Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track. Appendix M. Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.

Transcription

1 Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track Appendix M Section 4(f) Evaluation Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. June 2015

2 PACIFIC SURFLINER SORRENTO TO MIRAMAR PHASE 2 DOUBLE-TRACK PROJECT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION City of San Diego, California June 2015 Prepared for: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Contact: Ms. Cheryle Hodge 401 B St. # 800 San Diego, CA Office/Direct: (619) Cheryle.Hodge@sandag.org Prepared by: BRG Consulting, Inc. Contact: Mr. Erich Lathers 304 Ivy Street San Diego, California Office: (619) erich@brginc.net Mary Bilse, Project Manager Erich R. Lathers, Principal Consultant

3 Section Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 Introduction Project Location Project Description Project Alternatives Alternative 1 Southern Alignment Alternative 2 Northern Alignment Alternative 3 - No Action Alternative Purpose and Scope Regulatory Setting Method of Assessing Section 4(f) Impacts Permanent Use Temporary Use Constructive Use De Minimis Impact Affected Environment Description of 4(f) Properties Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Potential Impacts and Conclusions Impact Analysis Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Determination of Section 4(f) Lands Conclusion Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts De Minimis Impacts Agency Coordination and Consultation References Acronyms Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track i June 2015

4 Table Tables Page No. Table 1 MHPA Land Impacted by Alternative Table 2 MHPA Land Impacted by Alternative Table 3 Section 4(f)-Protected Land Impacted by Alternative Table 4 Section 4(f)-Protected Land Impacted by Alternative Figure Figures Page No. Figure 1 Regional Location... 2 Figure 2 Project Location... 3 Figure 3a Alternative 1 Southern Alignment... 5 Figure 3b Alternative 1 Southern Alignment... 7 Figure 4a Alternative 2 Northern Alignment... 9 Figure 4b Alternative 2 Northern Alignment Figure 5 Section 4(f)-Protected Lands Alternative Figure 6 Section 4(f)-Protected Lands Alternative Figure 7 Impacts to Section 4(f)-Protected Lands Alternative Figure 8 Impacts to Section 4(f)-Protected Lands Alternative Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track ii June 2015

5 1.0 Introduction The San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) proposes to double track and realign the southerly portion of the Sorrento to Miramar segment of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor. The Project Alternatives are expected to receive federal funding (Proposed Action) and are referred to as the Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track Project. This segment has steep grades and curvatures in the track that limit freight and passenger train speeds to twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) miles per hour (mph), respectively; and, has tightly spaced headways that require trains to wait for one another to pass. Double tracking and straightening the curves in the Sorrento to Miramar segment would improve commuter rail and intercity train service schedules, improve operational reliability, improve passenger and freight train speed, increase flexibility for freight operations, and provide for future increased demand for rail services in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. The Project Alternatives include improvements to a long-term existing use that would be located between two separately established communities and does not involve any new or modified grade crossings. The Project Alternatives are located in the Carroll Canyon and Soledad Canyon open space areas, which are associated with the natural division between the University Community and the Mira Mesa Community. The alternative rights-of-ways (ROWs) lie within the open space of the canyons and are surrounded by office, commercial, and industrial uses along the mesa tops. The nearest residential uses that make up a social community/neighborhood are more than half-a-mile distance from the study area. The residential areas of the University Community are located west of Interstate-805 (I-805) and the residential areas of the Mira Mesa Community are located east of the Project Alternatives area near Camino Ruiz. 2.0 Project Location As shown in Figure 1, the study area is located in the western portion of San Diego County, and is within the Mira Mesa and University communities of the City of San Diego. This area is generally characterized by a series of relatively flat land surfaces incised by large canyons that extend to the lower elevations near the Pacific coastline. Canyon and valley landforms in the area include Los Peñasquitos Canyon, Lopez Canyon, Carmel Valley, Carroll Canyon, Sorrento Valley, Soledad Canyon and Rose Canyon. Level mesa areas above the canyons extend between the canyon and valley landforms. Drainages such as the Los Peñasquitos Canyon and Soledad Canyon drain into the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon along the coastline. As shown in Figure 2, the alternative alignments would be located within a portion of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor, within San Diego, between approximate mileposts 251 and 253, roughly between Interstate-805 (I-805) and Miramar Road. The overall character of lands surrounding the project area consists of mixed commercial, business, and light industrial/manufacturing land uses, and open space. No residential property or designated parks are located within the project area. Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 1 June 2015

