 303, declares that [i]t is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. Section 4(f) was enacted in response to a growing awareness and concern on the part of the public and its elected representatives of the encroachment of a growing transportation system on parklands and historic sites. Section 4(f) also states that transportation programs and projects that require the use of protected lands shall not be approved unless a determination is made that: 1. there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the use of land; and 2. the project or program includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. Congress amended Section 4(f) in 2005 when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes approval of a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance alternatives typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. On 12 March 2008, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a final rule on Section 4(f) regarding feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives and de minimis impact codified under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774. This Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared in accordance with the joint Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations for Section 4(f) compliance (23 CFR 774) and SAFETEA-LU. Additional guidance has been obtained from the Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005) issued by USDOT through FHWA Definition of Section 4(f) Use As defined in 23 CFR 774, the use of a Section 4(f) resource can be classified in one of three ways: a direct use, a temporary use, or a constructive use. A direct use of a Section 4(f) resource takes place when the land is permanently incorporated into and used by a transportation facility. January

3 Temporary Use A temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when there is a brief use of a Section 4(f) resource that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist purposes of the Section 4(f) statute. After the period of use, the resource must be restored to the condition in which it was originally found. A temporary occupancy would not constitute a use of the Section 4(f) resource when the following conditions are met: 1. The duration (of the occupancy) must be temporary, less than the time needed for construction of the project, and not involve a change in ownership of the property. 2. The scope of work must be minor, with only minimal changes to the protected resource. 3. There would be no permanent adverse physical effects to the protected resource, nor would there be temporary or permanent interference with activities or purpose of the resource. 4. The property being used must be fully restored to a condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. 5. There must be documented agreement of the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the foregoing requirements. If the temporary occupancy requirements are not met, then the result is a temporary use of the Section 4(f) resource. Constructive Use A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource happens when a transportation project does not permanently incorporate land from the resource, but the proximity of the project results in impacts (i.e., noise, vibration, visual, access, or ecological impacts) so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment occurs only if the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished. This determination is made through: (1) identification of the current activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) resource that may be sensitive to proximity impacts;(2) analysis of the potential proximity impacts on the resource; and (3) consultation with the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource. De Minimis A de minimis impact occurs when the use of a Section 4(f) resource is determined to have no adverse effects on the resource. Congress amended Section 4(f) with SAFETEA-LU to include a subsection which authorizes FTA to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance alternatives typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. Different processes are used for evaluating de minimis sites for historic resources and for parklands and recreational resources. De Minimis for Historic Resources A finding of a de minimis impact can be made only if FTA determines that the transportation program or project would have No Adverse Effect on the historic site or there would be No Historic Properties Affected as a result of the process required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Section 106 findings have to receive written concurrence from the SHPO and be developed in consultation with the parties consulted under the Section 106 process. Additionally, FTA must inform the SHPO of the intent to make a de minimis impact finding based on their 7-3 January 2011

4 written concurrence with the Section 106 determination and must consider the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 106 consultation. De Minimis for Parklands and Recreational Resources A finding of de minimis impact can be made when impacts would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). The finding has to receive written concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the parklands or recreational resource Purpose and Need The FTA, in cooperation with the Regional Transportation District (RTD), initiated this Environmental Impact Statement to identify and evaluate impacts related to the implementation of high-capacity, fixed-guideway transit within the North Metro corridor between DUS access and the 162 nd Avenue area. The Project would help meet a number of specific needs, as outlined below. Need for mobility improvements Need for regional connectivity Need to serve traditional and new transit users Need to support community and regional plans, including the voter-approved FasTracks Plan (RTD 2004) Need to qualify for federal funding programs Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, contains a detailed discussion of this topic Project Alternatives The following alternatives are being considered in the North Metro corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): No Action Alternative Preferred Alternative: Commuter Rail with electric multiple unit (EMU) vehicle technology on the BNSF/Union Pacific (UP) Boulder Branch Alignment Each of these alternatives is summarized below. Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered, contains a detailed description of these alternatives No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative represents a 2035 horizon-year scenario for the region and the corridor with no new major transit investment in the North Metro corridor. The No Action Alternative roadway system in the region, and the North Metro corridor is assumed to include the existing system and the improvements identified in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Metro Vision 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (Metro Vision 2035 Plan) (2010), the Transportation Plan (TIP) (DRCOG 2009), and the local jurisdiction Capital Improvement Programs. For the transit system, the No Action Alternative includes separate assumptions for transit service and facilities outside the North Metro corridor versus transit service and facilities inside the corridor. The transit system is represented by improved bus services and supporting facilities that are in the Metro Vision 2035 Plan, the TIP, and RTD FasTracks Plan (2004), except for the North Metro facilities. The No Action Alternative serves as a basis for comparison of environmental impacts, including key January

5 mobility statistics and indicators, to help gauge the relative performance of other alternatives. The No Action Alternative is used for FEIS travel demand forecasting analysis and the full range of impact analyses to identify the estimated net change in future conditions Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative (BNSF/UP Boulder Branch) features EMU commuter rail service from DUS access to the 162 nd Avenue area in Thornton, with a total of eight stations. For analysis in the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluations, the North Metro corridor is divided into two sections: the Southern Section (DUS access to 84 th Avenue), and the Northern Section (84 th Avenue to 162 nd Avenue area). The alternative elements evaluated for the Section 4(f) evaluation are described in more detail below. Technology Commuter rail technology is heavier than light rail technology and is designed to safely operate within rail corridors that may continue to support freight rail operations. The preferred rail vehicle is the EMU. This vehicle would be powered via an overhead contact system similar to that provided for the existing light rail transit (LRT) lines. Facilities to distribute power to trains, known as autotransformers, would be provided at two locations located within properties identified to be acquired for either a station or the alignment, and impacts would be contained therein. Representative locations have been identified at the north end of the 88 th Avenue Station and north of 136 th Avenue and York Street. Alignment The Preferred Alternative alignment generally follows the BNSF Brush Subdivision to the UP Boulder Branch between DUS to the 162 nd Avenue area, a distance of approximately 18 miles (Figure 7-1). This is referred to as the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch Alternative. The southern terminus is at the DUS access point (at approximately 20 th Street), and the northern terminus is the 162 nd Avenue area, north of State Highway (SH) 7, in Thornton. The Preferred Alternative is located adjacent to and just east of the BNSF Railway mainline (Brush Subdivision) in Denver. In Commerce City, the Preferred Alternative crosses over the BNSF mainline and is generally adjacent to the O Brian Canal through private commercial and industrial parcels in what is referred to as the Cross-Country Area. (The Preferred Alternative follows what had been described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] as alignment option B-2 in the Southern Section.) The alignment connects with the UP Boulder Branch right-of-way (ROW) near West 70 th Avenue. North of Commerce City, the Preferred Alternative remains within the UP Boulder Branch ROW, which was purchased by RTD in The majority of the alignment is single-track, with five areas of passing track: from DUS to 38 th Street; from south of 72 nd Avenue to just north of Interstate 76 (I-76); from north of Thornton Parkway to just north of 104 th Avenue; from south of 124 th Avenue to south of York Street; and from SH 7 to the end of line, approximately 162 nd Avenue. The second track in these locations allows trains in two directions to pass without delay, thus maintaining the peak period service plan for 15 minute headways between DUS and the SH 7/162 nd Avenue Station. Stations There are eight proposed stations in the North Metro corridor (Figure 7-1). Two stations are located in the Southern Section, while the remaining six stations are located in the Northern Section. The DEIS included station target areas in these locations as well as several station options at each target area. Table 7-1 lists these as well as the station name used in the FEIS. 7-5 January 2011

6 TABLE 7-1. NORTH METRO CORRIDOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STATIONS Station Target Area DEIS Station Name FEIS Station Name Southern Section DUS Access to 84 th Avenue Coliseum/Stock Show (Denver) Coliseum/Stock Show North National Western Stock Show Commerce City 72 nd Avenue South 72 nd Avenue Northern Section 84 th Avenue to 162 nd Avenue Area 88 th Avenue (Thornton) 88 th Avenue 88 th Avenue 104 th Avenue (Thornton) 104 th Avenue 104 th Avenue 112 th Avenue (Northglenn) 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street 112 th Avenue 124 th Avenue/Eastlake (Thornton) 124 th Avenue 124 th Avenue/Eastlake 144 th Avenue (Thornton) 144 th Avenue West 144 th Avenue 162 nd Avenue (Thornton) 162 nd Avenue East SH 7/162 nd Avenue Source: Project Team, Notes: DEIS = Draft Environmental Impact Statement DUS = Denver Union Station FEIS = Final Environmental Impact Statement SH 7 = State Highway 7 January

7 FIGURE 7-1. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Source: Project Team, January 2011

8 Operations and Maintenance Service would generally be provided from 4:00 a.m. (morning) to 1:30 a.m. Base headways (time between trains) would be 30 minutes with 15 minute headways during weekday peak commuting hours. A mid-day layover track would be provided in the Southern Section near 31 st Street. This facility would primarily be used to store trains between the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods, and for emergencies. It would not typically be used for overnight storage or for maintenance. A tail track would be provided north of the SH 7/162 nd Avenue Station to stage trains preparing to head south or for emergencies. Trains would be stored overnight and maintained at the main Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) at the Fox North Site on the Northwest Rail corridor approximately 2.5 miles from DUS. The North Metro and the Gold Line, East, and Northwest Rail corridor trains would use the same maintenance facility. Daily operating and maintenance activities at the CRMF involve many different areas, and each has functional requirements that must be met. In 2015 approximately 229 trains (of two to three cars) would be moving to/from or within the CRMF for maintenance activities from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (evening), along with trains providing passenger service on the Gold Line and Northwest Rail corridors. In 2030, this would increase to 275 trains (of two to three cars). This includes train movements of the Gold Line, Northwest Rail, East, and North Metro corridors. These movements would typically be to and from the CRMF and DUS or to and from the CRMF and the individual corridor for maintenance activities. Most of these movements would occur from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Train movements within the CRMF would occur at night. The operation of the CRMF would be ongoing 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Maintenance activities need to occur during times when trains are not in revenue service Corridor-Wide Avoidance Alternatives As stated in 23 CFR 774.7(a), alternatives that would avoid Section 4(f) properties must be identified and evaluated. The following corridor-wide avoidance alternatives were evaluated and deemed not to be feasible and/or prudent for the reasons identified below. Alternative 1: No Action See the No Action Alternative description above. This avoidance alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for North Metro (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need) and, therefore, it is not a feasible or prudent avoidance alternative. Alternative 2: Transportation System Management The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative featured relatively low-cost improvements that could be made in the North Metro corridor, focusing on an enhanced bus system that would be configured to best meet the Purpose and Need for the project. Although TSM is highly cost-effective, it is not highly effective. This avoidance alternative would not provide high-capacity transit, a travel time benefit, or a reliability benefit. It would not serve the middle of the North Metro corridor well and would not be as effective as a fixed-guideway transit option. Therefore, the TSM Alternative is not a prudent avoidance alternative. January

