FHWA-AZ-EIS-14-01-F South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Volume I: Main Text Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c), 49 U.S.C. § 303, and 33 U.S.C. § 1251 by the Federal Highway Administration and Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Area Power Administration September 2014 If you are reading this document as a printed copy, a compact disc of the Volume II and Volume III appendices is included inside the back cover. FHWA-AZ-EIS-14-01-F South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Abstract Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c), 49 U.S.C. § 303, and 33 U.S.C. § 1251 The proposed action is the construction and operation of a new multilane freeway in the metropolitan Phoenix area extending approximately 22 to 24 miles from Interstate 10 west of Phoenix to Interstate 10 southeast of Phoenix. The facility would be the final extension of State Route 202L, an element of the Maricopa Association of Governments’ adopted Regional Freeway and Highway System, as outlined in its Regional Transportation Plan. by the FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The proposed action is considered necessary in response to existing and projected demands on the region’s transportation system. The Final Environmental Impact Statement discusses three distinct action alternatives in the western portion of the Study Area (Western Section), one distinct action alternative in the eastern portion of the Study Area (Eastern Section), and a no-action alternative for the entire project length. When combined, the action alternatives in the Western and Eastern Sections represent a full range of reasonable alternatives. The action alternatives consist of four travel lanes in each direction (three general purpose lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle lane), with traffic interchanges generally located at major cross streets. Other alternatives were considered but eliminated from further study. These alternatives included using alternative travel modes, improving major streets, and managing traffic through such methods as transportation system management and transportation demand management. with U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Cooperating Agency) and U.S. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (Cooperating Agency) and WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION (Cooperating Agency) The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzes potential impacts of the proposed action on the natural and human-made environment, including, but not limited to, mountain preserve land, residential and commercial development, cultural resources, wildlife, waters of the United States, air quality, noise levels, and hazardous waste. A Final State-level Environmental Assessment was completed for the South Mountain Corridor in 1988. At that time, a recommended alternative was adopted by the State Transportation Board. The proposed action represents a version of that project. Because of elapsed time and conditions that have changed since completion of the 1988 document, new studies are required. A combination of the W59 Alternative in the Western Section and the E1 Alternative in the Eastern Section is identified as the Preferred Alternative. Americans with Disabilities Act Information John Halikowski, Director Arizona Department of Transportation Individuals requiring reasonable accommodation of any type may contact Terry Gruver, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018; phone: (602) 522-7700; fax: (602) 522-7707; e-mail: . Karla S. Petty, Administrator Arizona Division Federal Highway Administration Title VI of the Civil Rights Act The Arizona Department of Transportation ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and sex in the provision of benefits and services. For language interpretation services, please contact Eddie Edison at (602) 712-7761. For information about the Department’s Title VI Program, please contact Eddie Edison, Civil Rights Administrator, ADOT, 206 S. 17th Avenue, MD 154A, Phoenix, AZ 85007; phone: (602) 712-7761; fax: (602) 712-8429; e-mail: . Date of Approval Date of Approval FHWA-AZ-EIS-14-01-F South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Fact Sheet Project Title South Mountain Freeway State Route Designation SR 202L Federal-aid Project Number NH-202-D(ADY) ADOT Project Number 202L MA 054 H5764 01L NEPA Federal Lead Agency Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Project Sponsor Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Arizona/Nevada Area Office 3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85012 U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 104 North Main Street P.O. Box 8 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Regional Office 615 South 43rd Avenue P.O. Box 6457 Phoenix, AZ 85005 FEIS/Section 4(f) Evaluation Review A review period will begin on the date a notice is published in the Federal Register. Notice will take place on September 26, 2014. The period during which the FEIS can be reviewed and comments can be made will end on November 25, 2014. Comments can be sent to: South Mountain Freeway Project Team Arizona Department of Transportation 1655 West Jackson Street, MD 126F Phoenix, AZ 85007 Comments can also be sent by e-mail to: projects@azdot.gov Printed copies of the FEIS and related documents are available for purchase from ADOT upon request by calling (602) 712-7767. Prices for printed copies are: FEIS/Section 4(f) Evaluation $125 Appendix volume $50 Technical reports $9 to $550 Compact discs are available at no charge and can be obtained by request by calling (602) 712-7767. Printing of all or parts of the FEIS is also available at: FedEx Office Print & Ship Center 4940 East Ray Road Phoenix, AZ 85044 Document Availability The document is available online at and for review only and at no charge at the following locations: Phoenix Public Library – Cesar Chavez 3635 West Baseline Road Laveen, AZ 85339 (602) 262-4636 Hours of operation: Monday, Saturday: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Tuesday – Thursday: 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. Sunday: 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. Closed Fridays Phoenix Public Library – Ironwood Branch 4333 East Chandler Boulevard Phoenix, AZ 85048 (602) 262‑4636 Hours of operation: Monday, Saturday: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Tuesday – Thursday: 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. Sunday: 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. Closed Fridays Phoenix Public Library – Burton Barr Central Library 1221 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 262‑4636 Hours of operation: Monday, Friday, Saturday: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Tuesday – Thursday: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. Sunday: 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. Phoenix Public Library – Desert Sage Branch 7602 West Encanto Boulevard Phoenix, AZ 85035 (602) 262-4636 Hours of operation: Tuesday – Thursday: 11 a.m. – 7 p.m. Friday – Saturday: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Closed Sundays and Mondays Sam Garcia Western Avenue Library 495 East Western Avenue Avondale, AZ 85323 (623) 333‑2665 Hours of operation: Monday – Thursday: 10 a.m. – 9 p.m. Friday – Sunday: 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. Chandler Sunset Library 4930 West Ray Road Chandler, AZ 85226 (480) 782-2800 Hours of operation: Monday – Thursday: 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. Friday – Saturday: 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. Sunday: 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. Tempe Public Library 3500 South Rural Road Tempe, AZ 85282 (480) 350-5500 Hours of operation: Monday – Wednesday: 9 a.m. – 8 p.m. Thursday – Saturday: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Sunday: 12 p.m. – 5 p.m. (list of document repositories continues on next page) Document Availability (continued) Tolleson Public Library 9555 West Van Buren Street Tolleson, AZ 85353 (623) 936‑2746 Hours of operation: Monday – Wednesday: 9 a.m. – 7 p.m. Thursday – Friday: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Saturday: 9 a.m. – 1 p.m. Closed Sundays ADOT Environmental Planning Group 1611 West Jackson Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Call for appointment, (602) 712-7767 Gila River Indian Community District 1 Service Center 15747 North Shegoi Road Coolidge, AZ 85128 (520) 215-2110 Call for hours of operation. Gila River Indian Community District 2 Service Center 9239 West Sacaton Flats Road Sacaton, AZ 85147 (520) 562-3450/(520) 562-3358/(520) 562-1807 Call for hours of operation. Gila River Indian Community District 3 Service Center 31 North Church Street Sacaton, AZ 85147 (520) 562-2700 Call for hours of operation. Gila River Indian Community District 4 Service Center 1510 West Santan Street Sacaton, AZ 85147 (520) 418-3661/(520) 418-3228 Call for hours of operation. Gila River Indian Community District 5 Service Center 3456 West Casa Blanca Road Bapchule, AZ 85121 (520) 315-3441/(520) 315-3445 Call for hours of operation. Gila River Indian Community District 6 Service Center 5230 West St. Johns Road Laveen, AZ 85339 (520) 550-3805/(520) 550-3806/(520) 550-3557 Call for hours of operation. Gila River Indian Community District 7 Service Center 8201 West Baseline Road Laveen, AZ 85339 (520) 430-4780 Call for hours of operation. Ira Hayes Library 94 North Church Street Sacaton, AZ 85147 (520) 562-3225 Hours of operation: Monday – Friday: 9 a.m. – 6 p.m. Gila River Indian Community Communications and Public Affairs Office 525 West Gu U Ki Road Sacaton, AZ 85147 Call for hours of operation. This page intentionally left blank. Contents v CONTENTS Volume I: Main Text Title Page i Fact Sheet ii Prologue to the Final Environmental Impact Statement xi Summary Background Information Contents of the FEIS Comments about the Environmental Impact Statement Process Description of the Proposed Action Historical Context Purpose and Need Alternatives Impacts Measures to Mitigate Adverse Effects Identification of a Preferred Alternative Status of Gila River Indian Community Alternatives – At the FEIS Stage Treatment of Resources Afforded Protection under Section 4(f) – At the FEIS Stage Other Government Actions Permits and Permissions Required Areas of Concern Communications and Coordination – Involving the Public and Agencies in the EIS Process Independent Evaluation of the FEIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Purpose of the Document Purpose of the Chapter Context of Purpose and Need in the EIS Process Project Location, Description, and Current Status Historical Context of the Proposed Action Context of the Proposed Action in Current Regional Transportation Planning Need and Purpose for the Proposed Action Need Based on Socioeconomic Factors Need Based on Regional Transportation Demand and Existing and Projected Transportation System Capacity Deficiencies Conclusions Chapter 2 – Gila River Indian Community Coordination Coordination Efforts and Gila River Indian Community Interaction Pertaining to the Proposed Action S-1 S-2 S-2 S-4 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-10 S-18 S-35 S-38 S-38 S-40 S-40 S-40 S-43 S-44 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-4 1-5 1-9 1-11 1-11 1-13 1-21 2-1 Background Information Executive Branch Gila River Indian Community Council and Special Committees Districts Departments Bureau of Indian Affairs Gila River Indian Community Coordination Gila River Indian Community Council and Special Committees Governor and Lieutenant Governor Districts Governmental Departments I-10/Pecos Road Landowners Association South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team Bureau of Indian Affairs Other Gila River Indian Community Coordination Content and Status of Coordination and Activities Status of Gila River Indian Community Alignments at Time of FEIS Issuance Treatment of Impacts on Gila River Indian Community Land Summary of Comments Received Future Coordination Context of Coordination in Relation to Environmental Justice Executive Order Conclusions Chapter 3 – Alternatives Background and Alternatives Development and Screening Purpose of the Chapter Context of Alternatives in the EIS Process Alternatives Development and Screening Alternatives Studied in Detail No-Action Alternative Action Alternatives Traffic Analysis Identification of a Preferred Alternative Conclusions Chapter 4 – Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Background Information Land Use Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions 2-2 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-4 2-7 2-7 2-8 2-8 2-9 2-9 2-9 2-9 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-11 2-11 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-40 3-40 3-40 3-60 3-62 3-70 4-1 4-3 4-3 4-9 4-19 4-19 vi Social Conditions Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Environmental Justice and Title VI Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Displacements and Relocations Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Economic Impacts Existing Conditions Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Air Quality Regulatory Overview Criteria Pollutants Mobile Source Air Toxics Environmental Consequences Conclusions Noise Noise Criteria Existing Noise Levels Environmental Consequences Mitigation Other Possible Mitigation Strategies Conclusions Water Resources Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Floodplains Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Waters of the United States Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Contents 4-20 4-20 4-21 4-23 4-28 4-29 4-29 4-42 4-46 4-46 4-46 4-51 4-54 4-56 4-56 4-57 4-67 4-67 4-68 4-68 4-69 4-72 4-74 4-87 4-88 4-88 4-88 4-89 4-91 4-99 4-100 4-101 4-101 4-105 4-106 4-109 4-110 4-110 4-112 4-114 4-115 4-116 4-116 4-117 Mitigation Conclusions Topography, Geology, and Soils Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Biological Resources Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Cultural Resources Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation SHPO Concurrence Conclusions Prime and Unique Farmlands Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Hazardous Materials Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Visual Resources Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Energy Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions Temporary Construction Impacts Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Conclusions Material Sources and Waste Material Environmental Consequences Mitigation Conclusions 4-118 4-120 4-121 4-121 4-123 4-124 4-124 4-125 4-125 4-136 4-138 4-139 4-140 4-140 4-142 4-158 4-160 4-160 4-161 4-161 4-161 4-162 4-162 4-164 4-164 4-164 4-165 4-166 4-167 4-167 4-167 4-170 4-170 4-172 4-172 4-172 4-172 4-172 4-173 4-173 4-175 4-176 4-176 4-176 4-176 Contents Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Overview of Historic, Existing, and Future Conditions Secondary Impacts Cumulative Impacts No-Action Alternative Mitigation Conclusions Conclusions Chapter 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation Procedures for Protecting Section 6(f) and Section 4(f) Resources Section 6(f) Section 4(f) Presentation of Section 4(f) Resources, Impacts, and Measures to Minimize Harm Public Parkland Resources (SMPP) Associated with the South Mountains NRHP-Eligible Historic Resources (SMPP) Associated with the South Mountains The South Mountains (Muhadagi Doag) as a Traditional Cultural Property AZ T:12:112 (ASM) as a Traditional Cultural Property Other Traditional Cultural Properties Coordination Conclusions Chapter 6 – Comments and Coordination Past Coordination and Project Actions Summary of Past Agency and Public Involvement, Pre-EIS Process Agency Coordination Public Involvement Future Coordination and Project Actions EIS Process Design Phase Construction Postconstruction Context-Sensitive Solutions as Applied to the Proposed Action Conclusions Preparers Abbreviations and Acronyms Glossary Bibliography and References Index 4-177 4-178 4-179 4-179 4-179 4-183 4-188 4-188 4-189 4-190 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-5 5-14 5-25 5-26 5-28 5-28 5-29 5-31 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-6 