6 5 CAMP PENDLETON 15 «78 Pacific Ocean «56 _ Project Location « «125 «163 8 ± Miles 5 « «94 SOURCE: SanGIS, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., /8/13 BRG CONSULTING, INC. Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track Regional Location FIGURE 1

7 EASTGATE DR OLSON DR DISTRIBUTION AV BIOSITE WY DIRECTORS PL VISTA SORRENTO PY MOREHOUSE DR MIRA MESA BL SCRANTON RD OBERLIN DR CARROLL CANYON RD FERRIS SQ REHCO RD CAM SANTA FE Milepost 251 TRADE ST NANCY RIDGE DR CRESTMAR PT 805 Milepost 252 CARROLL RD I-805 NB TOWNE CENTRE DR MIRAMAR PL EASTER WY JUDICIAL DR EASTGATE ML LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR MIRAMAR RD AUTOPORT ML MIRAMAR ML MARINDUSTRY DR Milepost 253 FROST-MAR PL RASHA ST CTE SANTA FE COMMERCE AV PRODUCTION AV CONSOLIDATED WY JANUARY PL RENAISSANCE AV FIORE TR RESEARCH PL NOBEL DR Miles SOURCE: SanGIS, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., /9/13 BRG CONSULTING INC Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track Project Location FIGURE 2

8 3.0 Project Description Based on physical and operational constraints, as well as environmental effects, land acquisition demands, and development costs, two Project Alternatives in addition to the required No Action Alternative were selected for detailed analysis: Alternative 1 Southern Alignment and Alternative 2 - Northern Alignment, as shown in Figures 3a and 3b. Alternative 1 roughly follows the existing alignment and remains on the south side of Soledad Canyon. Alternative 2 includes new tracks on the north side of Soledad Canyon with two bridges crossing over Soledad Canyon, as shown in Figures 4a and 4b. Both alternatives require the acquisition of new railroad right-of-way (ROW). 3.1 Project Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is a double track alignment mostly within the existing railroad ROW along the south side of Soledad Canyon. The proposed design speed is twenty-five (25) mph for freight and forty (40) mph for passenger. Alternative 1 proposes to add 11,860 linear feet of new second track and to reduce the existing steep curves within an alignment that closely follows the existing railroad ROW. Alternative 1 does not include any bridge structures. Nine (9) walls of varying types including soldier pile with lagging and tiebacks, cast-in-place walls, soil nail walls, and free-standing pier protection walls would be constructed to support new cuts and fills, and to protect Miramar Road. The walls range between 130 to 1,432 feet long and up to 142 feet high. Approximately forty-three (43) acres of newly acquired ROW and permanent easements would be required for project implementation under Alternative 1. In addition, temporary construction and access easements on approximately 23 acres of land would be required. There is also approximately 28 acres of land that would be as acquired as a spoils area. Excess dirt from construction would be spoiled on this site, contour graded, and revegetated with native vegetation Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is a double track alignment that generally follows the existing railroad corridor except between MP and MP 252.2, where the alignment traverses a new ROW corridor along the north side of Soledad Canyon. The proposed design speed of this alternative is twenty-five (25) mph for freight and forty-five (45) mph for passenger. Alternative 2 proposes to add 12,671 linear feet of new double track and to reduce the existing steep curves. Approximately 12,641 linear feet of new double track would be built on the eastern/northern side of Soledad Canyon under this alternative. There are two railroad bridges with Alternative 2. Twelve (12) retaining walls of varying types including soil nails, cast-in-place and tie-back walls would be developed in Alternative 2 to support new cuts and fills, and to protect Miramar Road. Approximately forty (40) acres of newly acquired ROW and permanent easements would be required for project implementation under Alternative 2. In addition, temporary construction and access easements on approximately 31 acres of land would be required. There is also approximately 20 acres of land that would be as acquired as a spoils area. Excess dirt from construction would be spoiled on this site, contour graded, and revegetated with native vegetation. Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 4 June 2015

9 CARROLL CANYON RD WALL 1L I-805 NB SYSTEM 125 SYSTEM WALL 2R EXISTING RETAINING WALL NANCY RIDGE DR EXISTING STORM DRAIN FEDEX FACILITY ACCESS ROAD SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM 275 SYSTEM EXISTING RETAINING WALL WALL 2L SYSTEM I EXISTING 51" WATER MAIN EASTGATE DR EASTGATE MALL SOURCE: SanGIS, 2015; Google Maps, 2013; David Evans & Associates, /24/15 BRG CONSULTING, INC. Alternative 1 - Permanent Impact Area Alternative 1 - Temporary Impact Area Existing Alignment ROW Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track EA Alternative 1 - Southern Alignment (STA ) OLSON DR Feet ± FIGURE 3a 5