9 Alternative 3: Union Pacific Railroad Greeley Alignment This alignment would start at DUS, cross through Sand Creek Junction, and proceed to Greeley. This avoidance alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for North Metro to provide a north-to-south connection between the 162 nd Avenue area and DUS. Proceeding toward Greeley is out of direction. Therefore, the UP Railroad Greeley Alignment Alternative would not be a feasible or prudent avoidance alternative. Alternative 4: Light Rail Transit (On Alternate Alignments) Electric LRT (the same technology RTD uses on its Southwest line and Southeast line) was considered for several alignments between DUS and the 162 nd Avenue area, along or adjacent to the I-25 corridor, the Washington Street corridor (two options), and the UP Railroad Greeley corridor to the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Although all LRT alignments would meet the Purpose and Need of the project, these alignments were eliminated because impacts and acquisition costs were high. These alignments would be outside the railroad ROW for the entire corridor, requiring more acquisitions of private property than the Preferred Alternative. Operating in the I-25 corridor would also require costly structures to grade-separate the service. The I-25 alignment would not serve Commerce City. With respect to the two Washington Street corridor options, extensive property acquisition was anticipated, traffic would be adversely impacted, LRT on Washington Street would not serve Commerce City, and it would have low transit speed and ridership levels. Overall, LRT is not compatible with the DUS Master Plan (CCD 2004). Therefore, the LRT alternatives on alternate alignments would not be a prudent avoidance alternative. Alternative 5: Subway A full application of a subway technology would be prohibitively expensive for the Denver area and not necessary for Denver area characteristics. Therefore, the Subway Alternative would not be a prudent avoidance alternative. Alternative 6: Monorail Monorail is not a suitable urban transit network technology for RTD. Full grade separations would be needed in the corridor, at very high cost for the benefit provided. Therefore, the Monorail Alternative would not be a prudent avoidance alternative. Alternative 7: Streetcar (On Alternate Alignment) A streetcar would not be a suitable high-capacity line-haul (back and forth between common terminus points) mode. Streetcars typically operate in the street with roadway traffic, and therefore, do not provide travel time savings or reliability. The typical modern application of this alternative is as an activity center connector. Enhanced bus service for North Metro (such as the service discussed with the TSM Alternative) could accomplish similar service at a much lower cost. Therefore, the Streetcar Alternative would not be a prudent avoidance alternative. Alternative 8: Bus Rapid Transit There are currently no programmed extensions of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) or high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes along I-25 as part of the fiscally-constrained Metro Vision 2030 Plan (DRCOG 2006) or Metro Vision 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (Metro Vision 2035 Plan) (DRCOG 2010), and this improvement could not be implemented separately or independent of future Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) highway widening. Additionally, the North Metro Transportation Study (North Metro Major Investment Study) (RTD 2001), established that there was a unique and separate need for fixed-guideway transit service 7-9 January 2011

10 along a corridor in addition to I-25. Therefore, bus rapid transit would not be a prudent avoidance alternative Approach/Methodology This section describes how the proposed project would use Section 4(f) resources. The following steps were taken to identify potential Section 4(f) resources and likely impacts to these resources: Development of a geographic information system database with property ownership, parklands, and recreational resources overlaid on aerial photographs. Identification and inventory of historic property, parks, and public land within the North Metro corridor study area. Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to determine if Section 4(f) applies to the identified historic properties. Coordination with the officials with jurisdiction to determine if Section 4(f) applies to the identified parkland properties. Identified parklands and recreational resources were evaluated to determine if Section 4(f) was applicable based on four criteria: (1) the site must be publicly owned; (2) visitation by the general public must be permitted on the entire site at any time; (3) one of the major purposes and functions of the site must be a park, recreation area, or wildlife/waterfowl refuge; and (4) the site is considered significant, meaning that it plays an important role in meeting the park, recreational, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge objectives of the community. Detailed evaluations of parklands and historic sites within the Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area were conducted to determine the potential for Section 4(f) use. This process included overlaying the direct impact area onto the base map to determine if Section 4(f) property would be used by the proposed action. In cases where a direct use was identified, additional analysis was conducted to determine if the use would be permanent or temporary. Indirect impacts (i.e., noise, vibration, visual, access, or ecological impacts) that could result from the proximity of the project to Section 4(f) resources were also assessed to determine if the project would substantially impair the features or attributes that qualify each resource for protection under Section 4(f). In cases where a project-related use of a Section 4(f) property was identified, additional engineering analysis was conducted to determine if such use could be avoided or minimized Evaluation of Alternatives to Avoid Use of the Section 4(f) Resources Use of a Section 4(f) resource may not be approved unless there is no feasible or prudent avoidance alternative as defined in 23 CFR An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. An alternative is not prudent if it compromises the Purpose and Need of the project, results in unacceptable safety or operational problems, causes severe impacts, results in costs of an extraordinary magnitude, or causes other unique problems or unusual factors Identification of Measures to Minimize Harm to Section 4(f) Resources When a Section 4(f) resource is used, all planning to minimize harm, including development of mitigation measures, must be undertaken in coordination with the officials having jurisdiction over the resource. In instances where there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, a least-harm analysis is completed for each Section 4(f) resource by alternative. January

11 7.2.6 Consultation and Coordination Consultation for purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation has been initiated and is expected to continue through the final design and engineering phase. The consultation and coordination efforts that have occurred thus far are described below. Public involvement and community outreach for the project as a whole is documented in Chapter 6, Public Comment and Agency Coordination. A Corridor Coordination Plan was developed to document expectations and roles for the local governments, agencies, and other project stakeholders during development of the North Metro corridor DEIS. A Local Governments Team (LGT) comprised of local municipalities was developed. An Agency Working Group (AWG) was formed which included state and federal cooperating agencies, participating agencies, and participating entities such as the railroads. Coordination meetings were held with both the LGT and AWG at key milestones and decision points throughout the process. SHPO was included in the AWG Historic Resources The Project team members met with SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to determine potential consulting parties, including local tribes and preservation groups. Coordination with SHPO and the consulting parties has occurred at key National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 milestones, to determine the Area of Potential Effects and to review the eligibility of archaeological and historic sites for the NRHP. After the release of the DEIS, the project team consulted again with SHPO, ACHP, and the consulting parties on effect determinations, and avoidance and mitigation measures. This coordination included evaluation of historic properties along the Preferred Alternative to determine the direct and indirect impacts associated with this project Parklands and Recreational Resources The Project team coordinated with the officials with jurisdiction, including the City and County of Denver (CCD), Commerce City, Adams County, City of Northglenn, City of Thornton, the Sand Creek Greenway Partnership, and the Greenway Foundation. This included a series of meetings with representatives of each jurisdiction to discuss identification of parks and recreational resources, impacts, and mitigation measures for parklands and recreational resources (see Chapter 6, Public Comment and Agency Coordination). A letter requesting information about the significance of parklands and recreational resources was sent to each jurisdiction. Based on each response, RTD sent a letter to each jurisdiction summarizing the applicability of Section 4(f) for each facility and requesting the jurisdiction s concurrence on those findings. These concurrence letters are included in Appendix F, Agency Correspondence, of the FEIS Resource Descriptions and Section 4(f) Use Only those Section 4(f) resources that would be affected by the Preferred Alternative are discussed below. These resources include historic sites and public park and recreation lands. There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges in the project study area. The evaluation includes a description of the anticipated direct, indirect, and temporary use impacts. Resources that would result in a de minimis impact are not discussed in detail because the negligible impacts would not adversely affect the function of the resource. The de minimis findings are documented later in this chapter January 2011

12 Historic Properties Section 4(f) applies to historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Historic properties are defined at 36 CFR (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. The criteria for NRHP eligibility are set forth at 36 CFR 60.4 as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, 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 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 distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history. A Section 106 evaluation was undertaken to determine the NRHP-eligibility of historic properties. The purpose of the Section 106 analysis is to protect cultural resources that are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP and that may be affected by federal undertakings. The historic properties for which Section 4(f) is applicable are listed in Table 7-2. Section 4(f) Use The NRHP archaeological and historic resources (eligible and listed) within the Area of Potential Effects are identified in Table 7-2. The proposed project would result in the direct use (as defined in Section 4[f]) of two historic resources and 11 archaeological resources in the project study area. A finding of Adverse Effect was made for three of these resources and thus a full Section 4(f) evaluation was completed. There are 10 resources in which direct impacts are also identified, but a finding of No Adverse Effect was made (the finding of effect for the BNSF Railway is currently being reviewed by SHPO). A finding of de minimis impact was made for these resources. There would be no Section 4(f) use of the remainder of the NRHP resources (eligible and listed). January

13 TABLE 7-2. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Smithsonian Site # Resource Description (Location) Southern Section DUS Access to 84 th Avenue Archaeological Resources 5DV6247 and 5AM464 5DV AM2410 and 5DV AM80 5AM465 5AM472 5AM2083 BNSF Railway in Denver County (5DV6247.1, 5DV6247.2, 5DV6247.3, and 5DV6247.6) BNSF Railway in Adams County (5AM and 5AM464.16) Historic Marker (Corner of Brighton Boulevard and York Street) Brighton Boulevard (in Denver [5DV ] and Adams [5AM2410.1] counties) Clear Creek Ditch (5AM80.1 and 5AM80.7) Burlington Ditch (O Brian Canal) (5AM465.9) UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline (5AM472.17) UP Railroad and Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Belt Line (5AM and 5AM2083.3) Historic Resources Denver Coliseum 5DV Humboldt Street National Western Historic District 5DV10050 ( th Avenue) Northern Section 84 th Avenue to 162 nd Avenue Area Archaeological Resources UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline (includes grade, 16-inch culverts, 5AM472 6 timber pile bridges, 2 spurs and Darlow siding) (5AM472.1 and 5AM472.17) Quimby Railroad Stop 5AM2111 (feature and artifact concentration) 5AM2114 5AM473 5AM471 5AM2115 5AM2402 Eastlake Railroad Stop Signal Ditch (5AM473.1) German Ditch (5AM471.4) Pre-historic Open Camp UP Railroad Borrow-pit NRHP Eligibility Criteria (a) (c) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a, c) Officially (a) (a, d) (d) (a) (a) (a, d) (d) Section 106 Finding of Effects No Adverse Effect 1 No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect No Historic Properties Affected No Historic Properties Affected No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect No Historic Properties Affected No Adverse Effect Section 4(f) Use (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) No Use No Use (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) No Use (de minimis impact 7-13 January 2011

