National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting #4 October 24, 2018
Meeting Agenda • Section 106 Process Update • Action Alternatives for DEIS • Conceptual Engineering • Bike‐Pedestrian Crossing (Potential Mitigation) – Questions/Comments • Identification of Historic Properties • Assessment of Effects – Questions/Comments • Resolution of Effects and Next Steps 2
Section 106 and NEPA Coordination TODAY Consulting Consulting Consulting Consulting Consulting Party Party Party Party Party Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #5 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Project Draft APE, Overview Determine Identify Resolve Assessment of Preliminary Historic Effects Effects Adverse historic Properties properties ID Methodology Effects Section 106 Identify and Define Area Determine Define Draft Execute Invite of Potential Effects to Undertaking Memorandum of Memorandum Initiate Consulting Effects (APE) Historic of Agreement or Agreement or Identify & Properties Consultation Parties Programmatic Programmatic Evaluate Agreement to Agreement Historic Resolve Adverse Properties Effects NEPA Purpose Notice Environmental Final EIS / Project Draft Final EIS/ Scoping and of Studies and Purpose Environmental ROD Alternatives EIS ROD Draft Project Intent Evaluation Scoping Need and Studies and EIS Alternatives Evaluation Need Fall 2016 Winter 2017 – Winter 2018 Spring 2018 – Summer 2019 Fall 2019 – Summer 2020 3
Long Bridge Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and Limits of Disturbance (LOD) 4
Action Alternatives for Draft EIS • New two‐track bridge • New two‐track bridge upstream of existing bridge upstream of existing bridge • Retain existing bridge • Replace existing bridge 5
Conceptual Engineering Bridge Structure and Design Criteria Steel Deck Plate Girder Steel Through Plate Girder • Both options feasible under either Action Alternative • Structure type to be determined in final design 6
Conceptual Engineering New GWMP Railroad Bridge • Existing through girder bridge with arched steel and stone masonry • Center pier located in median • New bridge(s) would be through plate girder with similar aesthetics • Bridges over NPS property would be designed compatible with existing resources 7
Bike‐Pedestrian Crossing Potential 4(f) Mitigation 8
Section Diagrams New Railroad Bridge with Bike‐Ped Crossing Options Bike‐ped bridge Railroad Bridge Railroad Bridge Bike‐ped bridge Option 1 : Shared railroad Option 2 : Independent bridge bridge substructure 9
Bike‐Pedestrian Crossing Potential 4(f) Mitigation Option 1: Shared RR Bridge Option 2: Independent Bridge • Substructure Prefabricated truss superstructures • Prefabricated truss • Single column piers superstructures • Smaller permanent footprint • Extended railroad piers • 25‐foot separation from railroad • Larger permanent footprint bridge • Would require substantial • Simpler inspection and security measures including maintenance railing or screening between • Preferred by railroad operators bridges and NPS • More difficult inspection and • Construction cost maintenance procedures approximately 20% less than Option 1 • More expensive than Option 2 10
Questions/Comments • Section 106 Process Update • Action Alternatives for Draft EIS • Conceptual Engineering • Bike‐Pedestrian Crossing – Questions/Comments • Identification of Historic Properties • Assessment of Effects – Questions/Comments • Resolution of Effects and Next Steps 11
Identification of Historic Properties: Area of Potential Effect 12
Identification of Historic Properties Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Phase IA Process • Coordinated with DC and VA SHPO • Documented history of LOD • Site visit to verify desktop analysis • Identified areas as having high, low, or no potential for resources 13
Identification of Historic Properties Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Archaeology Next Steps Short term • Phase IA submitted to SHPOs • Draft EIS identifies Preferred Alternative Long term • Prepare final design for Preferred Alternative • Continue Section 106 consultation • Conduct recommended investigations based on assessment and SHPO consultation prior to construction 14
Assessment of Effects Visual Effects 15
Assessment of Effects Noise and Vibration Effects The EIS Noise and Vibration Study Area encompasses locations where substantial noise and vibration effects may occur. Historic Properties within the Study Area may experience effects. 16
Assessment of Effects Summary of Adverse Effects Determination No Action Action Action Cumulative Temporary Historic Property Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Effects Effects Indirect No Adverse No Adverse No Adverse No Adverse National Mall DC Adverse Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect Direct and Direct and George Washington Direct Direct No Adverse Indirect Indirect Memorial Parkway Adverse Adverse Effect Adverse Adverse Effect Effect (GWMP) VA/DC Effect Effect Direct and Direct and Mount Vernon Direct Direct No Adverse Indirect Indirect Memorial Highway Adverse Adverse Effect Adverse Adverse Effect Effect (MVMH) VA/DC Effect Effect Direct and Direct Direct Direct East and West No Adverse Indirect Adverse Adverse Adverse Effect Adverse Potomac Parks DC Effect Effect Effect Effect 17