6-26 6-26 6-27 6-27 6-27 6-28 6-32 PRE-1 ACR-1 G-1 REF-1 IND-1 Tables Table S-1 Table S-2 Table S-3 Table S-4 Table S-5 Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 3‑1 Table 3‑2 Table 3‑3 Table 3-4 Table 3‑5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Table 3-9 Table 3‑10 Table 3‑11 Table 3‑12 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 4-10 Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 4-13 Table 4-14 Table 4-15 Table 4-16 vii Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation Content Summary Implementation of the Proposed Freeway as the Appropriate Modal Alternative to Satisfy Purpose and Need Criteria, 2035 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives Major Permits and Permissions Purpose and Need Content Summary, Chapter 1 Regional Transportation Plan Highlights Traffic Analysis Tools Meetings to Engage the Community, 2001–2009 Meetings Focused on the Proposed On-Community Alignment, 2010–2012 Alternatives Content Summary, Chapter 3 Nonfreeway Alternatives Considered and Reasons for their Elimination from Further Study Western Section Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study, Second-tier Screening, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Renaming of Action Alternatives, Western Section Eastern Section Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study, Second-tier Screening, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Comparison of Displacements, W55 and W59 Alternatives Traffic Analysis Tools Used to Assess a Freeway’s Effect on Identified Needs Regional Travel Times, 2035 Implementation of the Proposed Freeway as the Appropriate Modal Alternative to Satisfy Purpose and Need Criteria, 2035 Horizontal Alignments, W101 Alternative and Options, Western Section Alignment Features, Action Alternatives Acreage Needed, Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Content Summary, Chapter 4 Existing Land Use, by Study Area Jurisdiction State and Federal Land Ownership, Study Area Zoning, by Study Area Jurisdiction Status of Affected Jurisdictions’ General Plans and Plan Updates Existing Land Uses within Proposed Right-of-way, Action Alternatives Land Use Conversion Acreage Planned Developments Potentially Affected by Action Alternatives Impacts on Community Character and Cohesion, Action Alternatives Environmental Justice Population Percentages, Affected Study Area Jurisdictions Environmental Justice Populations Affected by Action Alternatives Combined Discussion of Effects on Environmental Justice Populations Potential Displacements, Action Alternatives Summary of Business Displacements, Action Alternatives Summary of Businesses within 300 Feet of Action Alternatives Acreage of Taxable Land Uses by Jurisdiction, Action Alternatives S-2 S-9 S-10 S-18 S-41 1-2 1-10 1-13 2-4 2-6 3-2 3-5 3-11 3-11 3-12 3-24 3-27 3-34 3-38 3-41 3-48 3-52 4-2 4-3 4-7 4-7 4-9 4-11 4-14 4-17 4-24 4-30 4-36 4-39 4-46 4-49 4-51 4-56 viii Table 4-17 Table 4-18 Table 4-19 Table 4-20 Table 4-21 Table 4-22 Table 4-23 Table 4-24 Table 4-25 Table 4-26 Table 4-27 Table 4-28 Table 4‑29 Table 4‑30 Table 4‑31 Table 4-32 Table 4-33 Table 4‑34 Table 4‑35 Table 4‑36 Table 4‑37 Table 4‑38 Table 4-39 Table 4-40 Table 4-41 Table 4-42 Table 4-43 Table 4-44 Table 4-45 Table 4-46 Table 4-47 Table 4-48 Contents Land Valuation Assumptions Used to Estimate Property Tax Impacts Resulting from Right-of-way Acquisition Reductions in Local Annual Property Tax Revenues Resulting from Right-of-way Acquisition, Existing Land Uses, Action Alternatives Assumptions Used to Estimate Retail Sales Tax Impacts Resulting from Right-of-way Acquisition Reductions in Annual Retail Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from Right-of-way Acquisition, Existing Land Uses, Action Alternatives Estimated Acreage of Future Study Area Land Uses, Action Alternatives Acreage of Future Taxable Land Uses, Action Alternatives Reductions in Local Annual Property Tax Revenues Resulting from Right-of-way Acquisition, Future Land Uses, Action Alternatives Reductions in Annual Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from Right-of-way Acquisition, Future Land Uses, Action Alternatives Estimates of Total Tax Revenue Impacts, Property and Sales Tax Combined, Dollars per Year, Action Alternatives Estimated Value of Motorists’ Travel Time Economic Benefit of Reduced Regional Traffic Congestion, Action Alternatives National Ambient Air Quality Standards Priority Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, Maricopa County, 2002 Annual Priority Mobile Source Air Toxics Concentrations, South Phoenix Priority Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, South Phoenix Highest Modeled Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at the Interstate 10, Broadway Road, and 40th Street Interchanges Modeled PM10 Design Values Modeled Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, Preferred Alternative (W59/E1), Western Subarea Modeled Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, Preferred Alternative (W59/E1), Eastern Subarea Modeled Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, Preferred Alternative (W59/E1), Project Study Area Statewide and Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potential, Relative to Global Totals Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, Western and Eastern Sections Noise Analysis Results, Western and Eastern Sections Potentially Affected Wells, Action Alternatives Estimated Acreage of Floodplain Impacts, Western Section, Action Alternatives Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona and Species of Greatest Conservation Need and Their Potential to Occur within the Project Limits Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring in Maricopa County Archaeological Resources Affected, Action Alternatives NRHP-eligible Historical Sites (non-TCP), Action Alternatives Record of Section 106 Consultation Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, Prime and Unique Farmlands, Western and Eastern Sections 4-57 4-58 4-59 4-60 4-61 4-62 4-63 4-64 4-65 4-66 4-67 4-69 4-74 4-75 4-75 4-76 4-77 4-80 4-80 4-81 4-86 4-88 4-92 4-93 4-106 4-113 4-129 4-134 4-143 4-144 4-145 4-162 Table 4-49 Table 4-50 Table 4-51 Table 4-52 Table 4-53 Table 4-54 Table 4-55 Table 4-56 Table 4-57 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 6-3 Table 6-4 Table 6-5 Table 6‑6 Table 6-7 Table 6-8 Table 6‑9 Figures Figure S-1 Figure S-2 Figure S-3 Figure S-4 Figure S-5 Figure S-6 Figure S-7 Figure S-8 Figure S-9 Figure S-10 Figure S-11 Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4 Figure 1-5 Figure 1-6 Hazardous Materials Impacts, Action Alternatives Visual Impacts, Action Alternatives Annual Regional Energy Consumption, 2035 Potential Major Utility Impacts, Action Alternatives Earthwork Quantities, Action Alternatives Resources Not Considered for Secondary Impact Analysis Secondary Impacts, Action Alternatives Resources Not Considered for Cumulative Impact Analysis Representative Project-specific Mitigation Measures Section 4(f) Evaluation Content Summary, Chapter 5 Documented Coordination Associated with Section 4(f) Resources Direct Use of Section 4(f) Resources Public Involvement Tools Public Comment Summary, Phase 3 Questions and Comments Received during November 2005 Public Meeting Presentations, Phase 4 Summary of Public Comments, Phase 4 Additional Phase 4 Comments Received during and after the February 2010 Public Meeting Additional Phase 4 Comments Received during and after the February 2011 Public Meeting Public Awareness Campaign Components, Phase 5 Online Public Hearing Participation, Phase 5 Application of Context-Sensitive Solutions in the EIS Process 4-164 4-169 4-172 4-175 4-176 4-180 4-181 4-184 4-189 5-2 5-29 5-31 6-8 6-13 6-16 6-17 6-22 6-22 6-23 6-24 6-29 Location of the Study Area, Maricopa County S-1 Location, Phoenix Metropolitan Area S-2 Environmental Impact Statement Process S-3 The Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Freeway and Highay System, 1985 and 2003 S-4 Historical and Projected Growth S-5 Growth Distribution S-6 Alternatives Development and Screening Process S-7 Action Alternatives S-8 Typical Eight-lane Freeway Section S-10 Comparative Analysis, Action Alternatives, Western Section S-37 Sovereign Nation and Section 4(f) Constraints, Action Alternatives S-39 Study Area Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Freeway and Highway System, 1985 and 2003 Westward Ho Hotel, 1939 Growth Rates, 1950–2010 Historic and Projected Population Distribution, 1955–2030, Phoenix Metropolitan Area Projected Growth Rates, 2010–2035 1-3 1-6 1-7 1-7 1-9 1-11 Contents Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1-9 Figure 1-10 Figure 1-11 Figure 1-12 Figure 1-13 Figure 2-1 Figure 3‑1 Figure 3‑2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3‑4 Figure 3‑5 Figure 3‑6 Figure 3‑7 Figure 3‑8 Figure 3-9 Figure 3-10 Figure 3‑11 Figure 3-12 Figure 3-13 Figure 3-14 Figure 3-15 Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17 Figure 3-18 Figure 3-19 Figure 3‑20 Figure 3‑21 Figure 3‑22 Figure 3‑23 Figure 3‑24 Figure 3‑25 Figure 3‑26 Geographic Distribution of Projected Growth by Subregion, 2010–2035 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Freeways and Arterial Streets (without the Proposed Action), 2012 and 2035 Duration of Level of Service E or F, Morning Commute on Freeways, 2012 and 2035 Duration of Level of Service E or F, Evening Commute on Freeways, 2012 and 2035 Cut-line Analysis, 2012 and 2035 Met and Unmet Demand, 2012 and 2035 Modeled Travel Times without the Proposed Action, 2012 and 2035 Gila River Indian Community and its Governing Districts Regional Context, Proposed Action Alternatives Development and Screening Process Met and Unmet Demand with and without Modal Improvements, 2035 Corridor Locations, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Early Alignment Siting Efforts, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Western and Eastern Section Alternatives, First-tier Screening, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Alignment Adjustments, Third- and Fourth-tier Screening, Western Section, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Design Adjustments, Third- and Fourth-tier Screening, Eastern Section, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Duration of Level of Service E or F on Eight-lane and Ten-lane Freeways, Morning Commute, 2035 Duration of Level of Service E or F on Eight-lane and Ten-lane Freeways, Evening Commute, 2035 Alignment and Design Adjustments, Fifth-tier Screening, Alternatives Development and Screening Process Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Freeways and Arterial Streets with and without the Proposed Freeway, 2035 Cut-line Analysis with and without the Proposed Freeway, 2035 Met and Unmet Demand with and without the Proposed Freeway, 2035 Duration of Level of Service E or F with and without the Proposed Freeway, Morning Commute on Freeways, 2035 Duration Level of Service E or F with and without the Proposed Freeway, Evening Commute on Freeways, 2035 Representative Travel Times with and without the Proposed Freeway, 2035 Select Link Analysis, Origins and Destinations within and outside the Region, 2035 Summary of Action Alternatives Considered and Eliminated Horizontal and Vertical Alignments, W59 Alternative, Western Section Horizontal and Vertical Alignments, W71 Alternative, Western Section Horizontal and Vertical Alignments, W101 Alternative Western Option, Western Section Horizontal and Vertical Alignments, W101 Alternative Central Option, Western Section Horizontal and Vertical Alignments, W101 Alternative Eastern Option, Western Section Horizontal and Vertical Alignments, E1 Alternative, Eastern Section System Traffic Interchange Configurations, Action Alternatives, Western Section 1-12 1-15 1-17 1-18 1-19 1-20 1-20 2-2 3-3 3-4 3-4 3-7 3-7 3-10 3-14 3-15 3-21 3-22 3-25 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-32 3-33 3-34 3-36 3-39 3-42 3-43 3-44 3-45 3-46 3-47 3-49 Figure 3‑27 Figure 3‑28 Figure 3‑29 Figure 3‑30 Figure 3‑31 Figure 3‑32 Figure 3‑33 Figure 3‑34 Figure 3‑35 Figure 3‑36 Figure 3‑37 Figure 3‑38 Figure 3‑39 Figure 3‑40 Figure 3-41 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8 Figure 4-9 Figure 4-10 Figure 4-11 Figure 4-12 Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14 Figure 4-15 Figure 4-16 Figure 4-17 Figure 4‑18 Figure 4‑19 Figure 4‑20 Figure 4‑21 Figure 4‑22 ix System Traffic Interchange Configuration, Action Alternative, Eastern Section Proposed Service Traffic Interchanges, Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections Local Access Modifications, Service Traffic Interchanges, W59 Alternative, Western Section Local Access Modifications, Service Traffic Interchanges, W71 Alternative, Western Section Local Access Modifications, W101 Alternative, Service Traffic Interchanges, Partial and Full Reconstruction Options, Western Section Local Street Realignments, W59 Alternative (Preferred Alternative), Western Section Local Street Realignments, E1 Alternative (Preferred Alternative), Eastern Section Typical Eight-lane Freeway Section Earthwork Quantities, Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections Planning‑level Cost Estimates, Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections Projected Traffic Volumes, Freeways and Arterial Streets, 2035 Projected Traffic Volumes, Action Alternatives, 2035 Modeled Level of Service, Action Alternatives, 2035 Modeled Level of Service, Interstate 10, Western Section, 2035 Comparative Analysis, Action Alternatives, Western Section Jurisdictions Land Ownership Existing Land Uses Planned Developments, 2013 General Plan Land Use Designations Land Leased for Rio Salado Oeste Restoration Project from Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land, Eastern Section Distinct Communities Public Facilities and Services Minority Populations Distribution Low-income Populations Distribution Elderly Populations Distribution Disabled Populations Distribution Female Head-of-household Populations Distribution Potential Business Relocations, W101 Alternative and Options Potential Business Relocations, W71 Alternative Potential Business Relocations, W59 Alternative Comparison of National Economic and Demographic Growth Indicators and Air Emissions, 1970–2005 Annual Second High 8‑hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, Phoenix, 1980–2009 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide, and Ozone, Maricopa County Exceedances of Maximum 8‑hour Ozone Concentrations, Phoenix, 1990–2009 Regional PM10 Emissions Sources, Phoenix, 2012 Figure 4‑23 Priority Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, Maricopa County Figure 4‑24 National Mobile Source Air Toxics Emission Trends, 1999–2050 Figure 4‑25 Modeled Assessment Areas, Mobile Source Air Toxics, Maricopa County 3-50 3-51 3-53 3-54 3-55 3-56 3-57 3-58 3-59 3-59 3-61 3-63 3-65 3-66 3-67 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-8 4-10 4-14 4-15 4-22 4-23 4-31 4-32 4-33 4-34 4-35 4-48 4-48 4-48 4-68 4-70 4-71 4-71 4-72 4-74 4-78 4-79 x Contents Figure 4‑26 Noise Receiver and Potential Barrier Locations, W101 Alternative and Options 4-90 Figure 4‑28 Noise Receiver and Potential Barrier Locations, W59 Alternative 4-90 Figure 4‑27 Noise Receiver and Potential Barrier Locations, W71 Alternative Figure 4-29 Noise Receiver and Potential Barrier Locations, Eastern Section Figure 4-30 Figure 4-31 Figure 4-32 Figure 4-33 Figure 4-34 Figure 4-35 Figure 4-36 Figure 4-37 Figure 4-38 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 5-4 Figure 5-5 Figure 5-6 Figure 5-7 Figure 5-8 Figure 5-9 Figure 5-10 Figure 5-11 Figure 5-12 Figure 5-13 Figure 5-14 Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 Figure 6-4 Figure 6-5 Figure 6-6 Noise Barrier Process Major Surface Water Resources Watersheds in the Region Study Area Active Groundwater Wells Irrigation Canals 100-year Floodplains Surface Water Features, Western Section Typical Ephemeral Washes, Eastern Section Plant Communities and Movement Areas Adjacent to Action Alternative Alignments Section 4(f) in the EIS Process as Applied to the Proposed Action Alignment Adjustments, Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections Section 4(f) Resources in the Study Area Properties Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Not Associated with the South