14 TABLE 7-2. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Smithsonian Site # Resource Description (Location) NRHP Eligibility Criteria Historic Resources 5AM2119 Residence (8960 Yucca Way) 5AM2120 Residence (8980 Yucca Way) (a) 5AM2121 Residence (9010 Yucca Way) Section 106 Finding of Effects No Adverse Effect Section 4(f) Use No Use (indirect impacts would not result in constructive use) 5AM2122 Residence (9020 Yucca Way) 5AM2123 Residence (9030 Yucca Way) 5AM2124 Residence (9040 Yucca Way) 5AM2125 Residence (9050 Yucca Way) 5AM2126 Residence (9060 Yucca Way) 5AM2127 Residence (9070 Yucca Way) (a) 5AM2128 Residence (9080 Yucca Way) 5AM2129 Residence (9090 Yucca Way) 5AM2130 Residence (9100 Yucca Way) 5AM2131 Residence (9120 Yucca Way) 5AM2132 Residence (9150 Yucca Way) 5AM2133 Residence (9160 Yucca Way) 5AM2134 Residence (9170 Yucca Way) 5AM2135 Residence (9180 Yucca Way) 5AM2136 Residence (9190 Yucca Way) 5AM2137 Residence (9200 Yucca Way) 5AM2138 Residence (9210 Yucca Way) 5AM2139 Residence (9020 Beachwood Drive) 5AM2140 Residence (9035 Beachwood Drive) (a) 5AM2141 Skyview High School (8990 York Street) (a) 5AM2143 5AM2144 Residence (11264 Claude Court) Residence (11274 Claude Court) (a, b) 5AM2145 Residence (11284 Claude Court) 5AM2146 Residence (11304 Claude Court) 5AM2147 Residence (11314 Claude Court) 5AM2148 Residence (11324 Claude Court) 5AM2149 Residence (11334 Claude Court) 5AM2150 Residence (11344 Claude Court) 5AM2151 Residence (11354 Claude Court) 5AM2152 Residence (11364 Claude Court) 5AM2153 Residence (11374 Claude Court) 5AM2154 Residence (11384 Claude Court) 5AM2155 Residence (11404 Claude Court) 5AM2156 Residence (11414 Claude Court) No Adverse Effect No Historic Properties Affected No Historic Properties Affected No Adverse Effect No Use (indirect impacts would not result in constructive use) No Use No Use No Use (indirect impacts would not result in constructive use) January

15 TABLE 7-2. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Smithsonian Site # Resource Description (Location) NRHP Eligibility Criteria 5AM2185 5AM2186 Residence (9040 Aspen Drive) Residence (9045 Aspen Drive) (a) 5AM2327 Residence (9280 Yucca Way) 5AM Residence (9270 Yucca Way) (a) 5AM2329 Residence (9260 Yucca Way) Section 106 Finding of Effects No Historic Properties Affected No Adverse Effect Section 4(f) Use No Use No Use (indirect impacts would not result in constructive use) 5AM2330 Residence (9250 Yucca Way) 5AM2331 Residence (9240 Yucca Way) 5AM Residence (9230 Yucca Way) 5AM2333 Residence (9220 Yucca Way) 5AM2334 5AM2335 Residence (11254 Claude Court) Residence (11244 Claude Court) (a, b) 5AM2336 Residence (11234 Claude Court) 5AM2337 Residence (11224 Claude Court) 5AM2338 Residence (11214 Claude Court) 5AM2339 Residence (11424 Claude Court) 5AM2340 Residence (11434 Claude Court) 5AM2341 Residence (11444 Claude Court) 5AM2342 Residence (11454 Claude Court) 5AM2343 Residence (11464 Claude Court) 5AM2344 Residence (11474 Claude Court) 5AM2345 Residence (11484 Claude Court) 5AM2346 Residence (11504 Claude Court) 5AM2347 Residence (11514 Claude Court) 5AM2348 Residence (11524 Claude Court) 5AM2349 Residence (11534 Claude Court) 5AM2350 Residence (11544 Claude Court) 5AM2351 Residence (11554 Claude Court) 5AM2352 Residence (11564 Claude Court) 5AM2353 Residence (11574 Claude Court) 5AM2385 Residence (11584 Claude Court) 5AM2752 5AM2753 5AM2738 Convenience Store (1660 East 112 th Avenue) Service Garage (1680 East 112 th Avenue) Residence (1700 East 112 th Place) Residence (2090 East 112 th Place) Residence (2081 East 112 th Place) Residence (2082 Graves Court) (a) (a, c) (a, b) Assumed No Adverse Effect No Historic Properties Affected No Historic Properties Affected No Historic Properties Affected No Historic Properties Affected No Use (indirect impacts would not result in constructive use) No Use No Use No Use No Use 7-15 January 2011

16 TABLE 7-2. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Smithsonian Site # Resource Description (Location) Residence (2093 Graves Court) Residence (2106 East 113 th Place) Residence (2126 East 113 th Place) Residence (2127 East 113 th Place) Residence (2085 East 113 th Avenue) Residence (2094 East 113 th Avenue) Residence (2095 East 113 th Avenue) Residence (2107 East 113 th Avenue) Residence (2128 East 114 th Avenue) Residence (2108 East 114 th Avenue) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) Residence ( nd Street) January NRHP Eligibility Criteria Assumed Section 106 Finding of Effects No Historic Properties Affected Section 4(f) Use No Use

17 TABLE 7-2. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Smithsonian Site # 5AM1445 5AM2158 5AM2199 Resource Description (Location) Residence ( nd Street) Eastlake Granary (1 South, 68 West, Section 35, Southeast, Northeast) Farmstead (12431 Claude Court) Farmstead (3225 East 160 th Avenue) NRHP Eligibility Criteria Officially (11/2000) Section 106 Finding of Effects No Historic Properties Affected Section 4(f) Use No Use (a, b) Adverse Effect (a) Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 FTA recommendation on finding of effect; SHPO is currently reviewing. # = number DUS = Denver Union Station NRHP = National Register of Historic Places UP = Union Pacific No Historic Properties Affected No Use Criteria: (a) = associated with significant historic events (b) = associated with significant historic persons (c) = architecturally distinctive (d) = important information to history or prehistory Quimby Railroad Stop (5AM2111) Site 5AM2111 (see Figure 7-2) is the remains of the Quimby Railroad Stop on the UP Dent Branch Railroad (5AM472.17), which began operation in A modern condominium complex has destroyed the majority of the Quimby Railroad Stop, including the depot building. The site is located just south of 100 th Avenue and mostly on the east side of the railroad tracks (the approximate boundary is shown in green on Figure 7-3). The boundary extends outside of the UP Railroad ROW to the east, and abutting the railroad tracks to the west. The site contains three concentrations of artifacts dating from the 1930s to 1950s, one of which is located within the existing UP Railroad ROW and contains domestic and building/construction-related artifacts. There is also a small concrete sub-surface vault located south of the artifact concentrations and east of the railroad tracks. Additional sub-surface features and artifacts may also be present at this site January 2011

18 FIGURE 7-2. QUIMBY RAILROAD STOP Section 106 Eligibility Determination and Finding of Effects The site is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and D. It is associated with the development and expansion of agriculture in the area north of Denver and is likely to yield information important to history. The Section 106 analysis concluded that impacts from the Preferred Alternative would result in an Adverse Effect on this resource. Description of Under Section 4(f) The alignment for the Preferred Alternative would parallel the western boundary of this site. The alignment follows the existing UP Railroad track and would be shifted slightly west of its current alignment near 100 th Avenue. A new track west of the re-aligned track would be added within the existing UP Railroad ROW. Under the Preferred Alternative, the area along the east side of the existing tracks would be regraded to provide adequate drainage of the ballast and subballast. Additionally, two existing culverts would be replaced with larger culverts and fencing would be added along the alignment. These improvements would directly impact the site. No noise walls are proposed at this location. The impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would impact one of the artifact concentrations within this site and could impact features and artifact concentrations that have not been identified. No constructive or temporary use impacts are anticipated in addition to the direct use for the Preferred Alternative. January

19 FIGURE 7-3. SECTION 4(f) USE OF QUIMBY RAILROAD STOP Avoidance Alternatives As discussed above, a direct use of this resource would occur as a result of grading, fencing, and drainage improvements under the Preferred Alternative. Avoidance alternatives that were evaluated for the entire corridor, including the No Action Alternative, are identified under corridor-wide avoidance alternatives. These alternatives were found not to be prudent and/or feasible. Avoidance alternatives specific to this site were evaluated and are discussed below. Retain Existing Slope and Drainage Culverts and Do Not Fence the Alignment If the proposed drainage improvements were not made and fencing was not added, impact to this site could be avoided. These measures are not considered prudent because the current drainage elements are not adequate to pass 100-year flows under the tracks and are in violation of RTD s safety standards. Additionally, operating a commuter rail line without fencing the 7-19 January 2011

20 tracks would be a violation of RTD s safety standards as there would be no measure to prevent pedestrians from entering the trackway Measures to Minimize Harm Near 100 th Avenue, the existing track would be shifted slightly to the west and the new passing track would be built along the west side of the re-aligned existing track. Because this resource is located on the eastern side of the existing track, shifting the alignment to the west and locating the new passing track on the west side of the realigned track serves to minimize the impact to this site. Options that were explored to minimize the impact to the Quimby Railroad Stop are described below. Move Catenary Poles to Center of the Alignment The catenary system for the EMU technology is supported by poles on both sides of the tracks. Under the Preferred Alternative, the eastern set of catenary poles would be moved to the center of the alignment in between the two tracks to reduce impacts to this site. Provide Construction Access from West Side of Alignment Only Under the Preferred Alternative, construction access will be provided from the west side of the alignment only at this location to reduce impact to this site. Do Not Construct a Passing Track at this Location Eliminating the passing track would reduce the impact to this site because the existing track could be shifted further west away from the site. Under the Preferred Alternative, the site would be impacted, but the artifact concentrations would not be disturbed. This measure is not considered a prudent measure to minimize harm to this site because eliminating the passing track would adversely impact operations and ridership for the North Metro corridor. FTA is pursuing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the SHPO, ACHP, and RTD to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties (see Draft MOA in Appendix D. FTA will consult with ACHP to determine if they would like to participate in the MOA). Additional mitigation will be refined through consultation with these groups. 124 th Avenue Farmstead (5AM2158) This site (see Figure 7-4) is 28.5 acres of former agricultural land with a house built in Several out-buildings surround the house, including a garage or storage shed, a loafing shed, and a small barn-like structure. The site is divided into two parcels by 124 th Avenue. The house and out-buildings are on the southern parcel and are set back from 124 th Avenue and are surrounded by trees and bushes. The house, which is of no particular architectural style, is oriented to face north and features a modified gambrel roof and horizontal siding that may be original. The house appears to have been modified in the years since its construction, including a small addition on the front (north) side of the house, and a shed addition to the south side of the house that extends into the yard. January