10 SYSTEM Feet ± RASHA ST SYSTEM 350 WALL 2L EXISTING 51" WATER MAIN SYSTEM EASTGATE MALL MIRAMAR MALL MIRAMAR PL AUTOPORT MALL MARINDUSTRY DR Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track EA Alternative 1 - Southern Alignment (STA ) MIRAMAR RD CAM SANTA FE CTE SANTA FE FROST-MAR PL San Diego Imagery Acquisition Partnership (Flight Dates: May 20 - June 6, 2012) SOURCE: SanGIS, 2015; David Evans & Associates, /24/15 BRG CONSULTING, INC. SYSTEM 500 STAGING AREAS Alternative 1 - Permanent Impact Area Alternative 1 - Temporary Impact Area Existing Alignment ROW ¾:1 NATURAL CUT SYSTEM 600 SYSTEM 700 SYSTEM 800 WALL 3R WALL 3L SYSTEM 1000 MIRAMAR RD. BRIDGE WALLS FIGURE 3b 7

11 CARROLL CANYON RD ACCESS ROAD SYSTEM WALL 2R BRIDGE ABUTMENT WALL I-805 NB SYSTEM EXISTING RETAINING WALL NANCY RIDGE DR WALL 3L (FROM PHASE 1) B R I D G E N O BRIDGE ABUTMENT WALL RETAINING WALL 1L EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING STORM DRAIN ACCESS ROAD FEDEX FACILITY ACCESS ROAD SYSTEM SYSTEM WALL 3R I EASTGATE DR EXISTING 51" WATER MAIN ± Existing Alignment ROW Feet SOURCE: SanGIS, 2015; Google Maps, 2013; David Evans & Associates, /24/15 BRG CONSULTING, INC. Alternative 2 - Permanent Impact Area Alternative 2 - Temporary Impact Area Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track EA Alternative 2 - Northern Alignment (STA ) OLSON DR FIGURE 4a 9

12 NANCY RIDGE DR SYSTEM 900 WALL 2L WALL 3R SYSTEM 400 WALL 4L SYSTEM WALL 5L SYSTEM 750 BRIDGE ABUTMENT WALL WALL 4R B R I D G E N O BRIDGE ABUTMENT WALL WALL 7L Feet SYSTEM 1000 WALL 8L ACCESS ROAD RASHA ST ± CAM SANTA FE EXISTING 51" WATER MAIN STAGING AREAS MIRAMAR PL MARINDUSTRY DR MIRAMAR RD. BRIDGE WALLS Alternative Temporary Impact Area EASTGATE MALL MIRAMAR MALL Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track EA Alternative 2 - Northern Alignment (STA ) MIRAMAR RD San Diego Imagery Acquisition Partnership (Flight Dates: May 20 - June 6, 2012) SOURCE: SanGIS, 2015; David Evans & Associates, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., /24/15 BRG CONSULTING, INC. Alternative 2 - Permanent Impact Area Existing Alignment ROW FIGURE 4b 11

13 3.1.3 Alternative 3 - No Action Alternative Under Alternative 3 - No Action Alternative, the existing single railroad track alignment would not change and a second track would not be developed. Alternative 3 would remain as is with 9 curves, 8 of which are considered sharp curves between seven degrees and ten degrees. Passenger train speed would remain limited to twenty-five miles per hour (25 mph), and freight train speed would remain limited to twenty miles per hour (20 mph). Under this alternative rail operations and reliability would not be improved because double tracking and curve straightening improvements would not be implemented. Passenger train speed would not be improved by curve straightening, nor would passenger and freight rail capacity be increased by double tracking. Land acquisition demands would not be needed under this alternative. Under this alternative, the second half of the overall Miramar Hill double track project would not be implemented. The existing LOSSAN corridor is currently double tracked south of CP Miramar to CP Elvira, permits have been granted for double tracking north to approximately Bridge Purpose and Scope of this Report The purpose of this study is to describe whether and how the Project Alternatives and the No Action Alternative would use Section 4(f) resources. The analysis identifies strategies that would avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts on Section 4(f) resources. For such resources, a brief description of the resource and an overview of the Section 4(f) use, if any, is provided, which is followed by a description of avoidance alternatives (where they would be a direct use) and measures to minimize and mitigate any harm. The analysis provided below includes all potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures. 5.0 Regulatory Setting The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) would seek Federal grant funding and discretionary approvals for the Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track Project through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); therefore, documentation of compliance with Section 4(f) is required. Section 4(f)of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended protects public parklands and recreational lands, wildlife refuges, and historic sites of national, state, or local significance, commonly referred to as Section 4(f) properties or resources. FRA may not approve the use of a Section 4(f) property unless the FRA determines the following: There is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of the land from the property; The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from the use, or; The administration determines that the use of the property, including any measures to minimize harm committed by the applicant, would have a de minimis impact, on the property. 5.1 Method of Assessing Section 4(f) Impacts The use of a protected Section 4(f) property occurs when any of the conditions described below are met. constructive. A use of properties protected under Section 4(f) may be permanent, temporary, or Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 13 June 2015