Mountains or Traditional Cultural Properties) Recreational Trails System Public School Recreational Facilities Public Parkland Public Parkland Resources (Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve) Associated with the South Mountains Photo Simulations, Proposed Roadway Cuts through Ridges of the South Mountains Cross Sections, Proposed Roadway Cuts through Ridges of the South Mountains Profile, Tunnel Alternatives Profile, Medium Bridge Alternatives Profile, High Bridge Alternatives Comparison, 1988 South Mountain Freeway Alignment and Proposed Freeway Alignment Public Involvement, South Mountain Freeway History Public Involvement, Phase 2 Public Involvement, Phase 3 Public Involvement, Phase 4 Public Involvement, Phase 5 Comments Submitted, Phase 5 4-90 4-91 4-100 4-102 4-103 4-104 4-107 4-111 4-116 4-117 4-126 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-8 5-10 5-12 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-19 5-21 5-22 5-23 6-1 6-12 6-14 6-14 6-25 6-25 Appendices Volume II: Appendices for Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Chapter 1   Purpose and Need Appendix 1-1 Agency Letters and Communication A1 Chapter 2 Gila River Indian Community Coordination Chapter 3 Alternatives Appendix 2-1 Section 106 Consultation Appendix 3-1 Pecos Road Local Traffic Circulation Chapter 4   Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Appendix 4-1 Appendix 4-2 Appendix 4-3 Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-5 Appendix 4-6 Appendix 4-7 Appendix 4-8 ADOT Relocation Assistance Program Policy Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 Standard 2014 MAG Conformity Analysis Dust Control Permit Memorandum of Agreement Programmatic Agreement Farmland Conversion Supplemental Biological Resources Information Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 Comments and Coordination Appendix 5-1 Properties Excluded from Section 4(f) Consideration Appendix 5-2 Section 4(f) Correspondence and Documents Appendix 6-1 Appendix 6-2 Appendix 6-3 Appendix 6-4 Appendix 6-5 A250 A514 A517 A557 A562 A640 A662 A674 A692 A695 A702 A709 Notice of Intent Newsletters and Advertisements South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team Summary Report: Public Involvement for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Outreach to Gila River Indian Community Members for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix 6-6 Outreach to Gila River Indian Community Members for the Final Environmental Impact Statement A741 A742 A773 A795 A946 Volume III: Comment Response Appendix Federal Agency Comments and Responses Tribal Entity Comments and Responses State Agency and Elected Officials Comments and Responses Local Agency and Elected Officials Comments and Responses Special Interest Group Comments and Responses Responses to Frequently Submitted Public Comments Business Comments and Responses Form Letter Comments and Responses Petition Comments and Responses Citizen Comments and Responses Citizen Comments Received after Comment Deadline B3 B37 B63 B97 B127 B733 B740 B760 B872 B902 B3819 A917 Prologue xi PROLOGUE TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] §§ 1500–1508 and 23 C.F.R. § 771) for the South Mountain Freeway. It incorporates analysis and conclusions presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed action, public comments and responses on the DEIS, and new information that became available after public release of the DEIS. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the project sponsor, working in close consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the lead federal agency for the proposed action, signed the cover sheet of the DEIS on April 16, 2013. A notice of its availability was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2013, which established the public comment period for the document. The public comment period concluded on July 24, 2013. A public hearing was held during the public comment period on May 21, 2013, at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Court reporters were present to accept verbal comments on the DEIS at the hearing. In addition to the public hearing, six community forums were held throughout the metropolitan Phoenix area. An online public hearing was available on the ADOT project Web site (azdot.gov/ southmountainfreeway). All of the materials presented at the public hearing—including the study video, display banners, aerial maps, an interactive electronic version of the DEIS, and an online comment form—were available at the public forums. Written comments (e-mails, letters, and comment forms) were accepted throughout the public comment period. All comments on the DEIS have been responded to in the FEIS. More information on the public involvement process for the DEIS may be found in Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination. Responses to comments received on the DEIS may be found in Appendix 7, Volume III, Public Comments on the South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. The FEIS communicates a preferred alternative, updated information on the affected environment, changes in the assessment of impacts, the selection of mitigation measures, wetland and floodplain findings, the results of coordination, comments received on the DEIS and responses to these comments, and corrections to the DEIS. No modifications to the Preferred Alternative have occurred since the DEIS was published. Because the corrections and updated information incorporated in the FEIS did not reveal any significant adverse environmental impacts not previously considered in the DEIS, a Supplemental DEIS is not needed. FHWA concluded that none of the conditions in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c) were met and that the purposes of NEPA would not be furthered by preparing a Supplemental DEIS. Therefore, the project’s environmental review is proceeding with an FEIS. SUMMARY OF UPDATED INFORMATION Chapter 1, Purpose and Need In June 2013, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) approved new socioeconomic projections for Maricopa County. This chapter of the DEIS was updated to reflect the new population, employment, and housing projections and corresponding projections related to regional traffic. The purpose and need for the project was reevaluated using the new socioeconomic and traffic projections. The conclusions reached in the DEIS were reconfirmed in the FEIS [see Traffic Overview; refer to the text box on this page for information on obtaining technical reports]. A major transportation facility is needed to serve projected growth in population and accompanying transportation demand and to correct existing and projected transportation system deficiencies. Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination No substantive changes were made to this chapter. Chapter 3, Alternatives After reviewing input from the public, including new alternatives, the project team determined that the three identified action alternatives in the Western Section (W59, W71, and W101), one action alternative in the Eastern Section (E1), and the No‑Action Alternative represented a range of reasonable alternatives that were the subject of detailed study in the DEIS and subsequent FEIS. The new MAG socioeconomic and traffic projections for Maricopa County were used to determine whether the proposed freeway was still the type and mode of transportation improvement that would best meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed action. The modeling analysis conducted for the DEIS was updated using 2013 MAG projections for 2035. Traffic volumes, traffic conditions, travel distribution, capacity deficiencies, and travel time were reanalyzed to evaluate the alternatives considered in terms of responsiveness to purpose and need criteria (see Validation of the Alternatives Screening Process at the FEIS Stage memorandum [2014]). The new socioeconomic and traffic projections, while generally lower than what was previously predicted, validated the overall conclusions of the DEIS in terms of purpose and need, evaluation of lane and alignment changes, responsiveness of the proposed freeway to purpose and need, and traffic conditions with the action and No‑Action alternatives. The Gila River Indian Community suggested an additional alignment as a comment on the DEIS. The suggested alignment began at the U.S. Route 60 Review of technical reports, predecisional reports, and memorandums Technical reports—with the exception of the cultural resources and Section 4(f) technical reports (because of the sensitive information they contain)—are available on the project Web site at . If reviewing a hard copy, the technical reports are also included on the compact disc placed in the envelope on the back cover of Volume I. Technical reports, predecisional reports, and memorandums can be made available for review by appointment at ADOT Environmental Planning Group,1611 W. Jackson St., Phoenix, AZ 85007 [(602) 712-7767]. Special requests for portions of the cultural resources and Section 4(f) reports will be considered by ADOT on a case-by-case basis. These reports examine existing conditions and assess potential impacts on existing conditions. xii Prologue (Superstition Freeway) and Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) system traffic interchange and extended west between Baseline Road and Southern Avenue until it turned north at approximately 59th Avenue and followed the W59 Alternative alignment north to a connection with Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway). This alternative was investigated in the Validation of the Alternatives Screening Process at the FEIS Stage memorandum. This alternative had the same disadvantages as other alternatives considered north of the South Mountains. These disadvantages included substantial adverse traffic performance impacts on Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) between State Route (SR) 202L (Santan Freeway) and U.S. Route 60; increased undesirable congestion on U.S. Route 60 and SR 101L (Price Freeway); unintended underuse of SR 202L (Santan Freeway); substantial impacts on existing residences and businesses, including thousands of residential displacements and over 100 business displacements; substantial disruption to community character and cohesion by splitting South Mountain Village and constructing a barrier between schools, parks, and residences; and inconsistency with local and regional planning, which includes a freeway alternative that completes the loop system as part of SR 202L. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further study and was found to not be prudent and feasible. The W59 Alternative in combination with the E1 Alternative was identified as the Preferred Alternative. The analyses and conclusions are reflected in the FEIS. Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation No substantive changes were made to the following sections of this chapter: Topography, Geology, and Soils; Material Sources and Waste Material; Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources; Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and LongTerm Productivity; and Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. Sections of this chapter that had substantive changes are discussed in the following paragraphs. Land Use While updating existing land use information and development plans for the Study Area, an error was noted in the DEIS table of existing land uses. An area of agricultural land was miscoded as single-family residential. This error affected results for City of Phoenix and the W101 Alternative analysis by reporting a greater area of single-family residential land and less agricultural land than was actually present at the time. No substantive changes to the conclusions of the section resulted from this correction. Social Conditions Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/ or indigenous populations and social conditions was not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, lowincome, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. These updates resulted in no substantive changes to the conclusions of the section. Environmental Justice and Title VI In 2012, prior to release of the DEIS, the Title VI and Environmental Justice Report was updated to reflect Census 2010 data, which remains the most current information available (see sidebar on the previous page for information on how to review the report). Based on comments received on the DEIS, the FEIS was modified to discuss environmental justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) separately and to clarify how the conclusions in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section were reached. The clarification supports the determination that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on environmental justice populations or disparate impacts on minority groups protected by Title VI. These updates resulted in no substantive changes to the conclusions of the section. However, even if one were to reach a contrary conclusion and determine that disproportionately high and adverse effects to environmental justice populations or disparate impacts on minority groups protected by Title VI would occur as a result of the proposed freeway, there is substantial justification for the proposed freeway. It is needed to serve projected growth in population and accompanying transportation demand and to correct existing and projected transportation system deficiencies (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need). There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the South Mountains, as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation. Displacements and Relocations Updated (2012) aerial photography of the Study Area necessitated minor changes to the numbers of displaced properties. No substantive changes to the conclusions of the section resulted from this update. Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/ or indigenous populations and displacements and relocations was not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Economic Impacts This section of the FEIS was updated with 2013 valuation rates, land uses, and value of time. Between 2009 and 2013, the average agricultural, vacant, and residential property valuation decreased by Prologue approximately 80 to 90 percent. Commercial property tax valuation increased slightly (approximately 5 to 10 percent), while industrial property values fell by approximately half. Property tax rates (combined primary and secondary) for the municipalities have increased in the same period. The tax revenue changes may result from increasing demand for fiscal resources, increasing budgetary requirements, and decreasing property valuations. The land use and property tax information updates resulted in a decrease (more than half) in property tax impacts for the Cities of Phoenix and Avondale. Property tax impacts to the City of Tolleson are similar to those reported for 2009. The value of time measure (the cost to the traveling public for time spent in congestion) increased by 4 percent between 2009 and 2013. This had an equal impact on all alternatives. These updates resulted in no substantive changes to the conclusions of the section. Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations and economic impacts were not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, lowincome, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Air Quality MAG approved new socioeconomic projections in June 2013. Those revised projections were used to develop new traffic projections for the proposed freeway. Those updated traffic projections were used to update the air quality analyses. In addition, the qualitative PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter) hot-spot analysis performed in the DEIS was updated to a quantitative PM10 analysis to ensure that a state-of-the-art analysis was completed for the proposed action. Also, the quantitative mobile source air toxic (MSAT) inventory analysis and the carbon monoxide (CO) evaluation presented in the DEIS were updated to reflect U.S. Environmental Protection Agency updates in modeling methodology. The Clean Air Act requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations will not cause new or worsen existing violations of certain transportationrelated National Ambient Air Quality Standards and will not delay timely attainment of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards or any required interim emissions reductions or milestones. The project would comply with transportation conformity regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 93 and with conformity provisions of Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. The proposed action is included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for 2035, which was found to conform to the State’s air quality implementation plan by FHWA on February 12, 2014, and in the Fiscal Year 2014–2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The design concept and scope of the project as modeled in the hot-spot analyses are consistent with those used in the regional emissions analysis for the RTP and TIP conformity determinations. The regional emissions modeling demonstrated that future-year MSAT emissions in the regional area (assuming build-out of the Preferred Alternative) would be lower than the 2012 emission estimates, even with a 47 percent increase in regional vehicle miles traveled in 2035. The MSAT emissions analysis for the Study Area found little difference in total annual emissions of MSAT emissions between the Preferred and No‑Action Alternatives (less than a 1 percent difference) in 2025 and 2035. With the Preferred Alternative in 2035, modeled mobile source air toxics emissions would decrease by 57 percent to more than 90 percent, depending on the pollutant, despite a 47 percent increase xiii in vehicle miles traveled in the Study Area compared with 2012 conditions. Comments received on the DEIS requested that FHWA and ADOT perform a health risk assessment and an assessment of the effects on the health of children from the proposed freeway. New text boxes have been added to this section to explain the relationships of these issues to the proposed freeway within the context of NEPA. Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations and air quality was not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Noise For the FEIS, the noise analysis was updated to reflect the revised 2011 ADOT Noise Abatement Policy and changes in FHWA regulations. This resulted in an evaluation of noise levels on undeveloped land, which was not performed for the DEIS. In addition, the noise modeling used 2013 MAG traffic projections for 2035. As a result of the revised analysis, two new noise barriers were evaluated along Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) for the W101 Alternative. These updates resulted in no substantive changes to the conclusions of the section. Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/ or indigenous populations and noise were not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination xiv Prologue from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Water Resources The FEIS was updated to reflect 2013 Arizona Department of Water Resources well locations. The number of affected wells changed for all action alternatives; however, these changes were not substantive and did not affect the conclusions of the section. Based on information provided through comments on the DEIS, the text box on page 4-108 of the FEIS, Process to Find Replacement Water, was modified to explain that City of Phoenix wastewater effluent is no longer available as a replacement water source for the Foothills Community Association irrigation well. The conclusion that replacement water would be provided, however, is still applicable. A discussion was added noting that, depending on whether an action alternative were to become the Selected Alternative, it may be possible to keep certain wells in their current location while moving the well controls and associated piping outside of the proposed freeway’s right-of-way. Such an analysis would be performed later in the design process. Floodplains This section was updated to reflect revised Flood Rate Insurance Maps and Letters of Map Revision issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency since the DEIS was prepared. No substantive changes to the conclusions of the section resulted. Waters of the United States A field delineation of jurisdictional waters for the Preferred Alternative (E1 and W59) was conducted in the summer of 2013 to identify jurisdictional waters and to define the jurisdictional limits for the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting. A preliminary jurisdictional determination was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in January 2014 in accordance with USACE and ADOT guidelines. USACE issued a preliminary jurisdictional determination in March 2014. After the determination was completed, effects on jurisdictional waters under the Preferred Alternative (E1 and W59) were assessed. In the Western Section, the W59 Alternative is anticipated to affect less than 0.5 acre of jurisdictional waters (the Salt River) and would be permitted under a nationwide permit. In the Eastern Section, the E1 Alternative would cross several jurisdictional waters. The E1 Alternative may affect more than 0.5 acre at individual ephemeral wash crossings; CWA permitting would be determined during the project design phase. Biological Resources This section was changed to include Arizona wildlife species of greatest conservation need. A description of riparian habitat type has also been added that was omitted from the DEIS. Updated information on the nesting bald eagle in the Study Area was also provided; however, there would still be no “take” of the eagle. This section was updated to describe results of the Biological Evaluation informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Gila River Indian Community’s Department of Environmental Quality. Based on comments received from the Gila River Indian Community, a new section was added to the FEIS (page 4-127) entitled Culturally Sensitive Species. Consultation resulted in “no effect” findings for all listed and candidate species except for the Tucson shovelnosed snake, which received a “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” finding. Mitigation measures to conduct preconstruction surveys for the Tucson shovelnosed snake and the Sonoran desert tortoise, where appropriate and after consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, were added to the FEIS. Cultural Resources Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations and cultural resources were not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, lowincome, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Prime and Unique Farmlands Updated (2012) aerial photography of the Study Area was reviewed and changes to the acreage of agricultural land that would be converted to other uses were made. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects form (NRCS-CPA-106) was resubmitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service for scoring. The updated scores resulted in some action alternatives falling below the threshold for consideration of protection of farmland. Thus, the conclusions of the section did not change. Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations and prime and unique farmlands was not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, lowincome, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Hazardous Materials Updated information on hazardous materials sites was obtained and reviewed for a smaller, more defined Prologue footprint of the Preferred Alternative (W59 and E1). As a result, the sites of concern identified were fewer than those reported in the DEIS. The reasons behind several sites being described as no concern to the proposed freeway in the DEIS were clarified in the FEIS. These updates resulted in no substantive changes to the conclusions of the section. Visual Resources Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations and visual resources was not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, lowincome, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Energy The information in this section of the FEIS was updated using 2011 fuel consumption data and 2013 vehicle fuel economies, which were applied to 2013 MAG traffic projections for 2035. As a result, energy use for all alternatives changed; however, these changes were not substantive and did not affect the conclusions of the section. Temporary Construction Impacts Additional construction mitigation measures were added to this section. Comments received on the DEIS stated that the relationship between minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations and temporary construction impacts was not clearly described in this section of the DEIS. The relationship could be identified only by referencing demographic information in the Environmental Justice and Title VI section. Accordingly, in this section the FEIS clarifies potential impacts on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. It reflects the determination from the Environmental Justice and Title VI section that, following the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, low-income, and/or indigenous populations. Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation Based on comments received on the DEIS, updates to trail information were made and a discussion regarding a park planned by the City of Phoenix was added. City of Phoenix data were used to update the recreational trails system and public parkland figures in the FEIS. The action alternatives would not result in direct or proximity impacts to the planned park. Although the E1 Alternative would be located adjacent to the new trail, it would not result in a direct use and the potential proximity impacts would not be substantial enough to constitute constructive use of the resource. xv These updates resulted in no substantive changes to the conclusions of the chapter. In March 2014, ADOT was notified that the private owner of the Ong Farm elected to demolish the farm; therefore, the Ong Farm is no longer eligible for protection under Section 4(f). Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination Updates were made to describe events leading to release of the DEIS for public comment and the public hearing process for the DEIS. These updates included a discussion of final meetings of the South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team, the awareness campaign conducted prior to release of the DEIS, the public hearing, the online public hearing, community forums, and a summary of comments received on the DEIS. The process of distributing the FEIS for review is described, along with methods of submitting comments on the FEIS. SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN THE DEIS AND FEIS As described previously, the chapters of the FEIS were updated with new and corrected information. The FEIS includes a new appendix, Appendix 7, Volume III, Public Comments on the South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Those who submitted comments on the DEIS will find their comments and the responses to those comments in Appendix 7, Volume III. This page intentionally left blank. SUM Summary BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is the sponsor of a proposed action, the construction and operation of the South Mountain Freeway in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed freeway would constitute a section of the Regional Freeway and Highway System, the Loop 202 (referred to as State Route [SR] 202L in this document). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the federal lead agency for the proposed action, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Western Area Power Administration, has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)/ Section 4(f) Evaluation (referred to as FEIS in this document) in accordance with: ➤➤ the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 4332(2)(c)] The location of the Study Area for the proposed action is in the southwestern portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (Figure S-1). Consideration of alternatives and project impacts was comprehensive and extended outside Study Area limits when appropriate. While the Gila River Indian Community (Community) is included in the Study Area, no alternatives have been studied in detail on Community land. The many years of Figure S-1 Location of the Study Area, Maricopa County YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. § 303, as amended) 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. § 1251) 60 51 LOOP 60 ➤➤ The LOOP 202 85 10 Gila Bend Florence Casa Grande 8 proposed action would constitute a section of SR 202L (part of the Regional Freeway and Highway System). The Red Mountain, Santan, and South Mountain freeway corridors are the component parts of the ultimate SR 202L. ➤➤ The PINAL COUNTY PIMA COUNTY General background information about the proposed action includes: proposed freeway would generally follow the southern and western edges of the city limits of Phoenix, Arizona, for a distance of between 22 and 24 miles. 101 STUDY AREA The proposed freeway would be constructed in phases ultimately leading to an eight-lane divided, accesscontrolled facility, with four travel lanes in each direction. Three lanes would be for general purpose use and one lane would be dedicated to high-occupancy vehicle use. ➤➤ The 87 17 10 ➤➤ Section The FEIS 1) satisfies FHWA and ADOT’s environmental analysis requirements; 2) provides a comparison of the social, economic, and environmental impacts that may occur from implementation of the proposed action—operation and construction of a major transportation facility; and 3) identifies measures to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate adverse impacts. The FEIS includes sufficient preliminary design information to compare alternatives. GILA COUNTY Metro Phoenix ➤➤ Section Payson ongoing outreach to gain permission to study an alternative in detail on Community land have been unsuccessful. Ultimately, the Community elected to not grant permission to study alternatives in detail on Community land and, therefore, FHWA and ADOT have determined that an alternative alignment on Community land is not feasible. Not to scale The Study Area for the proposed freeway is in the central portion of Maricopa County, Arizona. proposed freeway is integral to the region’s adopted multimodal transportation plan as a key element of the plan’s freeway system component and would be part of the National Highway System. What you will f ind in the Summary chapter The Summary chapter provides an overview of the proposed action, specifically: • what is the historical context (page S-4 ) • how it came to be needed (page S-5) • what it would look like if it were constructed (page S‑8) • the impacts it would cause while being constructed and when open to the public for use (page S‑10) • what measures ADOT would implement to reduce those impacts (page S‑18) • what events led to identification of a Preferred Alternative (page S-35) • what key issues and outstanding areas of concern are (page S‑40) • what communications have occurred in getting to the point of issuing an FEIS (page S-43) The Summary is not the “final word” about the proposed action; the reader is encouraged to refer to the main contents of the FEIS regarding proposed action-related topics and issues. Acronyms, abbreviations, glossary, list of preparers, references, and an index can be can be found in the back of the FEIS. ➤➤ The proposed freeway would begin at a connection to Interstate 10 (I-10) (Papago Freeway) between South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation S-1 SUM S-2 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 115th Avenue/Avondale Boulevard (milepost 131.7) and 43rd Avenue (milepost 140.7) and end at or near the existing system-to-system freeway interchange connecting SR 202L (Santan Freeway) to I-10 (Maricopa Freeway) (milepost 161.3) (Figure S-2). CONTENTS OF THE FEIS COMMENTS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS The contents of the FEIS (summarized in Table S-1) embody the first steps of a process through which each step led to refinement and narrowing of previous The environmental impact statement (EIS) process provides information to assist FHWA and ADOT in making determinations regarding the proposed action milepost 101 131.7 Agua Fria Freeway Papago 10 Freeway Avondale Boulevard Piestewa Freeway Black Canyon milepost 140.7 