21 FIGURE TH AVENUE FARMSTEAD Section 106 Eligibility Determination and Finding of Effect This site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A because it is representative of small farms that grew produce and fruit, produced milk, and raised cattle that were consumed by the growing population of the Denver metropolitan area in the early twentieth century. Construction of the 124 th Avenue/Eastlake Station would not impact any structures but would alter the integrity of the cultural setting of this site (see Figure 7-5). The finding of effect, under Section 106, is that this impact would constitute an Adverse Effect to this resource. Description of Under Section 4(f) Under the Preferred Alternative, the 124 th Avenue/Eastlake Station would be located west of the alignment, partially within the boundaries of this resource, resulting in a direct use of this site. None of the structures would be impacted, but development of parking for the station and the realignment of Claude Court would impact 4.25 acres of the landscape, mostly north of 124 th Avenue. Approximately 15 percent (%) of the site would be incorporated into the ROW for the station, resulting in a Section 4(f) use of this resource (see Figure 7-5). No constructive or temporary use impacts are anticipated in addition to the direct use for the 124 th Avenue Station January 2011

22 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation FIGURE 7-5. SECTION 4(f) USE OF THE 124TH AVENUE FARMSTEAD Avoidance Alternatives As discussed above, a direct use of this resource would occur as a result of permanently incorporating approximately 15% of the site into the ROW for the Preferred Alternative. Avoidance alternatives that were evaluated for the entire corridor, including the No Action Alternative, are identified under corridor-wide avoidance alternatives. These alternatives were found not to be prudent and/or feasible. Avoidance alternatives specific to this site were evaluated and are discussed below. 124th Avenue Station, East of Alignment Locating the 124th Avenue Station on the east side of the alignment would impact numerous businesses and residential homes in the Eastlake neighborhood, some of which are historic structures; therefore, this would not be considered a prudent avoidance alternative. January

23 124 th Avenue Station, South of 124 th Avenue Locating the 124 th Avenue Station south of 124 th Avenue was considered. The Northglenn maintenance and operations building and the Glen Eagle Apartment complex are located directly west of the alignment at this location and would be impacted if the station were located south of 124 th Avenue. On the east side the alignment at this location, there are a number of recreational facilities maintained by the City of Thornton and several private residences that would be impacted if the station were located there; therefore, this would not be considered a prudent avoidance alternative. Shift 124 th Avenue Station to the North of Current Location Locating the 124 th Avenue Station approximately 500 feet to the north of the current location was considered. The Eastlake Granary (5AM1445) (see Figure 7-1), which is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, is located directly west of the alignment at this location and would be impacted if the station were located there; therefore, this would not be considered a prudent avoidance alternative. Eliminate 124 th Avenue Station This measure is not considered a prudent measure to minimize harm to this site because it would adversely impact operations and ridership for the North Metro corridor. Measures to Minimize Harm During development of the alignment and station options, the proposed options were modified to avoid and minimize impacts to other Section 4(f) resources. For example, the station layout (including the station platform) was modified to avoid the historic Eastlake Granary (5AM1445), which is located in and adjacent to the UP ROW on the west side of the alignment. Options that were explored to minimize the impact to the 124 th Avenue Farmstead are described below. Reduce Size of Parking Area by Reducing Parking Capacity As described in Chapter 4, Transportation, the parking demand at this site was estimated using the DRCOG Metro Vision 2035 Plan (2010), and refined based on previous experience at parkn-rides in the North Metro corridor and based on data related to parking space turnover and average automobile occupancy. The parking needs for each station were then assessed based on a variety of factors including connectivity to the surrounding transportation system and transit routes, community plans and input, and availability of land at the station site. Reducing the parking capacity would not be considered a prudent measure to minimize harm to this site because it would adversely impact operations and ridership for the North Metro corridor. Reduce Size of Parking Area by Implementing a Parking Structure The parking areas for stations were designed to accommodate the estimated 2020 parking demand. Space for additional parking based on the estimated 2035 demand was also identified and included in the footprint for each station. At this station, an area west of the realigned Claude Court was identified for additional surface parking to increase the parking capacity to meet the estimated 2035 parking demand. This station design impacted a total of 9.74 acres, approximately 34% of the historic farmstead site. Under the Preferred Alternative, this design was refined to include a parking structure in 2035 that will be built within the footprint of the 2020 surface parking area, thereby reducing the impacted area to 4.25 acres (approximately 15% of the site) January 2011

24 FTA is pursuing an MOA with the SHPO, ACHP, and RTD to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties (see Draft MOA in Appendix D. FTA will consult with ACHP to determine if they would like to participate in the MOA). Additional mitigation will be refined through consultation with these groups. Eastlake Railroad Stop (5AM2114) The Eastlake Railroad Stop site (see Figure 7-6) is the area located within the UP Railroad ROW in Eastlake, between 124 th Avenue and 128 th Avenue (the approximate boundary is shown in green on Figure 7-7). For context of this historic site relative to other sites at Eastlake, see Figure 7-7. The site contains several foundation remnants and historic artifact concentrations dating from the 1950s to present. Four of the features are found on the west side of the railroad tracks and include the foundation remnants of a beet dump (Feature A), a scale house (Feature B), a tipple (structure used for sorting and loading coal on to railcars or trucks) (Feature C), and two concrete pads with a surface vault (Feature E). There is an artifact concentration near the beet dump remnants. The other feature is located on the east side of the railroad tracks near the corner of 1 st Street and Birch Avenue, and includes a concrete pad and some concrete pillars (Feature D). There is an artifact concentration near this feature. Additional sub-surface features and artifact concentrations may also be present at this site. FIGURE 7-6. EASTLAKE RAILROAD STOP Section 106 Eligibility Determination and Finding of Effect The site is associated with the development of the Town of Eastlake and the development and expansion of sugar beet farming and industry in the area, and is likely to yield additional information important to history. This site, which is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and D, includes five features and two concentrations of artifacts dating from the 1950s to present. January

25 Construction of the Preferred Alternative would directly impact the site and potential sub-surface features and artifacts that have not been identified and that could be impacted (see Figure 7-7). The preliminary finding of effect, under Section 106, is that this impact would constitute an Adverse Effect to this resource. FIGURE 7-7. SECTION 4(f) USE OF EASTLAKE RAILROAD STOP Description of Under Section 4(f) The Preferred Alternative would run through the center of this site with a new passing track east of the existing UP Railroad track (see Figure 7-7). Along the alignment, power poles that would be implemented for the catenary system would impact the site directly. The 124 th Avenue/ Eastlake Station would be located west of the alignment and the footprint would encroach into the southern portion of the resource. The identified features of the site are avoided, but the Preferred Alternative could impact sub-surface features and artifacts that have not been identified. These direct impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in a 7-25 January 2011

26 Section 4(f) use of this site. No constructive or temporary use impacts are anticipated in addition to the direct use for the Preferred Alternative. Avoidance Alternatives As discussed above, a direct use of this resource would occur from development of the Preferred Alternative. Avoidance alternatives that were evaluated for the entire corridor, including the No Action Alternative, are identified under corridor-wide avoidance alternatives. These were not considered prudent or feasible. Site specific avoidance alternatives were also considered, but no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid this site were identified because the boundary of the site includes the entire width of the UP Railroad ROW at this location, and because moving the proposed commuter rail line outside the railroad ROW would impact existing businesses and residences. Measures to Minimize Harm During the development of the alignment and station options, the proposed options were modified to avoid and minimize impacts to cultural resources wherever possible. For example, the station layout (including the station platform) was modified to avoid the historic Eastlake Granary (5AM1445), which is located in and adjacent to the UP ROW on the west side of the alignment. Options that were explored to further minimize the impact to the site are described below. Move Parking at the 124 th Avenue/Eastlake Station Back from the Alignment The alternative presented in the DEIS with parking on the west side of the tracks, located the parking outside of the site, so that Feature E was not impacted. By locating the parking and bus loading outside of the existing railroad ROW and connecting these elements to the station platform with walkways, the impacts to the Eastlake Railroad Stop could be minimized. This alternative was evaluated and further refined with the City of Thornton. Locating the parking further from the platform was found not to be prudent because it would be less convenient for transit users. It would also result in an increased impact to the historic farmstead (5AM2158) because the parking would be moved further into this other historic site. Reconfigure Bus Loop at Station As discussed above, the station design at this location has undergone a series of refinements to serve transit users effectively while minimizing impacts to historic resources. Because locating the parking completely outside of the existing railroad ROW was deemed not to be prudent, the design was refined to bring the parking and bus loading and unloading area closer to the station platform. However, the bus loop was reconfigured to avoid impact to Feature E of this site. FTA is pursuing an MOA with the SHPO, ACHP, and RTD to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties (see Draft MOA in Appendix D. FTA will consult with ACHP to determine if they would like to participate in the MOA). Additional mitigation will be refined through consultation with these groups. De minimis Impact As explained previously, a de minimis impact would not have an adverse effect on the qualities that qualify a historic resource for protection under Section 4(f). With a de minimis impact finding, an evaluation of alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts to a resource is not required. A written concurrence from SHPO on a finding of No Adverse Effect or No Historic Properties Affected is required for a finding of de minimis impact for historic properties. January