14 5.1.1 Permanent Use A permanent use (or direct use) of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when property is permanently incorporated into a proposed transportation facility. This may occur as a result of partial or full acquisition, permanent easements, or temporary easements that exceed limits for temporary use, as noted below Temporary Use A temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the property is not permanently incorporated into a transportation facility, but there is a temporary occupancy of property that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist purposes of the Section 4(f) statute. Section 23 CFR (d) provides the conditions under which temporary occupancies of land are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). A temporary occupancy of property does not constitute a use of a Section 4(f) resource when all of the following conditions are satisfied: The occupancy must be of temporary duration (e.g., shorter than the period of construction) and must not involve a change in ownership of the property. The scope of work must be minor, with only minimal changes to the protected resource. There must be no permanent adverse physical impacts on the protected resource or temporary or permanent interference with activities or purpose of the resource. The property being used must be fully restored to a condition that is at least as good as existed prior to the project. There must be documented agreement of the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the foregoing requirements Constructive Use A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when a transportation project does not permanently incorporate land from the resource, but the proximity of the project results in impacts (e.g., noise, vibration, visual, access, ecological) that are 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 diminished. This determination is made through the following: Identifying the current activities, features, or attributes of the resource that may be sensitive to proximity impacts. Analyzing the potential proximity impacts on the resource. Consulting with the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource. In addition, it is important to note that erecting a structure over a Section 4(f) property, and thus requiring an air lease, does not in and of itself constitutes a use unless a constructive use is present De Minimis Impact When a project would need to use a minor amount of Section 4(f) protected property, FRA can make a de minimis impact determination. A de minimis impact determination may be made for a permanent incorporation or temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) property. Such findings must include sufficient Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 14 June 2015

15 supporting documentation to demonstrate that the impacts, after avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures are taken into account, are de minimis, and that the required coordination has been completed. According to 49 U.S.C. 303(d), the following criteria must be met to reach a de minimis impact determination): For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact determination may be made if a transportation project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) after mitigation. In addition, to make a de minimis impact determination, there must be public notice (with opportunity for public review and comment), and written concurrence received from the officials with jurisdiction over the property. For a historic site, a de minimis impact determination may be made only if, in accordance with the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), it is found that the transportation program or project will have no effect or no adverse effect on historic properties and FRA has received written concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). If there is a 4(f) use that is not de minimis, then the agency must evaluate whether there are feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the use of the property, and if not, then it must undertake all possible planning to minimize harm to the property. 6.0 Affected Environment A park or recreation area qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) if it (1) is publicly owned, (2) is open to the general public, (3) is being used for recreation, and (4) is considered significant by the authority with jurisdiction. A wildlife or waterfowl refuge qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) if it (1) is publicly owned, (2) is being used as a refuge, and (3) is considered significant by the authority with jurisdiction. A historic site eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) may qualify for protection under Section 4(f) if land from the site is permanently or temporarily incorporated into the project. If a project does not physically take (permanently incorporate) historic property, but causes an adverse effect, the proximity impacts must be evaluated to determine if the proximity impacts will substantially impair the features or attributes that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the historic site or district. While the statutory requirements of Section 106 and Section 4(f) are similar, even if a proposed action results in an adverse effect under Section 106, there will not automatically be a Section 4(f) use absent a separate analysis and determination by FRA. In order for a cultural resource to be protected by Section 4(f), it must be on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. The US Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) provides guidance in applying criteria for evaluation to assist in making a determination or eligibility of the site to the NRHP. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 15 June 2015