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Gila River Indian Community within Study Area Chapter 2 Gila River Indian Community Coordination Existing freeway Downtown Phoenix Gila River Indian Community boundary Southern Avenue Chapter 3 Alternatives 60 Superstition Freeway Dobbins Road ● ● ● ● Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve LOOP 101 Maricopa 10 Freeway Ray Road Santan Freeway Price Road 48th Street 40th Street 32nd Street 24th Street Desert Foothills Parkway 17th Avenue r ve Ri LOOP 202 McClintock Road la Chandler Boulevard Pecos Road Price Freeway milepost 161.3 Rural Road Gi Sierra Estrella ● ● 5 miles 1 Baseline Road Estrella Drive ● Approximate scale Broadway Road Elliot Road ● Hohokam 143 Freeway Maricopa County line Lower Buckeye Road Gila River Indian Community the public and stakeholders throughout the ➤➤ provide full and fair disclosure of environmental process impacts ➤➤ inform decision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives and/or measures to reduce, minimize, Highlights ● Study Area 17 Freeway Buckeye Road r ➤➤ engage Table S-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation Content Summary 51 Van Buren Street Salt Rive to meet project objectives while taking into account sensitive social, economic, and environmental concerns. Basic purposes of the EIS process are to: Chapter 35th Avenue 43rd Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 83rd Avenue 91st Avenue 99th Avenue 107th Avenue 115th Avenue Figure S-2 Location, Phoenix Metropolitan Area LOOP determinations until a final decision is made. A final decision will be documented in the record of decision (ROD) (see Figure S-3). Chapter 4 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation ● Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation ● ● ● ● ● ● Chapter 6 Comments and Coordination ● ● a MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Located in the southwestern portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, the study of alternative actions encompasses 156 square miles of natural, rural, and urban landscapes. d Process used to determine whether there is a need for a major transportation facility in the Study Area Need based on socioeconomic factors Need based on regional transportation demand and existing and projected transportation system capacity deficiencies a b Steps taken by FHWA, ADOT, and others to engage the Gila River Indian Community Possible future actions that could be taken How alternatives were developed and the process used to determine which alternatives should be studied in detail in the FEISc and which should be eliminated from study A description of the No-Action Alternative and why it is studied Design features of each action alternative studied in detail, including alignment, profile, number of lanes, conceptual costs, construction sequencing, and how traffic would operate on each alternative in the future Reasons for Preferred Alternative Identification of impacts that would result from the action alternatives and the No‑Action Alternative How alternatives may beneficially affect the environment What measures would be taken to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate adverse impacts The connection of NEPAd with Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) What properties are protected under Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) How the alternatives would affect resources afforded protection under Section 4(f) Awareness of the continuous and comprehensive efforts to engage the public, jurisdictions, agencies, and other stakeholders in the EISe process Trends in comments received depending on location and time in the EIS process Future communication efforts that will be undertaken Federal Highway Administration b Arizona Department of Transportation National Environmental Policy Act e environmental impact statement c Final Environmental Impact Statement South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-3 Figure S-3 Environmental Impact Statement Process Begin public and agency coordination (Chapters 2 and 6) Decision to prepare EISc Notice of Intent Begin scoping · Public · Agencies Determine purpose and need (Chapter 1) · Define transportation problem · Analyze potential solutions · Establish purpose and need Identify range of reasonable alternatives (Chapter 3) · Revisit previous alternatives · Develop new alternatives · Begin data collection · Screen alternatives · Identify range of reasonable alternatives for detailed study in DEIS · Eliminate unreasonable alternatives Conduct impacts analyses (Chapters 4 and 5) Prepare DEISa (complete Chapters 1 through 6) · Collect data · Analyze impacts · Identify possible mitigation · Prepare environmental studies Prepare FEISb (complete Chapters 1 through 6) · Identify Preferred Alternative · Prepare DEIS Circulate DEIS Hold public hearings · Identify Preferred Alternatived · Prepare FEIS · Respond to comments on DEIS Since scoping in 2001, input from the public, agencies, municipalities, and other interested parties has been actively sought by ADOT.f Over 200 meetings with the public, 6 years of involvement by the South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team, Web site access, and toll-free phone lines have led to over 5,000 comments. Draft Environmental Impact Statement b Final Environmental Impact Statement record of decision f Arizona Department of Transportation c environmental impact statement File RODe, including response to FEIS comments Design phase (if Selected Alternative is an action alternative) Selected Alternative During the 90-day comment period for the DEIS, a day-long public hearing and six community forums were held. Through public testimony at the hearing and to court reporters, e-mails, comment cards, letters, and hotline messages, over 8,000 comments were received. Tasks remaining to complete the EIS process Tasks completed at the time of FEIS circulation e Availability period for FEIS Preferred Alternative(s) Process leads to identification of . . . a Issue FEIS d See page S-35 for a discussion of the process for identifying a Preferred Alternative. The environmental impact statement process is complete with the filing of a record of decision (ROD). The ROD includes the Selected Alternative, measures to mitigate impacts, and responses to comments received on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. avoid, or otherwise mitigate adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment to the extent practicable ➤➤ consider environmental, operational, fiscal, and engineering factors when making proposed actionrelated determinations The FEIS provides planning-level design information to assist in comparing alternatives. The FEIS was prepared, in part, to elicit comments from interested citizens, organizations, and agencies regarding content of the document and the specific effects of the proposed freeway alternatives. ADOT and FHWA have completed the steps leading to the circulation of the FEIS (Figure S-3). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released for public comment on April 26, 2013, and a public hearing was held on May 21, 2013. This FEIS was prepared and made available to the public to: ➤➤ document impacts of the proposed action and to reflect changes (where appropriate, in design, impact, and mitigation disclosure) based on comments received on the DEIS ➤➤ describe the process and considerations used to reach a Selected Alternative (to be recorded in a ROD) ➤➤ identify and commit to all reasonable mitigation measures that, to the extent practicable, reduce, minimize, or eliminate impacts (formal obligations to mitigation would be expressed in the ROD) ➤➤ include comments received during the DEIS comment period and responses to those comments SUM SUM S-4 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION added into the State Highway System by the State Transportation Board. The facility, designated as a portion of SR 202L, was designed as a high-speed, access-controlled freeway. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The South Mountain Freeway was originally included in the proposed 232‑mile Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Freeway System (now called the Regional Freeway and Highway System) as planned in 1985 (Figure S-4). At that time, it was to meet the most pressing regional transportation needs as funds became available. As other freeway segments were analyzed, designed, and constructed, further studies were prepared to examine proposed freeway alternatives. Versions of the proposed action have continued to be included in updates to MAG transportation planning documents, Since 1985, ADOT and MAG have sequenced construction of the Regional Freeway and Highway System Figure S-4 The Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Freeway and Highway System, 1985 and 2003 to Flagstaff MAGa Regional Transportation Plan Freeway Program as depicted in 2003 Planned freeway Existing freeway PEORIA Grand Avenue corridor 17 Freeway EL MIRAGE YOUNGTOWN 303 ay AVONDALE Pima Freeway 30 Superstition Freeway Baseline Road Guadalupe Road Elliot Road Warner Road Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 1985a; used with permission. Ellsworth Road Crismon Road Signal Butte Road Meridian Road Recker Road Power Road APACHE JUNCTION 60 Superstition Freeway LOOP 202 South Mountain Freeway Gila River Indian Community Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve LOOP 101 Price Freeway GILBERT Maricopa 10 Freeway 24 LOOP 202 Sierra Estrella Note: Location of South Mountain Freeway is being addressed in the DCRb/EISc study process currently underway that is considering multiple location options. Pecos Road Germann Road Queen Creek Road Ocotillo Road Chandler Heights Road Riggs Road c design concept report environmental impact statement Hunt Highway Sossaman Road Hawes Road Lindsay Road Val Vista Drive Greenfield Road Higley Road Cooper Road Gilbert Road Price Road Dobson Road Alma School Road Arizona Avenue McQueen Road 40th Streeet 48th Street 56th Street Kyrene Road Rural Road McClintock Drive 19th Avenue 7th Avenue 7th Steet 16th Steet 24th Steet 32nd Street 27th Avenue 51st Avenue 43rd Avenue 35th Avenue Perryville Road Citrus Road Cotton Lane Sarival Avenue Reems Road Bullard Avenue Litchfield Road Dysart Road El Mirage Road Avondale Boulevard 107th Avenue 99th Avenue 91st Avenue 83rd Avenue 75th Avenue 67th Avenue 59th Avenue er Salt Riv b MESA The general location of the South Mountain Freeway has remained unchanged since first being introduced in the mid-1980s. n M Ray Road Williams Field Road Santan Freeway Hohokam Freeway To be named Indian School Road Thomas Road McDowell Road McKellips Road Brown Road University Drive Broadway Road Southern Avenue Red Mountain Freeway TEMPE Indian Bend Road McDonald Drive Chaparral Road Red Mountain Freeway Maricopa Association of Governments 143 Thunderbird Road Cactus Road Shea Boulevard 5 miles a LOOP 202 TOLLESON so th 1 ountain Freeway Pima Freeway Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport c Tu to u So Approximate scale Price Freeway Sky Harbor Expressway 101 Papago 5 miles Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community PARADISE VALLEY Agua Fria Freeway 10 Freeway arkw ak P w Pe y a sw es Squa pr Agua Fria Freeway Ex Black Canyon Freeway Estrella Freeway nd ra Maricopa Freeway 1 LITCHFIELD PARK BUCKEYE Hohokam Expressway Approximate scale PHOENIX LOOP GOODYEAR Sky Harbor Airport Papago Freeway “Action” as proposed in 1985 Baseline Road 101 Freeway proposed in 1985 Existing freeway eles ng os A To L Pima Freeway Agua Fria Freeway Paradise Parkway LOOP Proposition 300 Freeway Plan as depicted in 1985 G Dear Valley Road Beardsley Road Union Hills Drive Bell Road Greenway Road Thunderbird Road Cactus Road Peoria Avenue Olive Avenue Northern Avenue Glendale Avenue Bethany Home Road Camelback Road Indian School Road Thomas Road McDowell Road Van Buren Street Buckeye Road Lower Buckeye Road Broadway Road Southern Avenue eway a Fre Piestewa Freeway 60 Grand Avenue Note: The graphic below depicts the freeway plan as shown to voters in 1985. ll Estre Maricopa County line 51 GLENDALE Dixileta Drive Patton Road Jomax Road Happy Valley Road Pinnacle Peak Road Gila River Indian Community boundary Black Canyon SURPRISE Williams Gateway Freeway Santan Freeway CHANDLER QUEEN CREEK MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2003; extrapolated analysis South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation including the current adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (MAG 2003) (Figure S-4). The 2003 RTP is a comprehensive regional plan addressing needs for all transportation modes and for planned transportation improvements in the MAG region through fiscal year 2026 (see text box on page 1-5 for more information regarding the RTP). Upon its inclusion in the Regional Freeway and Highway System in the mid-1980s, the proposed South Mountain Freeway also became an element of long-range planning efforts of local jurisdictions (e.g., City of Phoenix) throughout the Study Area. Since the original planning for the freeway in 1985, changes have occurred in regional growth patterns and traffic movements, local land uses, State and federal environmental regulations, roadway design standards, and funding sources. Within this historical context ADOT is finalizing the planning effort for one of the “missing” Regional Freeway and Highway System segments, the South Mountain Freeway. ADOT has opted to seek federal highway funds to assist in completing the proposed freeway. For this reason, FHWA is required to ensure that the proposed action complies with the provisions of NEPA and other federal environmental laws. Study of the proposed freeway in the FEIS is based on logical termini, sufficient length, independent utility, construction priorities associated with the Regional Freeway and Highway System, and projected traffic needs. PURPOSE AND NEED Over the past 40 years, Phoenix-area population, housing, and employment experienced some of the fastest growth in the nation (Figure S-5). For example, from the early 1950s to the mid-1990s, population in the MAG region grew by over 500 percent. (The population in the United States as a whole grew by approximately 70 percent during this time period.) Several factors—desirable climate and desert setting, advantageous location as a distribution hub, popularity as a travel destination, year-round agricultural benefit, enhanced water supply (e.g., from the Central Arizona Summary Project)—have substantially contributed to the greater Phoenix metropolitan area being a popular destination for people and industry. These factors are expected to continue to drive growth through 2035 and beyond; MAG projections indicate Maricopa County’s population will add an average 800,000 people per decade from 2010 to 2035. Figure S-5 Historical and Projected Growth Millions 20 Millions 20 2010–2035 Vehicle miles traveleda People Jobs Housing units It is this growth that continues to drive the need for public infrastructure (e.g., transportation systems). The MAG 1985 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which included the planned 232-mile Regional Freeway and Highway System, was a direct response to the growth occurring in the region. The multimodal 2003 RTP serves as the “next generation” of the LRTP. In preparing the RTP, MAG offered 150 public input opportunities and held 117 agency meetings and 173 stakeholder meetings. Opportunities for public input included expert panels, focus groups, special events and workshops, and public hearings (see the MAG Web site, , for additional information). 