27 SHPO has provided written concurrence on a finding of No Adverse Effect for eight archaeological sites and one historic site at which direct impacts are anticipated because the impacts are not anticipated to be harmful to those characteristics that qualify the resources for inclusion in the NRHP (see Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). Therefore, a finding of de minimis impact was made for these resources as discussed below. A finding of de minimis impact is also anticipated for one additional archaeological site (BNSF Railway), for which a preliminary finding of No Adverse Effect has been made. SHPO is currently reviewing FTA s finding of effect for this site. BNSF Railway (5AM64 and 5DV6247) In the County of Denver, two small slivers of BNSF ROW would be impacted at two locations. The BNSF Railway is relocating tracks within the 23 rd Street Yard (5DV6247.6) to improve its operations and provide an easement for the Preferred Alternative. In Adams County, the Preferred Alternative would parallel the BNSF Railway outside the BNSF Railway ROW and would span the BNSF ROW north of the Brighton Boulevard/York Street intersection. National Western Historic District (5DV10050) The Preferred Alternative would impact the area of the National Western Historic District property adjacent to BNSF Railway property, as well as an access road from Brighton Boulevard to the National Western Stock Show property. These property impacts also result in impacts to the on-site operations which can be mitigated. In addition the proposed station location would impact an existing parking area. Historic Marker (5DV10616) The marker would be removed and relocated to a nearby location. The precise location of the marker is not significant as it is not located directly on the historic trail it describes. Brighton Boulevard (5DV10617) Brighton Boulevard, south of York Street, would be relocated approximately 10 feet east of its current alignment. Clear Creek Ditch (Lower Clear Creek Canal) (5AM80) The existing UP Railroad bridge over Lower Clear Creek Canal would be replaced with three box culverts. The ditch would not be realigned, but drainage improvements would be made and the east/west banks at the crossing would be graded. A lateral ditch to Lower Clear Creek Canal has been abandoned and will be filled, and the culvert will be removed. Burlington Ditch (5AM465) The Preferred Alternative would cross the Burlington Ditch (also referred to in this document as O Brian Canal) three times with bridge structures. The ditch would not be realigned, but a section of the ditch would be lined to narrow the width and match the existing lined ditch north and south of that section. UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline (5AM472) The existing grade in some locations would be modified to accommodate a second passing track. The track would be removed for new overpasses at 104 th Avenue and 120 th Avenue. The alignment would be shifted slightly in six areas to improve operations, but these realignments would not alter the historic character of the railroad corridor. In addition, fencing will be added throughout the entire length of the corridor and several features such as bridges and culverts, would be impacted as well. At the site of the Darlow siding (5AM472.1), ballast for the existing track would be replaced, directly impacting the site. The power poles for the catenary system of the EMU vehicle technology would be placed on the east side of the alignment at this location and construction access would be provided on the east side of the alignment only at this location to minimize impacts to the Darlow site. A tail track would be provided on the existing railroad north of the SH 7/162 nd Avenue Station January 2011

28 Signal Ditch (5AM473) An existing siphon would be replaced and a new headwall and trash rack would be constructed, but the ditch alignment would not be altered. German Ditch (5AM471) The alignment crosses the ditch at five locations. The first (most southern) location would cross the ditch twice via an existing bridge structure that also crosses over E-470. This structure would not be replaced. The third crossing location would require the replacement of an existing culvert (the replacement would be longer for floodplain purposes). At the fourth and fifth crossing locations, the existing culverts would likely be replaced including replacement of a siphon at the fifth crossing. The ditch alignment would not change at any of these locations. UP Railroad Borrow-pit (5AM2402) Adverse impacts to this site were avoided by implementing a retaining wall as mitigation to avoid substantial encroachment into the borrow-pit. However, construction activities necessary to build the retaining wall would intrude slightly into the borrow-pit. SHPO provided written concurrence with the finding of effects (No Adverse Effect) for these resources (finding of effect for BNSF Railway is currently being reviewed by the SHPO). RTD will inform the SHPO of the intent to make a finding of de minimis impact when written concurrence on the finding of effect for the BNSF Railway is received (see Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). No Section 4(f) Use There were several sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP with a Section 106 finding of No Adverse Effect for which it was determined that the Preferred Alternative would have no Section 4(f) use. This analysis is presented below. Historic Residences Along the Proposed Alignment There are two subdivisions located along the proposed alignment with residences that are eligible or assumed to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. These include residences in a subdivision in Thornton, north of 88 th Avenue; and the Northglenn 18 th Filing in Northglenn, north of 112 th Avenue. The residences in these subdivisions are not impacted directly by the project, but the cultural resource impacts analysis indicates that their proximity to the alignment would result in indirect visual impacts due to the catenary system of the EMU technology. These elements are characterized as a visual intrusion. The preliminary Section 106 finding of effect for these resources, as documented in Section 3.4, Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources, is No Adverse Effect due to indirect visual impacts. A simulation of the anticipated visual intrusion has been prepared for each subdivision and can be found in Section 3.4. Although there are visual changes for these residences, which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, these changes would not be severe enough to substantially impair the qualities that qualify these resources for inclusion in the NRHP. Therefore, the indirect visual impacts would not constitute a constructive use as defined by Section 4(f). Historic Residences on Yucca Way The visual impact at this location would result from the catenary system. The area east of these homes is comprised of the existing UP Railroad, industrial and residential land uses, and a local road (Welby Road). There are aerial power lines along the rear property line of these homes. These are the elements that comprise the immediate views to the east from these homes. The addition of overhead catenary wires and poles would not substantially impair the vistas of this community. Therefore, the indirect visual impacts would not constitute a constructive use as defined by Section 4(f). January

29 Historic Residences on Claude Court The visual impact at this location would result from the catenary system. The area east of these homes is comprised of the existing UP Railroad, industrial and residential land uses, and an arterial roadway (York Street). There are aerial power lines along the rear property line of these homes. These are the elements that comprise the immediate views to the east from these homes. The addition of overhead catenary wires and poles would not substantially impair the vistas of this community. Therefore, the indirect visual impacts would not constitute a constructive use as defined by Section 4(f) Public Parks and Recreational Resources Section 4(f) applies to significant publicly-owned and publicly-accessible parks and recreation areas. Pursuant to 23 CFR (c), Section 4(f) resources are presumed to be significant unless the official having jurisdiction over the site concludes that the entire site is not significant. As described in Section 7.2.5, Approach/Methodology, and Section 7.2.6, Consultation and Coordination, coordination with local jurisdictions was undertaken to determine the applicability of Section 4(f) to parklands and recreational resources that might be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. The parklands and recreational resources for which Section 4(f) is applicable are listed in Table 7-3. These resources are owned and maintained by one of the five affected jurisdictions: CCD, Commerce City, Adams County, City of Northglenn, or City of Thornton. A Section 4(f) use of one resource is anticipated under the Preferred Alternative as explained under Section 4(f) Use. Other resources for which Section 4(f) is not applicable or no Section 4(f) use is anticipated are described below. Direct Impacts to Non-Section 4(f) Parks and Recreational Resources Direct impacts to three additional parkland resources were identified, but it was determined that Section 4(f) was not applicable. The Yucca Way Property north of 88 th Avenue on the west side of the alignment is a proposed park and recreation area that is currently undeveloped. The City of Thornton indicated that the major purpose and function of this property was not for recreation and that it is not a significant recreational resource. Therefore, the Yucca Way Property does not meet the criteria for Section 4(f). There are two directly impacted parks that are privately-owned. These include Cherrywood III Park and Fallbrook Farms Detention/Playground. Because they are not publicly-owned, these resources do not meet the criteria for Section 4(f). Direct impacts to five pedestrian facilities/trails were identified, but it was determined that Section 4(f) was not applicable. Four of these are pedestrian facilities identified in park plans for the City of Northglenn and the City of Thornton as providing connectivity for the recreational trail system in those jurisdictions. These include 112 th Avenue Detached Multi-Use Path/South Sidewalk, Eastlake Reservoir #1 Sidewalk/Local Trail, 128 th Avenue Sidewalk, and 136 th Avenue Sidewalk North and South. The City of Northglenn and the City of Thornton indicated that the major purpose and function of these facilities was not recreation. Therefore, these facilities do not meet criteria for Section 4(f). There is one privately-owned trail, Fallbrook Farms Trail, which is directly impacted. Because this is not publicly-owned, this resource does not meet the criteria for Section 4(f). There are three schools with recreational sports facilities directly adjacent to the Preferred Alternative. These include Skyview High School, Century Middle School, and Rocky Top Middle School. Public access to these recreational sports facilities is limited, and therefore, these facilities do not meet the criteria for Section 4(f). Potential impacts to these and other schools in the project area are discussed in Section 3.1, Social Impacts and Environmental Justice, 7-29 January 2011

30 Section 3.3, Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses, and Section 3.6, Parklands and Recreation Areas, of this FEIS. Indirect Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources with No Section 4(f) Use There are a number of parklands and recreational resources along the Section 4(f) project study area that are not directly impacted but which were evaluated for potential constructive use due to impacts associated with noise, visual quality, access, ecological impacts, and safety. As described in Section 3.6, Parklands and Recreation Areas, no indirect impacts to parklands or recreational resources associated with noise or ecological impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Users of five recreational trails would experience changes in visual quality associated with realignments, grade-separated crossings, and new noise walls. These five trails provide regional trail access and include the regional trail access from the Fernald Trailhead, Signal Ditch Trail, Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail, Settlers Chase Condo Unnamed Trail, and Haven Trail) Access impacts are also documented for several resources but are beneficial in nature. These indirect impacts would not substantially impair the function of parklands and recreational resources, and thus would not constitute a constructive use of Section 4(f) resources. Temporary Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources with No Section 4(f) Use South Platte River Trail - Crossing Location #2: near Globeville Landing Park The alignment would cross the South Platte River Trail with a new bridge north of 38 th Street adjacent to the existing BNSF Railway Bridge. No direct impacts to the trail or greenway would occur and the bridge would provide approximately 16 feet of clearance. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction of the bridge. During this time, a trail detour would be provided. CCD concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy on 17 September 2010 (See letter and concurrence form in Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). Therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) use of the resource. Glen Eagle Apartments Unnamed Trail The Preferred Alternative includes roadway improvements along Claude Court and 124 th Avenue to mitigate traffic impacts associated with the 124 th Avenue Station. Roadway construction at this location could result in a temporary trail closure of short duration. During this time, a trail detour would be provided. In a letter dated 30 April 2010, the City of Northglenn concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy as defined in Section 4(f) (see letter in Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). Therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) use of the resource. Temporary impacts for parks and recreational resources that are also directly impacted are discussed under Section 4(f) Use. Proposed Resources with No Section 4(f) Use There are 18 proposed resources in the Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area, of which 17 are proposed recreational trails and one is a proposed park. The proposed park, Eastlake Reservoir #1 Park, is not on publicly-owned land and is not anticipated to be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. With the exception of the proposed E-470 Trail, all the proposed trails are conceptual in nature and no construction plans have been developed. The proposed E-470 Trail would not be impacted because the railroad structure that currently goes over E-470 was designed to accommodate a trail crossing with approximately 30 feet of clearance. As reviewed with each jurisdiction, none of the conceptual trails would be precluded by the Preferred January