16 buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or Criterion B: properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or Criterion C: properties that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or Criterion D: properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Archaeological sites whose importance as a resource can be documented through a data recovery process alone are generally not protected under Section 4(f). An archaeological resource that is eligible only under NHPA Criterion D is considered valuable only in terms of the data that can be recovered from it. For such resources (such as pottery scatters and refuse deposits), it is generally assumed that there is minimal value attributed to preserving such resources in place. Conversely, resources eligible under Criteria A, B, and/or C are considered to have value intrinsic to the resource s location. In other words, Section 4(f) does not apply to a site if a federal agency, after consultation with the SHPO and the appropriate Native American Tribes and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), concludes that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place. For a property to be eligible for the NRHP, it must meet at least one of the four NRHP main criteria. With Criterion A, "Event," the property must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history. With Criterion B, "Person," the property must be associated with significant people of the American past. Criterion C, Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building by its architecture and construction, including having great artistic value or being the work of a master. 6.1 Description of Section 4(f) Properties This section describes Section 4(f) properties that were considered for evaluation. Properties subject to Section 4(f) consideration include historic resources of local, state, or national significance, whether privately or publicly owned, as well as publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national or local significance Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources This section identifies listed and eligible properties that may be subject to Section 4(f) and describes the features that form the basis of the evaluation. Prior to completing this Section 4(f) evaluation, a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 analysis identified historic architectural and archaeological resources in the historic architectural and archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APEs) to determine their significance. For more detailed information on this process, refer to the Cultural Resources Technical Report (ASM Affiliates, 2013). The Section 106 analysis identified one historic architectural or archaeological Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 16 June 2015

17 resource adjacent to the APEs (Site SDI-5204, Bovet Adobe) that is recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Site SDI-16385H, a two-mile segment of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, was evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP for both alternatives, but was recommended to be not eligible for listing to the NRHP due to a lack of integrity. This is consistent with past eligibility determinations on railroad infrastructure elsewhere within the LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County. The preliminary and conservative determinations are subject to the review and concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and are considered preliminary until SHPO has concurred. Consultation with the SHPO regarding the eligibility of historic resources and determination of effects is on-going. With regard to Section 4(f), when a historic or archaeological resource within the APE is identified that is listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, the resource is evaluated for use. Under 23 CFR (b), impacts to archaeological resources that are important primarily because of what can be learned by data recovery and have minimal value for preservation in place are considered to be an exception and do not require approval under Section 4(f). Historic and archival research was undertaken to determine the presence of previously identified historical and archaeological properties eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition, historic and archaeological surveys were completed for the APE to further identify and evaluate properties that may be historically significant and meet the criteria for eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Historic Architectural Resources Under Section 106, when a federally funded project will affect a historic property, the agency must apply the criteria of adverse effect to determine if the effect will be adverse or negative. Adverse effect is defined in 36 CFR Section 800.4(a)(1) as an action that may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects may include reasonably forseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. Adverse effects include, but are not limited to demolition, alteration, removal of a property from its original setting, neglect, and abandonment; or in the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements. Archaeological Resources According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Section 4(f) Policy Paper (FHWA, 2012): Section 4(f) applies to archaeological sites that are on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register and that warrant preservation in place. Including those sites discovered during construction. Section 4(f) does not apply if FHWA determines, after consultation with the SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), federally recognized Indian tribes (as appropriate), and the [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation] ACHP (if participating) that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery (even if it is agreed not to recover the resource) and has minimal value for Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 17 June 2015