15 15 Voters reaffirm support for continued implementation of the MAGb Regional Transportation Plan by passage of Proposition 400 Advent of affordable air conditioning 10 9 8 A major transportation facility (the South Mountain Freeway) has been included in the region’s adopted transportation planning documents since 1985 and remains in the current RTP. At the beginning of the EIS process, the need for a major transportation facility in the Study Area was reexamined to determine whether it was still needed. Using state-of-the-practice methods and tools, the analysis conducted for the EIS revealed that a major transportation facility is needed to address: factors: ➣➣ Population, housing, and employment are projected to increase by approximately 50 percent between 2010 and 2035, increasing travel demand (see Figure S-5). ➣➣ Growth in vehicle miles traveled is projected to meet or exceed these socioeconomic factors and to further burden the already-overtaxed regional transportation system. ➣➣ Almost 50 percent of projected increases in population, housing, and employment from 2010 to 2035 for the entire MAG region are expected to occur in the southwestern and southeastern 1950–2010 7 6 5 4 3 2 ➤➤ Socioeconomic Completion of Interstate 10 through the city of Phoenix Socioeconomic growth is expected to continue 10 9 MAG Regional Freeway and Highway System is approved by voters in 1985 by passage of Proposition 300 8 7 6 Construction of the Central Arizona Project is approved 5 4 3 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is enacted 2 1 1 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 SUM S-5 2020 2030 2010 2035 0 a vehicle miles traveled reduced to one-tenth of their actual values to facilitate comparison of growth rates on the same axis b Maricopa Association of Governments Sources: 1950–2010 U.S. Census; Maricopa Association of Governments, 2013b and 2013c Rapid growth trends in the region are projected to continue in the foreseeable future. These will continue to drive public infrastructure needs. What is the Maricopa Association of Governments? MAG was created in 1967 to foster regional cooperation and address regional challenges in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. In 1973, MAG became the designated metropolitan planning organization for regional planning in the Maricopa County region. Its current membership includes the 27 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa County and the contiguous urbanized area, 3 Native American Indian communities, and Maricopa and Pinal counties. ADOT and the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee serve as ex-officio members for transportation-related issues. MAG is at the service of its members. By fostering communication, planning, policymaking, coordination, advocacy, and technical assistance, MAG serves to facilitate and create an environment for its members to address issues and needs that cross city, town, county, and even state boundaries. The Articles of Incorporation for MAG state that the association was formed to: • Provide a forum for discussion and study of regional problems of mutual interest to the governments in the region. • Ensure, through cooperation and the pooling of common resources, maximum efficiency and economy in governmental operations, which will provide every citizen with the utmost value for every dollar. • Identify and comprehensively plan for the solution of regional problems requiring multicity, town, and county cooperation. • Facilitate agreements among the governmental units for specific projects or other interrelated developmental actions or for the adoption of common policies with respect to problems that are common to its members. • Attain the greatest degree of intergovernmental cooperation possible in order to prepare for future growth and development of the region. SUM S-6 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ➣➣ Quality of traffic operations Figure S-6 Growth Distribution Subregion Far Southwest Valley PEORIA SURPRISE +94 +23 +242 +75 +13 +7 North Valley Northeast Valley TOLLESON +312 +132 East Valley PARADISE VALLEY +44 +45 +138 +90 +302 +203 AVONDALE Northwest Valley SCOTTSDALE GLENDALE PHOENIX GOODYEAR Far Northwest Valley +147 +72 +102 +66 +102 +93 +17 +14 FOUNTAIN HILLS North Central Phoenix Central Phoenix South Scottsdale/Paradise Valley TEMPE +151 +156 Central West Valley MESA Southwest Valley Ahwatukee/Gila River Indian Community GILBERT CHANDLER Chandler/Gilbert/Queen Creek +281 +209 Proposed action Proposed action Projected increase in population 2010–2035 (000s) Projected increase in employment 2010–2035 (000s) QUEEN CREEK Population (000s) Activity Area 2010 2035 Central West Valley 578 880 Southwest Valley 203 Not to scale Employment (000s) Projected Increase 2010 2035 302 136 339 203 521 318 58 190 132 80 97 17 27 41 14 645 926 281 288 497 209 Total for the proposed action activity area 1,506 2,424 918 509 1,067 558 Total Maricopa County 3,824 5,776 1,952 1,707 2,892 1,185 39% 42% 47% 30% 37% 47% Ahwatukee/Gila River Indian Community Chandler/Gilbert/Queen Creek Percentage contribution – proposed action corridor activity area Projected Increase Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2013b; extrapolated analysis Based on the needs analysis, a major transportation facility would be located in one of the region’s (and nation’s) fastest-growing areas in terms of population and employment. portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which a major transportation facility in the Study Area would serve (see Figure S-6). ➣➣ Although the economic downturn that began in late 2007 has created a slow-growth development context, historic and projected long-term growth rates indicate the condition is temporary. ➤➤ Regional transportation demand and existing and projected transportation system capacity deficiencies: ➣➣ Transportation demand – Average daily traffic volumes on freeways and arterial streets are projected to increase substantially in and adjacent to the Study Area between 2012 and 2035. – Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic congestion, with LOS A the least congested and LOS F the most congested. During peak commuting periods, the LOS on regional transportation facilities operating in the Study Area and its surroundings is poor, with much of the network congested for multiple hours. Even with planned improvements from implementation of the RTP (except the proposed action), travel conditions are projected to get worse. ➣➣ Transportation capacity – The 2012 road network can serve only 84 percent of the total demand while operating at LOS D. Even with implementation of planned RTP improvements (except the proposed action), the 2035 road network would be able to serve only 69 percent of the total demand while operating at LOS D. ➣➣ Travel time – Delays experienced daily by hundreds of thousands of drivers would continue to worsen over the course of the next 20-plus years, resulting in substantial lost time and related costs. When considering the historical need for a major transportation facility; socioeconomic factors; and the analyses of the existing and projected transportation capacity and demand, quality of traffic operational performance, and travel time; the proposed action is a needed element of the transportation network in the MAG region. Therefore, a clear need exists for a major transportation facility in the Study Area. The purpose of the proposed action is to fulfill the multiple dimensions of this need. ALTERNATIVES Once purpose and need were established for the proposed action, the next step in the EIS process was to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to be studied in detail in the FEIS (see sidebar on the next page regarding the definition of a range of reasonable alternatives). This step identified reasonable alternatives for the proposed action to allow for a meaningful subsequent comparison of how the alternatives might affect the human and natural environments. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation A process was undertaken to develop a broad range of alternatives, screen those alternatives using a multidisciplinary set of criteria, and identify the alternatives to be studied in detail in the DEIS. By conducting a multidisciplinary analysis, ADOT, FHWA, and other stakeholders participated in an integrated, methodical approach that led to outcomes in the consideration of the proposed action. Such outcomes included: If not confirmed, process ends Reevaluate purpose and need If confirmed, clarify problem to be solved ➤➤ a comprehensive set of alternatives to be considered at the start of the EIS process comprehensive set of diverse viewpoints and expertise relevant to pertinent determinations associated with environmental concerns, design requirements, optimization of traffic conditions, ability to meet purpose and need criteria, minimization of project cost, and concerns of localized importance a to eliminate alternatives from further study were rooted in sound judgment when considering diverse viewpoints in the context of multidisciplinary criteria ➤➤ assurance that the screening process was an open process; results of each step were shared in a timely manner with FEIS project team members, local jurisdictions, and the public The screening process is illustrated schematically in Figure S-7. At each step in the process, alternatives were comparatively measured against multiple criteria, including ability to meet purpose and need criteria, cost effectiveness, minimization of environmental impacts, operational and design characteristics, constructibility, and public and agency acceptability. Alternatives were either eliminated from further study or carried forward to the next level of evaluations. None of the action alternatives considered in the screening process would avoid environmental impacts entirely; the screening process, however, helped ensure the elimination from detailed study many of those Develop multiple criteria to screen alternatives Corridor Screening Eliminate modes and present reasons Conduct screening of transportation modes Develop and screen corridors Design Options and Refinements Alignment/Technical Alternatives Screening Eliminate corridors and present reasons Develop and screen alignments in remaining corridors Eliminate alignments and present reasons First-tier and Second-tier screening Refine remaining alignments Eliminate certain refinements and present reasons Alternatives to be studied in detail in the FEISa Third-, Fourth-, and Fifth-tier screening Final Environmental Impact Statement Identification of alternatives for detailed analysis followed logical steps, beginning with determination of the proposed action’s purpose and need, followed by consideration of transportation modes and corridors and alignments. Specific multidisciplinary criteria were established prior to the screening process to guide determinations in the alternatives identification process. ➤➤ assurance ➤➤ reasons Modal Screening Develop solutions or alternatives Develop methods to screen alternatives ➤➤ a that the comparative importance of criteria maintained an appropriate balance when considering the performance of alternatives under analysis SUM S-7 Figure S-7 Alternatives Development and Screening Process Creation of Western and Eastern Sections A common point is shared among the alignments of all action alternatives; it is located east of 59th Avenue and south of Elliot Road. To evaluate and compare action alternatives, the Study Area is presented in two geographical sections: a Western Section and an Eastern Section. The break between the Western and Eastern Sections is a line perpendicular to the Community boundary through the common point as illustrated in the figure. Agua Fria proposed action options. These factors effectively limit comparative impact analysis among the alternatives. • The common point permits combining action alternatives in the Western Section with action alternatives in the Eastern Section to best satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed action. Black Canyon 17 Freeway Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community boundary Maricopa County line Western Section Red Mountain Eastern 202 Section Freeway Phoenix South Mountain Park/ Preserve LOOP 101 Freeway The Study Area was divided into two sections because: • Each section presents distinct issues. For example, in the Western Section, the rapid transition from predominantly agricultural uses to urban fringe is the prevalent trend. In the Eastern Section, issues are different: the Ahwatukee Foothills Village community is nearly built‑out and Community land to the south limits 51 Papago 10 Freeway Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Piestewa Freeway LOOP Elliot Road 59th Avenue Screening Process Summary Common point 143 Hohokam Freeway Approximate scale 60 Superstition Freeway 1 LOOP 5 miles Price 101 Freeway Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Maricopa 10 Freeway LOOP Santan 202 Freeway Gila River Indian Community MARICOPA COUNTY What is meant by a range of reasonable alternatives? Federal regulations stipulate that an EIS shall “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] § 1502.14[a]). In 1983, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ ) issued guidance stating “reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint” and “us[e] common sense.” When a large number of alternatives may exist, “only a reasonable number . . . covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS” (Federal Register 46:18026 [1981]). n er Dobbins Road Gi la ve r c Se Gila River Indian Community n io t ec t S es n W ster Ea Elliot Road Ri n tio Baseline Road a Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve See discussion of service traffic interchanges, beginning on page 3-51. 32nd Street $1.72−$1.87 billion 24th Street r Rive 16th Street Southern Avenue Salt ser t Par Footh kwa ills y $1.54 billion Broadway Road Maricopa 10 Freeway $761 million No alternatives on Gila River Indian Community land Approximate scale 1 48th Street Sierra Estrella 40th Street Pecos Road n The No-Action Alternative is included for detailed study in accordance with NEPA requirements to compare beneficial and adverse impacts of the action alternatives with those benefits and adverse impacts of not proceeding with one of the action alternatives. $1.23 billion Lower Buckeye Road so No-Action Alternative Buckeye Road c Tu The action alternatives are the W59 Alternative, the W71 Alternative, the W101 Alternative (with alignment options), and the E1 Alternative. Figure S-8 illustrates the locations of the four action alternatives (and options) studied in detail in the FEIS and some features common to the action alternatives: specifically, local traffic interchange locations and planning-level cost estimates (including right-of-way [R/W] and construction costs). Figure S-9 illustrates the typical section of the freeway. Chapter 3, Alternatives, has detailed descriptions of features of the alternatives. Van Buren Street to the freeway mode, three action alternatives in the Western Section of the Study Area, one action alternative in the Eastern Section of the Study Area, and the No-Action Alternative were determined to represent an adequate range of reasonable alternatives for detailed study in the FEIS. Papago 10 Freeway De ➤➤ For McDowell Road 7th Avenue transportation system linkage by completing the Regional Freeway and Highway System as planned since the mid-1980s and to local and regional adopted long-range planning efforts through its consistency with the transportation elements of local and regional long-range land use plans (see Table S-2 for more information related to why the freeway mode was determined to be the most appropriate mode). Thomas Road Study Area Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community boundary Maricopa County line Western DowntownSection PhoenixW59 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section E1 Alternative Service traffic interchange locationsa Full access Half access 17th Avenue ➤➤ The freeway mode would bring added benefit to 17 Freeway 27th Avenue the transportation modes considered, the freeway mode would best address regional transportation demand and transportation system capacity deficiencies. Black Canyon Agua Fria Freeway 43rd Avenue ➤➤ Of LOOP 101 51st Avenue The screening process led the project team to conclude: Indian School Road 59th Avenue Action Alternatives Figure S-8 Action Alternatives 67th Avenue All alternatives, including the No‑Action Alternative, would generate impacts on the natural and human environment. Impacts from any of the action alternatives would be unavoidable given a public works project the size of the proposed action. Because other alternatives were eliminated from further study due, in part, to undesirable impacts on the natural and human environment, the action alternatives carried forward for detailed study in the FEIS, in essence, represent actions undertaken to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate impacts on