31 Alternative. Based on this analysis, there was no Section 4(f) use of the proposed trails and park. Section 4(f) Use The Preferred Alternative would result in a direct use of 13 parkland and recreational resources along the Section 4(f) project study area. A full Section 4(f) evaluation was completed for Globeville Landing Park. A finding of de minimis impact has been determined for the other 12 resources where a direct use was identified (see letters in Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). These resources are identified in Table January 2011

32 TABLE 7-3. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Resource Name Resource Description Location Southern Section DUS Access to 84 th Avenue Size (acres) Modes of Access Official with Jurisdiction South Platte River Trail Greenway (First Crossing) 2 Regional multi-use trail West of Park Avenue NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City and County of Denver Sand Creek Greenway Trail Regional multi-use trail and greenway I-270 and SH 265 NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Commerce City South Platte River Trail Greenway (Second Crossing) Regional multi-use trail Northwest of 38 th Street NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City and County of Denver Globeville Landing Park Bicycle/pedestrian pathway, fishing, frisbee golf, picnic tables, and a plaza Platte River Drive and I Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City and County of Denver Fernald Trailhead and Regional Trail Access Multi-use trail East 70 th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Commerce City January Impacts 1 Section 4(f) Use Determination New bridge would have a pier in greenway Potential closure/ detour during construction New bridge would span trail and greenway Temporary protection structure would maintain trail access during construction New bridge would span trail and greenway Potential closure/ detour during construction 0.66 acre of park area impacted; 11 trees removed and up to 3 frisbee golf holes impacted Trail realigned and new trail underpass provided Potential closure/ detour during construction (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy No Use No Use (temporary occupancy) (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy

33 TABLE 7-3. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Resource Name South Platte River Trail Greenway (Third Crossing) Resource Description Location Regional multi-use trail South Platte River Trail Multi-use trail Niver Creek Trail Extension 2 East 78 th Avenue and Steele Street East 78 th Avenue and Steele Street Size (acres) NA NA Modes of Access Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Official with Jurisdiction Adams County Adams County Impacts Improvements on existing bridge over trail and greenway with two new caissons in greenway to support catenary system Temporary protection structure would maintain trail access during construction No impact outside of direct impact area 1 Section 4(f) Use Determination (de minimis impact) No Use Niver Creek Trail Multi-use trail Northern Section 84 th Avenue to 162 nd Avenue Area Colorado Agricultural Trail Grandview Ponds Open Space and Prairie Dog Habitat Settlers Chase Condos Unnamed Local Trail Local multi-use trail Park and designated open space open recreation areas, parking, fishing, trash cans, signs, and prairie dog habitat Local multi-use trail East 70 th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard East of 88 th Avenue and Devonshire Boulevard Colorado Boulevard and South of 104 th Avenue West side of UP Railroad tracks between 102 nd Avenue and 104 th Avenue NA NA 43.7 NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Adams County City of Thornton City of Thornton City of Thornton No impact impact avoided through slope variance Approximately 1,100 feet of the trail realigned Potential closure/ detour during construction 0.17 acre of park area impacted due to drainage and roadway improvements No direct impact to trail. Minor impacts to parcel used for trail. No Use (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) 7-33 January 2011

34 TABLE 7-3. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Resource Name Fox Run Open Space and Trail Network Resource Description Location Open natural area for wildlife, multi-use trail, playground, information signs, benches, and a basketball court 108 th Drive and Fox Run Parkway Size (acres) 55.1 Modes of Access Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Official with Jurisdiction City of Northglenn Grange Hall Creek Trail Regional mult3use trail providing access to Fox Run Open Space and Trail network Fox Run Parkway between 108 th Avenue and 109 th Avenue NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City of Northglenn Glen Eagle Apartments Unnamed Trail Recreational area multi-use trail 120 th Avenue to 124 th Avenue along Claude Court NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City of Northglenn Eastlake Railroad Property Open recreation area, maintained but undeveloped 124 th Avenue to 128 th Avenue along the UP Railroad 7.2 Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City of Thornton Signal Ditch Trail Multi-use trail York Street north of 129 th Avenue NA Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City of Thornton Larry Walker Ball Fields Baseball fields, playground, and picnic area York Street north of 138 th Avenue 18.8 Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian City of Thornton January Impacts 1 Section 4(f) Use Determination 0.38 acre of park area impacted due to drainage improvements (de minimis impact) Existing trail underpass extended Potential closure/ detour during construction Potential closure/ detour during construction 0.85 acre of park area impacted due to drainage improvements and station walkway Trail realigned to cross the alignment at 128 th Avenue Potential closure/ detour during construction (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy No Use (temporary occupancy) (de minimis impact) (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy 0.02 acre of parking area impacted (de minimis impact)

35 TABLE 7-3. SUMMARY OF SECTION 4(f) USE PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Resource Name Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail Resource Description Location Recreational area access trail Haven Trail Multi-use trail East 140 th Avenue west of Detroit Street West side of UP railroad tracks between 144 th Avenue and 152 nd Avenue Size (acres) NA NA Modes of Access Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian Official with Jurisdiction City of Thornton City of Thornton Impacts New trail underpass provided Potential closure/ detour during construction Drainage improvements would require reconstruction of two small trail segments Potential closure/ detour during construction 1 Section 4(f) Use Determination (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy (de minimis impact) and temporary occupancy Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 Indirect impacts are not included in this table because no indirect impacts resulted in constructive use. Temporary construction impacts are not included in this table because no temporary impacts resulted in temporary use. 2 Section 6(f) resource. % = percent I-# = Interstate # (i.e., I-70, I-270, etc.) NA = not applicable SH # = State Highway # UP = Union Pacific 7-35 January 2011

36 Resulting in Section 4(f) Full Evaluation Globeville Landing Park The Globeville Landing Park is a 9.8-acre park located near the intersection of Platte River Drive and I-70 (see Figure 7-8). This park is adjacent to the South Platte River to the west, the existing BNSF tracks to the north, the Denver Coliseum to the east, and industrial buildings to the south. The Globeville Landing Park amenities include a bicycle/pedestrian path, fishing, picnic tables, parking, a frisbee golf course, and a plaza. The park is frequented by pedestrians, cyclists, runners, rollerbladers, and other outdoor recreational users. Because the park is adjacent to the BNSF tracks and the parking area for the National Western Stock Show, recreational users at this facility currently experience vehicular and train noise. The South Platte River Trail provides access to the park for residents in the neighborhood northeast of the South Platte River, as well as people in downtown Denver. Globeville Landing Park is owned by CCD, is open to the public at all times, is primarily used for park and recreation purposes, and is considered a significant park resource in the Globeville community. FIGURE 7-8. AREA OF GLOBEVILLE LANDING PARK ALONG THE UP RAILROAD ALIGNMENT Description of Under Section 4(f) The Preferred Alternative would incorporate up to 0.54 acre along the northern edge of the park (see Figure 7-9). This impact would comprise approximately 5% of the park area and would remove some of the trees (approximately 11) along the northern edge of the park. Up to three frisbee golf holes would be affected. Additionally, approximately 0.12 acre could be temporarily disturbed during construction. Representatives from the CCD Parks Department indicated a new master plan would be necessary to reconfigure the frisbee golf course. Park amenities, including the South Platte River Trail, fishing, picnic tables, parking, and a plaza would not be impacted as a result of the Preferred Alternative. It is not anticipated that the overall function of the park would be impaired by the Project, but the impacts as described would constitute an adverse impact and a direct use of this resource. January

37 FIGURE 7-9. SECTION 4(f) USE OF GLOBEVILLE LANDING PARK As discussed in Section 3.6, Parklands and Recreation Areas, some indirect impacts to the Globeville Landing Park would occur under the Preferred Alternative. These impacts would include a temporary reduction in pedestrian/bicycle access during construction and long-term changes to the surrounding visual quality. The visual quality impacts are negligible because except for the catenary, the North Metro commuter rail line would look similar to the BNSF rail line which currently exists. These indirect impacts would not result in a constructive use of the Globeville Landing Park. Avoidance Alternatives As discussed above, a direct use of this resource would occur as a result of permanently incorporating approximately 5% of the park area adjacent to the BNSF ROW into the ROW for the Preferred Alternative. Avoidance alternatives that were evaluated for the entire corridor, including the No Action Alternative, are identified under corridor-wide avoidance alternatives 7-37 January 2011

38 and were found not to be prudent and/or feasible. Additionally, avoidance alternatives specific to this site were evaluated. UP Railroad Alignment in Southern Section: The UP Railroad Alignment was considered in this segment of the project but would not be prudent because of the high cost of the UP Railroad ROW in the Southern Section. The BNSF Alignment is more cost-effective. UP West of UP Railyard Alignment: As an option to the original UP Alignment Alternative south of Sand Creek Junction, the modified UP West of UP Railyard Alignment alternative would have been outside the UP ROW in the proposed East corridor rail line and then west of the UP Railyard staying outside the UP ROW. This UP Alignment alternative outside the UP ROW would have a greater number of residential acquisitions than similar alternatives along the BNSF. UP Over of UP Railyard Alignment: Another option to the original UP Alignment Alternative south of Sand Creek Junction described above was a modified UP Over UP Railyard Alignment alternative which would have been outside the UP ROW in the proposed East corridor and then gone over the UP rail line and the existing UP Railyard, staying outside the UP ROW (see Section , Alignment Alternatives, for a more detailed description). As with the other modified UP Alignment alternative, it would have a greater number of residential acquisitions than a similar alternative along the BNSF alignment. Also, siting acceptable locations for bridge piers in the UP Railyard would be difficult due to the number of tracks within the yard and required track to pier clearances. Alignment on West Side of BNSF Brush Subdivision: At this location, the proposed alignment would be located on the east side of the existing BNSF Brush Subdivision ROW. If the alignment were located on the west side of the BNSF ROW, the park could be avoided, but it would impact operations at the BNSF railyard that is located on the east side of the railroad tracks and abutting I-25 just south of this location. This avoidance alternative would not be prudent because impacts to the railyard would have costs of an extraordinary magnitude. There would be no feasible and prudent alternative to avoid a direct use of this resource. Measures to Minimize Harm During the development of the alignment and stations, the designs were modified to avoid and minimize impacts to parklands and recreational resources wherever possible. Options that were explored to further minimize the impact to the Globeville Landing Park are described below. National Western Stock Show Station: The selection of this station as part of the Preferred Alternative minimized the potential impacts to the park. The other station in the Denver target area that was evaluated in the DEIS was directly adjacent to the park and would have more impact on the park. Because the Preferred Alternative does not include a station platform along the alignment adjacent to the park, the width of the alignment ROW was narrowed in this area thus reducing impacts to the park. Retaining Wall Along Northern Edge of Park: The implementation of a retaining wall along the northern edge of the park east of the commuter rail alignment to reduce the amount of impact along the alignment was considered. This measure was determined not to be prudent because work required to construct the wall would increase the area of the park that would be impacted and would only slightly reduce the area of the park to be incorporated into ROW for the Preferred Alternative. January