Assessment of Effects National Mall (DC) Physical Effects: No contributing features within railroad Action Alternative A corridor. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Visual Effects: No significant views or visual resources in this portion of the HD. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Noise and Vibration Effects: No exceedances of FTA thresholds at test locations. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Action Alternative B Physical Effects: Same as Action Alternative A. Visual Effects: Same as Action Alternative A. Noise and Vibration Effects: Same as Action Alternative A. Cumulative No contributing features within railroad corridor or potential to alter significant views or visual resources. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Temporary Construction staging and access would diminish integrity of feeling, association, and setting of the HD. INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. 18
Assessment of Effects GWMP (DC/VA) Physical Effects: Construction of a new railroad bridge would Action Alternative A remove contributing vegetation. DIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Visual Effects: New bridge would be added in area of diminished integrity. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Noise and Vibration Effects: No exceedances of FTA thresholds at test locations. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Physical Effects: Construction of a new railroad bridge would Action Alternative B remove contributing vegetation. Would also remove the contributing railroad bridge. DIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Visual Effects: Removal of existing Long Bridge and trestle would diminish integrity of setting and feeling. INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Noise and Vibration Effects: Same as Action Alternative A Cumulative Construction of a bike‐pedestrian crossing and access ramp would remove contributing vegetation. DIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Temporary Construction staging, access, and trail relocation would diminish integrity of feeling, association, and setting of the GWMP. DIRECT AND INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. 19
Assessment of Effects MVMH (DC/VA) Physical Effects: Construction of a new railroad bridge would Action Alternative A remove contributing vegetation. DIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Visual Effects: New bridge would be added in area of diminished integrity. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Noise and Vibration Effects: No exceedances of FTA thresholds at test locations. NO ADVERSE EFFECT. Physical Effects: Same as Action Alternative A. Action Alternative B Visual Effects: Removal of existing Long Bridge and truss would diminish integrity of setting and feeling. INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Noise and Vibration Effects: Same as Action Alternative A Cumulative Construction of a bike‐pedestrian crossing and access ramp would remove contributing vegetation. DIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. Temporary Construction staging, access, and trail relocation would diminish integrity of feeling, association, and setting of the MVMH. DIRECT AND INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT. 20
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from southbound motorway approaching Metrorail Bridge Existing Conditions 21
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from southbound motorway approaching Metrorail Bridge Note: material and color choices to be determined in final design Alternative A 22
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from southbound motorway approaching Metrorail Bridge Note: material and color choices to be determined in final design Alternative B 23
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from northbound motorway approaching Long Bridge Corridor Existing Conditions 24
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from northbound motorway approaching Long Bridge Corridor Note: material and color choices to be determined in final design Alternative A 25
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from northbound motorway approaching Long Bridge Corridor Note: material and color choices to be determined in final design Alternative B 26
Viewshed Analysis – GWMP/MVMH View from northbound motorway approaching Metrorail‐14 th Street bridges Existing Conditions 27
Recommend
More recommend