18 preservation in place, and the SHPO/THPO and ACHP (if participating) does not object to this determination (23 CFR (b)). Although the Section 4(f) Policy Paper was developed by the FHWA, FTA and other modal administrations generally follow the guidance, where appropriate and applicable to transit projects and other proposals Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Project Alternatives 1 and 2 are not located within one-half mile of any publicly owned parks and recreational areas, including schools. Most of the land within Sorrento and Carroll canyons surrounding the existing railroad alignment and the alternative alignments under consideration is undeveloped open space. Although some of it is publicly owned or protected by easements in favor of the City of San Diego, this open space land is not officially designated as parkland by the City of San Diego, either by zoning ordinance or by inclusion in the Recreation Element of the City of San Diego General Plan. In addition, the easements do not provide the right to use the property for park or other recreational activities. The privately owned land is not maintained by the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department, and there are no officially designated trails or trailheads. Therefore, the open space land within one-half mile of the project does not qualify as a parkland or recreation area. While the open space land within one-half mile of the project does not qualify as parkland or recreation area, portions of it may qualify as a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program for southwestern San Diego County. The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan enacted as part of the City of San Diego General Plan, pursuant to federal and state regulation (City of San Diego, 1997). The City s Multi Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) is the target wildlife preserve area under the City s Subarea Plan that provides habitat for native species, shelter and forage for migrating species, and linkages between biological core areas capable of supporting a diverse range of native species. The MHPA is designed to adequately conserve threatened, endangered, and protect narrow endemic species within the City such that additional threatened and endangered species listings would be avoided. The City of San Diego adopted Development Regulations to implement the Subarea Plan. Through this process, the City of San Diego was granted Take authority by the USFWS under Section 10a of the Endangered Species Act for species covered by the City Subarea Plan. Up to 30 percent of each parcel within the MHPA may be developed, in accordance with the City Municipal Code. For this reason, the parcels within the City s MHPA are considered to qualify as a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. Figures 5 and 6 show the boundary of the MHPA relative to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Project Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. 7.0 Potential Impacts and Conclusions 7.1 Impact Analysis A Section 4(f) analysis of the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 project areas was conducted by BRG Consulting, Inc. to identify Section 4(f) resources that may be affected by project related activities. A use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when land is permanently or temporarily incorporated into a Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 18 June 2015

19 CAM SANTA FE TELESIS CT LUSK BL WATERIDGE CR SCRANTON RD MOREHOUSE DR LUSK BL MIRA MESA BL CORNERSTONE CT Sorrento Canyon Golf Center (Private) PACIFIC HEIGHTS BL El Camino Memorial Park (Private) FERRIS SQ BROWN DEER RD CARROLL PARK DR REHCO RD WARE CT TRADE ST TERMAN CT CARROLL WY Tennis Courts (Private) MIRA SORRENTO PL YOUNGSTOWN WY NANCY RIDGE DR CRESTMAR PT CARROLL RD SPECTRUM LN PRODUCTION AV DIRECTORS PL OBERLIN DR CARROLL CANYON RD DISTRIBUTION AV VISTA SORRENTO PY SORRENTO VALLEY RD MIRAMAR PL COMMERCE AV MILCH RD CONSOLIDATED WY SORRENTO VALLEY RD OLSON DR MARINDUSTRY DR MIRAMAR MALL EASTGATE DR MIRAMAR RD I-805 NB EASTGATE MALL AUTOPORT MALL REGENTS RD GENESEE AV Half-Mile Study Area MHPA Land Use FEZ ST VISION DR EASTER WY Alternative 1 - Permanent APE Alternative 1 - Temporary APE Section 4(f)-Protected Land Recreation Open Space TOWNE CENTRE DR EASTGATE ML EXECUTIVE DR NEXUS CENTRE DR JUDICIAL DR LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, 0 AEX, 0.1Getmapping, 0.2 Aerogrid, 0.3 IGN, 0.4 I Miles and the GIS User Community SOURCE: SanGIS, 2015; SANDAG, 2013; David Evans & Associates, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., /23/15 BRG CONSULTING, INC. NOBEL DR Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track EA Section 4(f) Lands - Alternative 1 SIDEWINDER RD ± FIGURE 5

20 CAM SANTA FE TELESIS CT LUSK BL WATERIDGE CR SCRANTON RD MOREHOUSE DR LUSK BL MIRA MESA BL CORNERSTONE CT Sorrento Canyon Golf Center (Private) PACIFIC HEIGHTS BL El Camino Memorial Park (Private) FERRIS SQ BROWN DEER RD CARROLL PARK DR REHCO RD WARE CT TRADE ST TERMAN CT CARROLL WY Tennis Courts (Private) MIRA SORRENTO PL YOUNGSTOWN WY NANCY RIDGE DR CRESTMAR PT CARROLL RD SPECTRUM LN PRODUCTION AV DIRECTORS PL OBERLIN DR CARROLL CANYON RD DISTRIBUTION AV VISTA SORRENTO PY SORRENTO VALLEY RD MIRAMAR PL COMMERCE AV MILCH RD CONSOLIDATED WY SORRENTO VALLEY RD OLSON DR MARINDUSTRY DR MIRAMAR MALL EASTGATE DR MIRAMAR RD I-805 NB EASTGATE MALL AUTOPORT MALL REGENTS RD GENESEE AV Half-Mile Study Area MHPA Land Use FEZ ST VISION DR EASTER WY Alternative 2 - Permanent APE Alternative 2 - Temporary APE Section 4(f)-Protected Land Recreation Open Space TOWNE CENTRE DR EASTGATE ML EXECUTIVE DR NEXUS CENTRE DR JUDICIAL DR LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, 0 AEX, 0.1Getmapping, 0.2 Aerogrid, 0.3 IGN, 0.4 I Miles and the GIS User Community NOBEL DR SOURCE: SanGIS, 2015; SANDAG, 2013; David Evans & Associates, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., /23/15 BRG CONSULTING, INC. Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track EA Section 4(f) Lands - Alternative 2 SIDEWINDER RD ± FIGURE 6