39 Mitigation Master Plan Funding: RTD will provide funding for a master plan to reconfigure the frisbee golf course. Reconfiguring the frisbee golf course layout to function within the area of the park outside of the proposed North Metro ROW would minimize the impact to the park. Monetary Compensation for Replacement of Trees: The trees along the northern edge of the park currently provide some visual buffer between the BNSF Brush Subdivision and the park. The alignment would incorporate a strip of land adjacent to the BNSF and remove some of these trees, reducing the visual buffer between the freight and commuter rail operations and the recreational activities in the park. Based on coordination with CCD on the value of the trees to be removed, RTD will provide monetary compensation for replacement of the trees. Fencing: RTD s ROW will be fenced. Restoration for Temporary Impacts: Areas outside of the ROW that may be temporarily impacted will be restored to a condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. Continued Coordination: RTD will continue to coordinate with CCD during final design to further minimize impacts. The intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to be developed with CCD will include specific details on the park mitigation. De minimis Impact As explained in Section , a de minimis impact is an impact that would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). With a de minimis impact finding, an evaluation of alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts to a resource is not required. A written concurrence from the agency with jurisdiction is required for a finding of de minimis impact. A finding of de minimis impact has been determined for 12 resources where minor impacts were identified (see letters in Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). These recreational resources are described below. South Platte River Trail Crossing Location #1: near Arkins Court/Denargo Street Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, the alignment would cross over the South Platte River Trail west of Arkins Court/Denargo Street on a new bridge structure adjacent to the existing BNSF railroad bridge. No direct impacts to the trail would occur and the new bridge would provide approximately 18 feet of clearance. A bridge pier would impact the greenway near the east bank of the river. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction of the bridge. Mitigation: RTD will provide lighting under the bridge for the trail. The trail and greenway will be restored to a condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to construction of the new bridge. Closure of the trail during construction will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Before beginning construction, an adequate trail detour, including advanced notice and signing will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Use of trail detours will be limited to only those periods of construction activity that are necessary for safety. When the trail is closed during construction, a detour route will be provided. Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impact to the greenway would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). On September 17, 2010, CCD concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the direct impacts 7-39 January 2011

40 to the greenway would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). This segment of the South Platte River Trail and associated greenway was constructed with a LWCF grant. Therefore, a Section 6(f) Evaluation of this resource is presented in Section 7.3, Section 6(f) Evaluation. Crossing Location #3: near 78 th Avenue and Steele Street Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, the alignment would cross the South Platte River Trail on an existing railroad bridge north of 78 th Avenue. The existing bridge would be improved including minor repairs, replacement of timber ties, and addition of the catenary system and an emergency walkway. A minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet would be maintained for the trail. No direct impacts to the trail would occur, but two caissons (catenary pole foundations) would be constructed within the greenway (one on each side of the river). The duration of construction within the greenway is estimated at four months. Mitigation: Trail access will be maintained during construction through the use of a temporary safety structure over the trail. Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impacts to the greenway associated with the trail would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 29 November 2010, Adams County concurred that catenary pole foundations in the greenway would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). Regional Trail Access from the Fernald Trailhead Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, the alignment would create a new crossing of the regional trail access from the Fernald Trailhead west of the USDOT Crossing W. Because pedestrian crossings outside of controlled intersections or station platforms are not permissible for the proposed commuter rail line, a trail underpass would be provided approximately 300 feet north of the current crossing location to maintain connectivity across the alignment. The trail would be realigned to cross underneath the proposed commuter rail alignment and the existing railroad alignment creating approximately 600 feet of out-ofdirection travel. Under The Preferred Alternative, the existing segment of the trail that crosses the UP Railroad (USDOT Crossing Number W) would be retained for potential future use by the proposed O Brian Canal Trail. The trail would reconnect with its existing alignment on the west side of O Brian Canal and would allow trail users to cross the alignment without delays. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction. Realignment of the trail and provision of an underpass would cause visual changes for trail users. Mitigation: When the trail is closed during construction, trail users could be accommodated across the alignment either at the existing at-grade crossing location or via the new trail underpass. Closure of trails during construction will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Before beginning construction, adequate trail detours, including advanced notice and signing will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Use of trail detours will be limited to only those periods of construction activity that are necessary for safety. Conclusion: Removal of the existing segment of this trail across the UP Railroad alignment would be a direct use of this resource as defined in Section 4(f). However, the implementation of a new trail underpass would allow trail users to cross the alignment without delays. With the proposed mitigation, the anticipated impact to the regional trail access from Fernald Trailhead would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In addition, the January

41 proposed pedestrian connection to the 72 nd Avenue Station would improve access to these facilities. In a letter dated 7 April 2010, Commerce City concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the direct impacts to the trail would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). The indirect visual impacts would not substantially impair the function of this resource and thus would not constitute a constructive use as defined in Section 4(f). Colorado Agricultural Trail Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, the portion of the Colorado Agricultural Trail within the 88 th Avenue Station footprint would be realigned to accommodate the station design. The trail, which currently crosses private land in a public easement between Welby Road and the Colorado Agricultural Ditch, would be realigned slightly to the east but would remain on the west side of the ditch. The new trail alignment would follow the perimeter of the station adjacent to landscaping and water features planned for the station. A walkway between the trail and the station platform would be provided. In this area, the trail would no longer follow Welby Road, which is proposed to be relocated east of the canal by others. At the north end of the station area, the realigned trail would connect with the portion of the trail that will be realigned by others as part of the Welby Road relocation. The existing trail connection to the 88 th Avenue sidewalk would be reconstructed to accommodate the roadway improvements at the 88 th Avenue and Welby Road intersection. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction. Mitigation: The new section of trail would be constructed prior to demolition of the existing trail alignment. Trail access would be maintained during construction via either the existing or new trail alignment. Before beginning construction, advanced notice and signing of the trail detour will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impacts to the trail would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the direct impacts to the trail would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). Settlers Chase Condos Unnamed Local Trail Impacts: There would be no direct impacts to this trail, but approximately 0.63 acre of the City of Thornton parcel used for the trail would be impacted. Most of the impact would be due to construction activities associated with a new noise wall, drainage improvements, and the 104 th Avenue Station parking area. Permanent impacts to the parcel would be associated with two new pedestrian connections between the trail and the station and a drainage inlet. The adjacent construction activities would not require a temporary closure/detour for this trail. Indirect impacts would include changes in access and visual quality. Proximity to the 104 th Avenue Station and two pedestrian connections to the station would improve access to this trail and could increase use of this trail. The commuter rail line would be elevated at this location and the new connections to the station parking area would be provided under the elevated tracks; one near the north end of the station and another just south of the station platform. Access to the station platform from the parking area would be via elevators or stairs on the east side of the alignment. The elevated structure for the commuter rail bridge, and the addition of a noise wall parallel to this trail would result in changes to visual quality. Mitigation: The area of the trail parcel that is temporarily disturbed during construction would be returned to a condition at least as good as the pre construction condition January 2011

42 Conclusion: The direct impacts to the parcel would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the minor impacts to the parcel used for the trail would constitute a de minimis impact. The indirect impacts would not substantially impair the function of this resource, and thus would not constitute a constructive use. Grandview Ponds Open Space and Prairie Dog Habitat Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, the 104 th Avenue Station footprint would impact two areas of this resource along Colorado Boulevard totaling 0.17 acre of the site. These impacts represent a fraction of a percent of the area of this resource and are not anticipated to impair the recreational function of this resource. The first area of impact is associated with a drainage pipe that crosses under Colorado Boulevard and currently terminates in the open space area. The pipe must be upsized and relocated approximately 20 feet to the south. Once this work is completed, the disturbed area will be regraded for continued use as open space. The second area of impact is associated with a new traffic signal that will be installed on Colorado Boulevard across from the northern station access. It is anticipated that this improvement will impact a narrow sliver of land from the open space parcel. The impacted portions of the open space are designated prairie dog habitat. Construction activities could inconvenience park users and could temporarily restrict access. Mitigation: Once the installation of the drainage pipe is completed, the disturbed area will be regraded for continued use as open space. Mitigation for loss of prairie dog colonies is discussed in Section 3.9, Mitigation. Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impacts to the parcel would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the direct impacts to the open space would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). Fox Run Open Space and Trail Network Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, grading associated with drainage improvements along the alignment would impact 0.38 acre of this resource adjacent to the railroad ROW. These impacts represent a fraction of a percent of the total area of the park and are not anticipated to impair the recreational function of this resource. A temporary reduction in pedestrian access could occur during construction due to a temporary closure/detour of the Grange Hall Creek Trail (see discussion below). Mitigation: Once the drainage improvements are completed, the disturbed area will be regraded for continued use as open space. Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impacts to the parcel would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). The indirect impact would not substantially impair the function of this resource, and thus would not constitute a constructive use under Section 4(f). On 30 April 2010, the City of Northglenn concurred that the direct impacts to the park would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). January

43 Grange Hall Creek Trail Impacts: The Grange Hall Creek Trail would continue to cross under the alignment at the current crossing location via a trail underpass in a box culvert. However, to accommodate the extra width of a relocated railroad spur, the existing trail underpass would be extended about 20 feet. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction. Mitigation: Closure of trails during construction will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Before beginning construction, adequate trail detours, including advanced notice and signing will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Use of trail detours will be limited to only those periods of construction activity that are necessary for safety. Conclusion: The direct impacts to the parcel would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). On 30 April 2010, the City of Northglenn concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the modifications to the trail underpass would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). Eastlake Railroad Property Impacts: This resource is designated open space with recreational trails that is also intended for a future transit station. Planning for these two uses has progressed concurrently. These facts were confirmed by the City Council resolution passed and adopted on 22 September 2009, and the subsequent letter from the Assistant City Manager, Joyce Hunt, dated 23 September 2009 (see Appendix F, Agency Correspondence). Therefore, per 23 CFR (i), Section 4(f) is not applicable to the portion of this resource that was reserved for transportation use per City Council resolution The Preferred Alternative has been designed to use the area designated for future transit and minimize impacts to the area designated for open space and recreational use. The Preferred Alternative would impact 0.85 acre of the open space/recreational area of this resource. Drainage improvements on both sides of the alignment at 128 th Avenue would cause impacts near the northern end of the resource. As part of the 124 th Avenue/Eastlake Station, a proposed walkway connecting between the station platform and 1 st Street would impact a small portion of the open space area. A narrow strip (approximately 10 feet) along the east side of the alignment between Lake Avenue and 128 th Avenue would be temporarily impacted due to construction activities associated with the addition of a passing track in this area. Mitigation: The area impacted by drainage improvements will be regraded so as not to impact recreational/open space use. The area temporarily impacted by construction activities to build a passing track will be returned to a condition at least as good as the preconstruction condition. Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impacts to the parcel would not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the impacts to the open space would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f) January 2011