the environment. By this measure, the types and degree of impacts reported next in the section, Impacts (on page S‑10), have already been, to some measure, reduced. alternatives that would have generated substantially greater impacts than other alternatives (see sidebar on this page regarding environmental impacts). South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 75th Avenue Can impacts on the environment be avoided entirely? Summary 35th Avenue S-8 83rd Avenue SUM 3 miles Note: Cost estimates are in 2012 dollars. For more information on the planning-level cost estimates, see page 3‑59. If an action alternative were identified as the Selected Alternative at the end of the environmental impact statement process, it would be a combination of an action alternative from the Western and Eastern Sections. Funding for the proposed freeway in the amount of $1.9 billion is included in the current Regional Transportation Plan, and early elements of the design, right-of-way, and construction are programmed in the next 5 years in the regional and state Transportation Improvement Programs. The No-Action Alternative would not construct any type of major transportation facility, like the extension of SR 202L (Santan Freeway) west of I-10 (Maricopa Freeway); it would, however, include all other projects described in the RTP. Traffic on the existing segment of SR 202L (Santan Freeway), as well as along I-10 (Papago Freeway), would be required to use existing Interstate and Regional Freeway and Highway System facilities or the local street network. The No-Action Alternative would not alleviate projected increases in traffic volumes and congestion on the Interstate and regional freeway systems or on the local street network by the design year 2035. It would instead, lead to worsening traffic congestion and substantial related impacts, resulting in: ➤➤ increased land uses ➤➤ increased difficulty in gaining access to adjacent difficulty in gaining access to the Interstate and regional freeway systems from the local arterial street network South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-9 Table S-2 Implementation of the Proposed Freeway as the Appropriate Modal Alternative to Satisfy Purpose and Need Criteria, 2035 Criterion With the Proposed Freeway ● 75 percent of drivers using the proposed freeway would be coming from or traveling to the area surrounding the proposed freeway; this area is projected to experience almost 50 percent of the growth in Maricopa County by 2035 ● By reducing congestion, travel times would improve within the region, resulting in an estimated $200 million annual savings in travel time Who would use the proposed freeway? How would the proposed freeway affect the average traveler? Without the Proposed Freeway Would improve the regional transportation network as planned for during the past 25 years, increasing the efficiency of other existing and planned freeways ● Would remove traffic from congested freeways and arterial streets ● Would optimize use of adjacent freeways such as SR 202L b (Santan Freeway) and the proposed SR 30c ● What effects would the proposed freeway have on the regional freeway system? What effects would the proposed freeway have on the area’s arterial street network? ● Proposed freeway would reduce traffic on arterial streets by 274,000 vpdd, which equates to 33 arterial street-lanes of traffic being removed from the system Travelers would continue to use existing routes such as I-10a and Baseline Road, which would become more and more congested ● Increased congestion and travel time would occur because no other high-capacity facilities (e.g., freeways) are planned in the area ● ● Trip times and traffic congestion would worsen without the proposed freeway Freeways would not experience congestion relief provided by proposed freeway If the connections were not provided, the need for other planned freeways would have to be reassessed and reanalyzed in terms of traffic performance ● Segments of the regional freeway system, such as SR 202L (Santan Freeway) and SR 30, would be underused ● ● ● Street widening and intersection improvements would be needed to address increased congestion, but these improvements are not planned or funded and obtaining the right-of-way for these improvements would be difficult Freeway loop system would be incomplete; SR 202L would be incomplete and underused An alternative connection between the eastern and western portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area would not be provided ● Motorists on the local arterial street network would have to drive longer distances on these congested streets before being able to gain access to Interstate and regional freeways ● What effects would the proposed freeway have on areawide continuity and connectivity? What effects would the proposed freeway have on the area’s overall transportation capacity deficiency? Would complete the freeway loop system (as part of SR 202L) ● Would increase mobility and access by connecting freeways such as SR 202L (Santan Freeway) in the east to SR 30, SR 101Le, and SR 303Lf in the west ● ● 20 percent of the travel demand in 2035 would remain unmet (see Figure 3-14, on page 3-31); 11 percent less than without the proposed freeway, which would make a substantial difference for the areas’s overall transportation network Proposed freeway would reduce daily traffic volumes by 32,000 vpd on this portion of I‑10 and to the south on I-10 between Baseline and Elliot roads, more than any other segments of the region’s freeways ● During the morning commute, the Broadway Curve would experience shorter duration of LOSh E or F conditions ● Would the proposed freeway affect traffic in the Broadway Curveg area of I-10? What effects would the proposed freeway have on SR 202L (Santan Freeway)? Would the proposed freeway affect traffic using 51st Avenue through Communityi land? ● ● ● Would increase use on the segment near the proposed freeway by 42,000 vpd Would optimize operation of the remainder of the SR 202L system Would reduce traffic from 9,200 vpd in 2012 to 8,100 vpd in 2035, preventing an increase in unwanted traffic cutting through the Community Would reduce projected traffic volumes on the remaining regional freeway system, Interstate freeways, and local road network ● Would provide opportunities for freeway-dependent transit services ● Would provide additional opportunities for transportation system management and transportation demand management ● What other general transportation effects would the proposed freeway have? What effects would the proposed freeway have on the area’s transportation planning efforts? a Would fulfill the planning efforts of numerous governmental entities Would be an integral element and enhance operation of other planned improvements in the Regional Transportation Plan ● Would fulfill a need first formally acknowledged in 1985 ● ● Interstate 10 b State Route 202L (Loop 202) c State Route 30 d vehicles per day metropolitan area. h level of service i Gila River Indian Community e State Route 101L (Loop 101) f State Route 303L (Loop 303) g ● ● 31 percent of the travel demand in 2035 would remain unmet (see Figure 3-14, on page 3-31) Would carry approximately 11 percent more traffic without the proposed freeway and would experience a greater degradation of traffic performance ● During the morning commute, the Broadway Curve would experience longer duration of LOS E and F conditions ● ● SR 202L near the proposed freeway would remain underused ● Traffic volumes would increase to 11,800 vpd in 2035 51st Avenue would continue to be used by unwanted traffic cutting through the Community ● No improvement in performance of the region’s freeways, Interstate freeways, and arterial streets would occur ● Additional opportunities for regional freeway-dependent transit services, transportation system management, and transportation demand management would not occur ● Lack of the proposed freeway would be inconsistent with the planning efforts of numerous governmental entities ● Would not complete the planned improvements in the Regional Transportation Plan ● The Broadway Curve is the area of Interstate 10 between 48th Street and Broadway Road; it is the most congested stretch of freeway in the Phoenix SUM SUM S-10 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Figure S-9 Typical Eight-lane Freeway Section right-of-way shoulder Drainage channel would be constructed parallel to some sections of the freeway. shoulder right-of-way shoulder HOVa HOV existing ground 4 lanes a median barrier 4 lanes high-occupancy vehicle Note: T he drainage channel would be located north or east of the proposed freeway. The freeway cross section would be typical of those found throughout the region’s freeways. Regional consistency in lane geometry improves driver expectancy and safety and can contribute to enhanced traffic operation as a result. Right-of-way width varies at specific locations depending on the need for noise walls, drainage basins or channels, retaining walls, etc. ➤➤ increased ➤➤ reduced levels of congestion-related impacts performance of regional freeway-dependent transit services ➤➤ noticeably longer trip times and higher user costs Identifying the No-Action Alternative as the Selected Alternative would be inconsistent with MAG’s and local jurisdictions’ land use and transportation plans and would not adequately serve transit opportunities. Identifying the No-Action Alternative would not preclude proposal of a project similar to the proposed action from occurring in the future. IMPACTS Table S-3 summarizes potential impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed action. A full discussion of environmental consequences is presented in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation. Measures available to ADOT to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate impacts are described in Table S-4, beginning on page S-18. In the FEIS, Table S-3, total impacts (combining the Western and Eastern Sections) are presented to allow reviewers to compare the action alternatives’ performance and the No-Action Alternative through the entire Study Area. Because the E1 Alternative would connect with each action alternative in the Western Section, the difference in impacts among the action alternatives is based on impacts in the Western Section of the Study Area. Many impacts from the action alternatives in the Western Section would be similar in type and magnitude. For example, impacts on air quality, surface water, or utilities would be relatively the same among the three action alternatives in the Western Section. For some other elements of the environment, impacts would vary measurably depending on the action alternative analyzed. Table S-3 reveals major differences among the action alternatives in the following areas: conversion of residential, open space/undeveloped, and total land uses; consistency with local and regional plans; residential and business displacements; loss of tax revenues; noise impacts and costs of their mitigation; and impacts to wells. Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative Quick View of Action Alternatives Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives Land Use No immediate conversion would occur, other than what could occur from other planned transportation projects. Because of planned development, it is likely that land uses would be converted to transportation-related urban uses. WCE 708 650 836–969 COMPARISON Agricultural converted to Transportation (estimated acreage) Notes: Table footnotes can be found at the end of this table, on page S-17. W, C, and E refer to Western, Central, and Eastern Options for the W101/E1 Alternative; see Figure S-8. Of the action alternatives, the W101/E1 Alternative and Options would have the greatest impact. The No‑Action Alternative would have no immediate effect. Regardless, loss of agricultural land attributable to any action alternative would be negligible relative to the amount of land in the region and to other land development trends that are contributing to the loss of agricultural land (as would continue to occur under the No-Action Alternative). 1350 1181 1012.5 844 675 506 337.5 169 84 0 W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary SUM S-11 Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives Commercial/ Industrial converted to Transportation (estimated acreage) No immediate conversion would occur, other than what could occur from other planned transportation projects. Because of planned development, it is likely that land uses would be converted to transportation-related urban uses. Open Space/ Undeveloped converted to Transportation (estimated acreage) Planned development will inevitably cause rural-to-urban land conversion, but no immediate conversions would occur other than from other planned transportation projects. Quick View of Action Alternatives WC E 164 395 282–348 844 675 506 337.5 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 WC E 220 186–218 630–711 844 675 506 337.5 169 84 0 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 17 20 844 675 506 337.5 169 84 0 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 1012.5 844 506 337.5 169 84 0 W59 + E1 1,813 1,938 2,161–2,191 Notes: Table footnotes can be found at the end of this table, on page S-17. W, C, and E refer to Western, Central, and Eastern Options for the W101/E1 Alternative; see Figure S-8. Any of the action alternatives would have a negligible effect on the availability of public/quasi-public land in the region. The No-Action Alternative would have the least impact. 675 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 COMPARISON No immediate conversion would occur, other than what could occur from other planned transportation projects. 1350 1181 WC E Total land use conversion (estimated acreage) The W59/E1 Alternative would convert the most open space/ undeveloped land of all the action alternatives. Regardless, loss of open space/undeveloped land attributable to any action alternative would be negligible relative to other land development trends that are contributing to the loss of open space/undeveloped land. 1012.5 W59 + E1 13 1350 1181 WC E No immediate conversion would occur, other than what could occur from other planned transportation projects. The W71/E1 Alternative would result in the greatest acreage conversion of commercial/industrial use. Regardless, conversion of commercial/industrial land caused by any action alternative would have a negligible effect on commercial/industrial land use availability relative to the amount of land in the region designated for such use. The No-Action Alternative would not immediately convert commercial/industrial land to a transportation use. 1350 1012.5 WC E 617 169 84 0 1181 W59 + E1 712 The W71/E1 Alternative and Options would result in the greatest conversion of residential to transportation, followed by the W101/E1 Alternative, and then the W59/E1 Alternative. Regardless, conversion of residential land caused by any action alternative would have a negligible effect on residential land availability relative to the amount of land in the region designated for residential use. The No‑Action Alternative would not immediately convert residential land to a transportation use. 1350 1012.5 W59 + E1 177 Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives 1181 COMPARISON Public/Quasipublic converted to Transportation (estimated acreage) W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative COMPARISON Residential converted to Transportation (estimated acreage) No immediate conversion would occur, other than what could occur from other planned transportation projects. Because of planned development, it is likely that land uses would be converted to transportation-related urban uses. W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative COMPARISON Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative COMPARISON No-Action Alternative The W101/E1 Alternative and Options would result in the greatest impact of any of the action alternatives. However, land conversion attributable to any action alternative would be negligible relative to the amount of land in the region and to other land development trends that are contributing to land conversion. The No-Action Alternative would have no immediate impact. 