21 transportation facility (23 CFR ) or when there is a constructive use. Incorporation may occur as a result of partial or full acquisition of the Section 4(f) property, permanent easements, or temporary easements. Constructive use occurs when the land is not incorporated into the project, but the project s proximate impacts are so severe that the attributes of the Section 4(f) resource are substantially impaired Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources Historic Architectural Resources As discussed in the Cultural Resources Technical Report (ASM Affiliates, 2013), there are no historic architectural or archaeological resources within the project APE that are recommended as or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The project would completely avoid any impacts to historic architectural resources, and there would be no impacts to any such resources caused by noise, vibration, or visual quality. Therefore, no impacts to historic architectural resources under Section 4(f) is anticipated. Archaeological Resources As discussed in the Cultural Resources Technical Report (ASM Affiliates, 2013), there are no previously or newly recorded archaeological resources identified within the archaeological APE that would warrant preservation in place under Section 106 (e.g. human burials, sacred sites). Therefore, no impacts to archaeological resources under Section 4(f) is anticipated Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Parklands and Recreation Areas The project is not located within one-half mile of any officially designated, publicly-owned park and recreation areas that may be subject to Section 4(f). The project would not physically encroach into any parks and recreation areas, disrupt access, perceptibly increase noise, or introduce visual changes that would diminish the use and enjoyment of the parks. Therefore, there are no impacts to parks and recreation areas under Section 4(f). Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges There are several hundred acres of designated open space land within one-half mile of Alternative 1, with much of the open space land surrounding the project corridor also officially designated by the City of San Diego as MHPA land. There is a total of 349 acres of MHPA land within one-half mile of the APE, the majority of which is privately-owned. The MHPA land owned by the City of San Diego qualifies as Section 4(f) resources. Some privately-owned MHPA lands are protected by open space and flowage easements granted to the City of San Diego; however, these easements were not specifically granted for the protection of wildlife and other biological values, and consequently these parcels are not considered to qualify as Section 4(f) resources. Alternative 1 would permanently impact approximately 5.87 acres of MHPA land by development and acquisition of railroad ROW. The permanent impact will occur on 12 parcels as depicted in Table 1. Temporary construction impacts will occur on acres of MHPA land in Alternative 1. The temporary impact will occur on 14 parcels. Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 23 June 2015

22 APN Parcel Size (acres) Table 1 MHPA land Impacted by Alternative 1 MHPA (acres) % MHPA (acres) Total (acres) Permanent MHPA Impacted (acres) % of MHPA Impacted Total (acres) Temporary MHPA Impacted (acres) % of MHPA Impacted % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total % % % Source: SanGIS, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., Alternative 2 would result in approximately 9.78 acres of permanent impacts to MHPA land by development and acquisition of railroad ROW. The permanent impact will occur on 9 parcels as depicted in Table 2. Temporary construction impacts will occur on acres of MHPA land in Alternative 2. The temporary impact will occur on 14 parcels. APN Parcel Size (acres) Table 2 MHPA land Impacted by Alternative 2 MHPA (acres) % MHPA (acres) Total (acres) Permanent MHPA Impacted (acres) % of MHPA Impacted Total (acres) Temporary MHPA Impacted (acres) % of MHPA Impacted (No APN) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total % % % Source: SanGIS, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 24 June 2015