44 Signal Ditch Trail Impacts: The trail would be realigned and accommodated across the alignment via a surface connection along 128 th Avenue. RTD would pursue elimination of the existing at-grade crossing location (USDOT Crossing Number T) and the portion of the trail that crosses the UP Railroad ROW would be removed. Trail users would be routed along the east side of the tracks via the existing UP Railroad Trail and across the alignment at-grade via a new trail/multi-use path along 128 th Avenue. The proposed realignment would add approximately 620 feet to the length of the trail. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction. Realignment of the trail would cause changes in visual quality for trail users. Mitigation: The existing pedestrian facility along 128 th Avenue is a narrow, attached sidewalk. In order to facilitate the realignment of the Signal Ditch Trail to this location, the existing sidewalk would be upgraded to a 10-foot wide multi-use path between the UPRR Trail on the east side of the alignment and the Signal Ditch Trail west of the alignment. On the west side of the alignment, the existing trail access to the school is approximately 10 feet from the tracks within RTD s commuter rail ROW. To maintain safety for students using the trail, a 42-inch high barrier will be added in addition to fencing between the trail and the tracks. During construction, access for Signal Ditch Trail users and students would be preserved via the existing at-grade crossing or the proposed new trail alignment. Closure of trails during construction will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Before beginning construction, adequate trail detours, including advanced notice and signing will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Use of trail detours will be limited to only those periods of construction activity that are necessary for safety. Conclusion: Removal of the existing segment of this trail across the UP Railroad alignment would be a direct use of this resource as defined in Section 4(f). However, the realignment of the trail to 128 th Avenue would allow users to cross the alignment with minimal or no delay. The anticipated impact to the Signal Ditch Trail would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the direct impacts to the trail would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). The indirect visual impacts would not substantially impair the function of this resource and thus would not constitute a constructive use as defined in Section 4(f). Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail Under the Preferred Alternative, access across the alignment would be provided, but RTD would pursue the elimination of the existing at-grade crossing (USDOT Crossing L). The trail would be accommodated across the alignment via a trail underpass enabling trail users to cross the alignment safely with no delays. The underpass would be 20 feet wide and 20 feet long and located directly north of the current crossing location. The underpass ramps extending east and west from the commuter rail ROW would reconnect with the existing trail alignment. The existing segment of the trail across the tracks would be removed. The existing connection between this trail and the Fallbrook Farms Trail would also be removed and relocated to the east where the underpass ramp would reach the existing grade. This will create some out-of-direction travel for users traveling east on the Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail and intending to travel northbound on the Fallbrook Farms Trail. This would also create some out-of-direction travel for Fallbrook January

45 Farms Trail users traveling south and connecting to the Rocky Top Middle School Trail to cross the alignment. The out-of-direction travel for these trail users is minimal. A temporary trail closure of short duration would be required during construction. Provision of an underpass would cause changes in visual quality for trail users. Mitigation: During construction, access for Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail users and students would be preserved via the existing at-grade crossing or the proposed new trail underpass. Closure of trails during construction will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Before beginning construction, adequate trail detours, including advanced notice and signing will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Use of trail detours will be limited to only those periods of construction activity that are necessary for safety. Conclusion: Removal of the existing segment of this trail across the UP Railroad alignment would be a direct use of this resource as defined in Section 4(f). However, the provision of a trail underpass would allow users to cross the alignment safely without delays. The anticipated impact to the Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the direct impacts to the trail would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). The indirect visual impacts would not substantially impair the function of this resource and thus would not constitute a constructive use as defined in Section 4(f). Larry Walker Ball Fields Impacts: The grading required for the ramp extending west from the new trail underpass for the Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail would impact 0.02 acre along the north side of the parking lot for the Larry Walker Ball Fields. It is not anticipated that any parking stalls would be removed. Mitigation: The affected area will be regraded so as not to affect parking supply. Conclusion: The minor grading impacts to the parking lot would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the direct impact to the parking area would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). Haven Trail Impacts: Under the Preferred Alternative, drainage improvements would impact two small segments of the trail. Construction of two adjacent culverts underneath the trail near the end of Detroit way and one culvert underneath the trail near Fillmore Way would impact the trail. A temporary closure of short duration would be required during construction. A new noise wall parallel to the alignment would be adjacent to a small portion of the trail and may cause changes in visual quality for trail users. Mitigation: At both locations, once a portion of the culvert has been constructed, a trail detour would be provided over the constructed portion of the culvert. When construction of the culvert is complete, the trail would be reconstructed on the original alignment. The affected area of the trail will be returned to a condition at least as good as the preconstruction condition for continued use as a multi-use trail. Closure of trails during construction will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Before beginning construction, adequate trail detours, including advanced notice and signing will be provided. Detour signage will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and 7-45 January 2011

46 Part 6F of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007). Use of trail detours will be limited to only those periods of construction activity that are necessary for safety. Conclusion: With the proposed mitigation, the direct impacts to the trail would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f). In a letter dated 9 December 2010, the City of Thornton concurred that the temporary closure/detour would meet the criteria for a temporary occupancy and that the direct impacts to the trail would constitute a de minimis impact as defined in Section 4(f). The indirect visual impacts would not substantially impair the function of this resource and thus would not constitute a constructive use as defined in Section 4(f) Least Harm Analysis Section 4(f) mandates that if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the use of a Section 4(f) resource, that alternative must be selected. If all alternatives use land from a Section 4(f) resource, then an analysis must be performed to determine which alternative has the least overall harm to the Section 4(f) resource. The least overall harm is determined by balancing factors such as: The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualifies each property for protection The relative significance of each property The views of the official with jurisdiction over the property The degree to which each alternative meets the Purpose and Need for the project The magnitude, after mitigation, of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f) Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives For the impacted Section 4(f) resources, none of the avoidance alternatives were determined to be feasible or prudent. The Preferred Alternative provided the least overall harm when compared to other options. For example, the selection of the National Western Stock Show Station instead of the Coliseum Station resulted in less harm (impact) to Globeville Landing Park. As presented previously for each resource, the Preferred Alternative includes mitigation measures to minimize harm to the affected Section 4(f) resource. 7.3 SECTION 6(f) EVALUATION The LWCF Act (16 USC through ) contains provisions to protect federal investments in parklands and recreation resources and the quality of those resources. Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act contains a clear provision to protect grant-assisted areas from conversions to non-recreation purposes, as follows: No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary (of the Interior), be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. January

47 This requirement applies to all parks and other sites that have been the subject of LWCF grants, including acquisition of parklands and development or rehabilitation of recreational facilities. Three resources in which LWCFs were invested were identified within the Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area (see Figure 7-10 and Figure 7-11). These include the South Platte River Trail North Extension in Denver, the South Platte River Trail Niver Creek Trail Extension in Adams County, and Skyview High School sports fields in the City of Thornton South Platte River Trail North Extension LWCFs were used to develop the South Platte River Trail corridor between 20 th Street and 38 th Street in Denver. The intended use of the facility, as stated in the program narrative, is Active and passive recreation; hiking, biking and boating; fishing, picnicking, general river observation, etc; stimulation of interest in continuing the improvement program; improvement of the river s hydraulic capacity through regarding of channel banks, etc. (CCD 1975). Under the Preferred Alternative, no direct impacts to the trail would occur and the new bridge would provide approximately 18 feet of clearance. The bridge would be elevated and cross over the South Platte River and South Platte River Trail. There would be one bridge pier within the greenway area near the east bank of the river. The general location for the pier was selected in cooperation with the CCD during an on-site meeting on 2 March The pier would have either two 4-foot diameter columns or one single oblong column totaling approximately 25 to 29 square feet of surface area in the greenway. The exact location of the pier and the exact size of the pier column(s) would be determined during final design, but the size of the columns would not exceed the surface areas noted above nor would the location of the pier change the hydraulic capacity of the river. The active and passive recreation opportunities of this recreational resource would not be diminished. Existing noise levels at this location are high due to the existing freight rail. No noise impacts are predicted for this area under the Preferred Alternative. Visually, the new bridge would not be out of context given the existing adjacent freight rail bridge. The ability of the public to observe the river would be improved through the provision of a bridge over the river. The commuters would be able to see the river and the adjacent greenway, which could stimulate interest in continuing improvement programs. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not cause indirect impacts resulting in loss of utility. In a letter dated 19 May 2010,Colorado State Parks confirmed that the Preferred Alternative would not result in a conversion of use as defined by Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF South Platte River Trail Niver Creek Extension LWCFs were used to develop the South Platte River Trail corridor between Niver Creek Trail and Clear Creek Trail. This trail segment starts at the confluence of Niver Canal and the west bank of the South Platte River. The trail corridor continues south under SH 224 to the confluence of Clear Creek and the South Platte River. This segment of the trail would not be impacted by the Preferred Alternative January 2011

48 7.3.3 Skyview High School LWCFs were used to make improvements to the sports fields at Skyview High School, located directly west of the alignment and north of 88 th Avenue. These improvements included a picnic area, landscaping, lights, backstops, and fencing. These resources are outside the direct impact area of the Preferred Alternative; therefore, these resources would not result in a conversion to another use. LWCFs were also invested in Swansea Park in the CCD, which was initially within the Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area when the UP Railroad Alignment was an alignment option for the Southern Section. Now that the proposed North Metro corridor alignment is on the BNSF Alignment in this area, Swansea Park is no longer within the Section 4(f) and 6(f) project study area. January

49 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation FIGURE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER TRAIL NORTH EXTENSION 7-49 January 2011

50 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation FIGURE SKYVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND SOUTH PLATTE RIVER TRAIL NIVER CREEK EXTENSION January