23 7.1.3 Determination of Section 4(f) Lands Of the 349 acres of MHPA land within one-half mile of each of alternative, acres would qualify for protection as wildlife refuge under Section 4(f) because it is publicly-owned, and its primary use is a wildlife refuge. This land is shown on Figures 5 and 6, and it should be noted that some of this Section 4(f)-protected land falls outside the Area of Potential Effect for either project alternative. A summary of the Section 4(f)- protected properties impacted by the project APEs, and their determinations of use (permanent or temporary), are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Despite being publicly-owned, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) parcels containing MHPA impacts are not included in these tables because the primary land use is not wildlife refuge, but railroad right-of-way, and because the City of San Diego did not have the authority to designate MHPA lands within the MTS ROW. Table 3 Section 4(f)-Protected Land Impacted by Alternative 1 APN Owner Total Permanent Impact (acres) Permanent Impact to 4(f)-Protected Land (acres) Total Temporary Impact (acres) Temporary Impact to 4(f)-Protected Land (acres) City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego Total Source: SanGIS, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., Table 4 Section 4(f)-Protected Land Impacted by Alternative 2 APN Owner Total Permanent Permanent Impact Total Temporary Temporary Impact Impact (acres) to 4(f)-Protected Land (acres) Impact (acres) to 4(f)-Protected Land (acres) City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego Total Source: SanGIS, 2013; BRG Consulting, Inc., Conclusion Implementation of either Alternative 1 or 2 would require both permanent and temporary impacts to land qualifying for 4(f) protection as a wildlife refuge. As shown on Figure 7, Alternative 1 would permanently incorporate and therefore directly impact 0.32 acres of 4(f)-protected land, and temporarily impact an additional 0.46 acres. As shown on Figure 8, Alternative 2 would directly impact 3.20 acres of 4(f)-protected Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 25 June 2015

24 land, and temporarily impact an additional 7.65 acres. Alternative 3 would not permanently or temporarily impact any Section 4(f) resources Temporary Impacts Due to the duration of the proposed project, which is expected to occur over a period of 18 to 30 months, as well as the nature of temporary impacts in which surface vegetation would be removed for construction purposes, temporarily impacted vegetation is not expected to reestablish during the construction period (Merkel and Associates, 2013). In fact, much of the restoration will not occur until after railroad construction is completed. Because under the Section 4(f) statute a use can only be considered a temporary occupancy if the duration of the use is shorter than the period of construction, and because the project impacts to vegetation cannot be fully restored during the period of construction, impacts to biological resources located on City-owned MHPA land are considered to be a permanent use of a Section 4(f) resource. Consequently, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in a permanent use of 0.78 acre of land designated as wildlife refuge and protected under Section 4(f), and Alternative 2 would result in a permanent use of acres of land designated as wildlife refuge and protected under Section 4(f). For Alternative 1, most of the impacts to 4(f) resources are associated with the construction of drainage systems 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, and Construction of these new drainage systems involves installing a new pipe and outfall, along with a plantable gabion mattress at the outlet for each. Consisting of large rocks wrapped in a wire mesh and buried at grade, the gabion mattress is designed to control soil erosion downhill from the drainage outlet by directing stormwater runoff to the rocks, thereby reducing its velocity before contacting the exposed soil. For Alternative 2, the temporary impacts to 7.65 acres of 4(f)-protected land includes impact from access roads, earthen ramps, and equipment pads associated with the construction of Bridge #2, as well as the construction of drainage systems 750, 900, and Construction of the access roads, earthen ramps, and equipment pads would require grading of the existing canyon hillside and the placement of fill soil on the canyon floor. However, once constructed, the graded areas would be revegetated, restoring the land to its original resource value. Construction of the new drainage systems involves installing new pipes, debris and silt control devices, and plantable gabion mattresses. Because the impact area for the construction of these features can be revegetated, causing no permanent adverse physical impact, but cannot be restored within the construction period, these impacts are considered a permanent use of a 4(f) resource Permanent Impacts With Alternative 1, areas of permanent impact are located on the eastern corner of parcel , and the northwestern corner of parcel (Soledad Conservation Bank). Because of a cut into the hillside south of the alignment between STA required to accommodate the new railroad ROW, 0.03 acres of 4(f)-protected land on this parcel would be excavated and graded at a steeper ¾:1 slope. Similarly, at parcel , the proposed cut slope and concrete brow ditch south of the alignment at STA would excavate and grade 0.29 acre of 4(f)-protected land. These landform alterations would permanently remove native vegetation without revegetating the new slopes, effectively removing any biological value that would qualify it as wildlife habitat. Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track 26 June 2015