2000 1500 1000 W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 (continued on next page) SUM S-12 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative Quick View of Action Alternatives Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives Social Conditions Consistent with local and regional plans (provide a freeway in the Study Area in a planned corridor meeting goals and objectives of the long‑range plans) Community character and cohesion This alternative would not be consistent with the intent of the local and regional plans to provide a freeway in the Study Area and to promote growth along the corridor. No immediate substantial impacts on community character and cohesion; planned development within communities would have an effect. Yes Yes, but inconsistent in location. Visual and noise intrusions to rural and industrial areas in western Estrella Village Visual and noise intrusions to existing neighborhoods and the city of Tolleson. in Laveen and Estrella villages. The freeway would Options would interrupt bisect developed properties and disrupt cohesion the cohesion both of and existing internal site circulation. Visual and noise dairy operations and intrusions would affect rural, natural areas and farmsteads. Visual and recreational areas adjacent to the E1 Alternative. noise intrusions would affect rural, natural areas and recreational areas adjacent to the E1 Alternative. Not applicable The No-Action Alternative would have the highest potential for lack of consistency with local and regional plans. The W71/E1 and W101/E1 Alternatives would be consistent with local and regional plans, but not in location. The W59/E1 Alternative is most consistent with local and regional plans. Not applicable The action alternatives would introduce an intensive land use adjacent to less-intensive, less-compatible uses in some areas. The impact of any action alternative would intensify as community character would transition from agricultural to residential, as has been ongoing and planned for several years. Not applicable All action alternatives would adversely affect protected populations, but impacts would not be disproportionately high after comparing projected impacts or benefits with those experienced by all populations in the Study Area. Environmental Justice and Title VIb As congestion on surface streets increases, all neighborhoods would Disproportionately be affected equally. Travel times high adverse for local buses would increase, effects on affecting low-income and minority minority, populations. low-income, The No‑Action Alternative would female head-ofhousehold, elderly, result in no property acquisitions and no household relocations. and disabled Therefore, environmental justice populations populations would not be affected by right-of-way acquisitions. The W59/E1 Alternative would displace the fewest residential properties. Minority, elderly, female head-ofhousehold, low-income, and disabled populations would be adversely affected by the proposed action; however, no disproportionately high adverse effects on these populations would occur. Minority, elderly, female head-of-household, and disabled populations would be adversely affected by the proposed action; however, no disproportionately high adverse effects on these populations would occur. Minority, elderly, female head-of-household, and disabled populations would be adversely affected by the proposed action; however, no disproportionately high adverse effects on these populations would occur. (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary SUM S-13 Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Type of Impact Disparate impacts to minority populations protected by Title VI Not applicable W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative The W59/E1 Alternative would displace the fewest residential properties. Minority populations protected by Title VI would be adversely affected by the proposed action; however, no disparate impacts to these populations would occur. Minority populations protected by Title VI would be adversely affected by the proposed action; however, no disparate impacts to these populations would occur. Minority populations protected by Title VI would be adversely affected by the proposed action; however, no disparate impacts to these populations would occur. Quick View of Action Alternatives Not applicable Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives All action alternatives would adversely affect minority populations protected by Title VI; however, no disparate impacts to these populations would occur after comparing projected impacts or benefits with those experienced by all populations in the Study Area. Displacements and Relocations Residential displacements (as of 2013, approximate number) 0 168 houses 680 apartments 960 houses 0 apartments 1,061–1,439 houses 0 apartments COMPARISON WC E The W59/E1 Alternative would displace fewer residential properties than would the W71/E1 or W101/E1 Alternative, in part because local jurisdictions have planned for the proposed action along an alignment on 55th Avenue (most similar to the W59 Alternative) and among the commercial and industrial development along the W59 Alternative. The displacement projections are consistent with a project of this magnitude located in a growing region. The No‑Action Alternative would result in no residential displacements. 1350 1500 1181 1312.5 1012.5 1125 844 937.5 675 750 506 W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 337.5 375 169 84 0 0 Business displacements (approximate number) Effects on homeland security 0 42 26 14–30 COMPARISON WC E W59 + E1 No impacts on security-sensitive sites would occur. The W59/E1 Alternative would be near a fuel tank farm. No impacts on securitysensitive sites would occur. No impacts on securitysensitive sites would occur. W71 + E1 W101 + E1 Not applicable The W59/E1 Alternative would displace more businesses than would the W71/E1 Alternative or the W101/E1 Alternative and Options. The displacement projections are consistent with a project of this magnitude located in a growing region. The No‑Action Alternative would result in no displacements of businesses. While the W59/E1 Alternative would be located near the fuel tank farm, the Arizona Office of Homeland Security and the City of Phoenix have concurred that the W59/E1 Alternative and the fuel tank farm could coexist (an earlier version of the alternative was located closer to the tank farm). Economic Resources WC E 0 1,609 1,748 1,934–1,965 COMPARISON Existing taxable land base conversion to nontaxable use (estimated acreage) Notes: Table footnotes can be found at the end of this table, on page S-17. W, C, and E refer to Western, Central, and Eastern Options for the W101/E1 Alternative; see Figure S-8. W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 The W101/E1 Alternative and Options would convert the most taxable land base of any action alternative, primarily because the alternative and its options are the longest alignments considered. Regardless, the conversion would be consistent with other projects of this magnitude. The No‑Action Alternative would not convert land to a nontaxable use. (continued on next page) SUM S-14 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives Estimated annual loss of tax revenues for existing land uses (property and sales tax/general fund) Travel time (impacts in $/year) No immediate reduction would occur. Continued planned development within the Study Area and future transportation projects would affect property and sales tax/general fund revenues in the area. No savings would result under this alternative. Phoenix: $4,576,900 No effect on Tolleson or Avondale property and sales tax/general fund revenues would occur. Phoenix: $5,594,900 No effect on Tolleson or Avondale property and sales tax/general fund revenues would occur. W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative W101 Western Option Phoenix: as much as $3,567,100 Tolleson: as much as $3,632,500 Avondale: as much as $387,600 W101 Central Option Phoenix: as much as $2,286,900 Tolleson: as much as $4,114,800 Avondale: as much as $387,600 W101 Eastern Option Phoenix: as much as $2,335,400 Tolleson: as much as $4,114,800 Avondale: as much as $387,600 Quick View of Action Alternatives Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives PHOENIX WC E COMPARISON W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative 6 mill 4.5 mill 3 mill 1.5 mill W59 + E1 TOLLESON W71 + E1 W101 + E1 WC E COMPARISON Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative 0 The Cities of Avondale, Phoenix, and Tolleson would experience reductions in sales and property tax revenues (Avondale and Tolleson would not be directly affected by the W59/E1 or W71/E1 Alternative). For Phoenix and Avondale, reductions would be inconsequential, regardless of which action alternative were implemented. However, under the W101/E1 Alternative and Options, tax revenue losses for Tolleson would be substantial; the City would experience a 20 to 24 percent annual reduction. The No‑Action Alternative would not reduce the amount of property and sales tax/general fund revenues for the Study Area municipalities. 6 mill 4.5 mill 3 mill 1.5 mill W59 + E1 AVONDALE W71 + E1 W101 + E1 WC E COMPARISON No-Action Alternative 0 6 mill 4.5 mill 3 mill 1.5 mill 750000 375000 0 W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 Any of the action alternatives would result in over $200 million (in 2013 dollars) per year savings after construction of the entire facility. Air Quality Failure to meet COc 8-hour and 1‑hour standards Congestion on the local arterial street network and regional freeway system would increase, leading to increased travel times and increased CO emissions. All action alternatives would increase 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations near the proposed action; however, these increases would not cause exceedances of the health-based NAAQSd in 2035. The action alternatives are anticipated to reduce congestion and travel times within the region, resulting in reduced regional CO emissions. Failure to meet particulate matter standards (PM10 and PM2.5)e Increased traffic congestion on the transportation network would lead to increased travel times and increased PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. All action alternatives would result in short-term increases in PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations during construction. All action alternatives would increase particulate emissions near the proposed action; however, these increases would not cause exceedances of the health-based NAAQS in 2035. The action alternatives are anticipated to reduce congestion and travel times within the region, resulting in reduced regional PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. MSATsf MSAT levels would decline from existing levels because For all action alternatives, increased traffic volumes would produce elevated MSATs emissions near the proposed action. The action alternatives would reduce congestion and of compliance with strategies improve regional traffic conditions, which would reduce regional MSATs emissions. Additionally, overall MSATs levels would decline from existing levels because of compliance with identified by EPA’sg national control strategies identified by EPA’s national control programs. programs. Transportation conformity Not consistent with the RTPh and TIPi The action alternatives would be consistent with the RTP and TIP because they would provide a planned transportation facility needed to improve traffic in the Phoenix metropolitan area. (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary SUM S-15 Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative Quick View of Action Alternatives Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives Noise WC E Activities associated with planned development would affect noise levels but would not be mitigated by the proposed action. 114 109 53–68 COMPARISON Number of receivers (e.g., groups of residences) eligible for noise mitigation 150 Any of the action alternatives would introduce traffic noise where it currently does not exist or produce it at higher levels than now experienced. The W59/E1 and W71/E1 Alternatives would affect the greatest number of noise receivers. The No‑Action Alternative would result in continued noise impacts on receivers from local traffic. 112.5 75 56.25 37.5 0 W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 Water Resources Loss of water resources (wells potentially affected) 0 121 57 57–75 COMPARISON WC E W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 The W59/E1 Alternative would affect the most groundwater wells. The number of wells potentially affected is consistent with a project of the magnitude of the proposed action. The well replacement program as outlined by State law is followed by the Arizona Department of Transportation on its projects throughout the region. The No-Action Alternative would not affect any wells. Floodplains Conversion of floodplains (estimated total acreage) The No-Action Alternative would have no impact on floodplains. Any future projects to provide access across the Salt River would have potential floodplain impacts. 94 127 48–52 COMPARISON WC E W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 The W71/E1 Alternative would have a substantially greater impact on floodplain acreage than would either the W59/E1 Alternative or W101/E1 Alternative and Options. However, regardless of action alternative, the impact on the overall natural and beneficial values of the floodplain would be negligible. The No-Action Alternative would not affect floodplains. Waters of the United States Loss of jurisdictional waters (estimated acreage) 0 In the Western Section, the W59 (Preferred) Alternative is anticipated to affect less than 0.5 acre of jurisdictional waters (the Salt River) and would be permitted under a nationwide permit. In the Eastern Section, the E1 (Preferred) Alternative would cross several jurisdictional waters. The E1 Alternative is anticipated to permanently affect between 1 and 2 total acres of jurisdictional waters (ephemeral washes), including potential disturbances of greater than 0.5 acre at individual wash crossings; CWA permitting would be determined during the project design phase. Topography, Geology, and Soils Change to topography, geology, and soil conditions No direct effects. In the Western Section, shallow groundwater conditions might influence both the design and method of construction of bridge foundations; however, such conditions are common and construction technologies to overcome these conditions are readily available. In the Eastern Section, bedrock units would likely be encountered, resulting in difficult excavation conditions in cut sections that would require blasting to facilitate removal. Loss of habitat No direct effects. All action alternatives would result in the conversion of cover, nesting areas, and food resources for wildlife habitat provided by the natural plant communities found in the Study Area. No critical habitat is designated in or adjacent to the Study Area for any threatened or endangered species. Much of the land through which the proposed action would pass has already been converted to urban, agricultural, and transportation uses (see Secondary and Cumulative section in this table). Loss of wildlife of special concern No direct effects. The action alternatives in the Western Section may affect foraging behavior along the Salt River of individuals of the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles that have nested west of the Study Area, but there would be no take of bald or golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Biological Resources Notes: Table footnotes can be found at the end of this table, on page S-17. W, C, and E refer to Western, Central, and Eastern Options for the W101/E1 Alternative; see Figure S-8. (continued on next page) SUM S-16 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative Quick View of Action Alternatives Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives Loss of threatened and endangered species No direct effects. The Sonoran desert tortoise and the Tucson shovel-nosed snake are both Candidate species and are scheduled for consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but neither species is listed at this time. In the Eastern Section, the action alternatives may affect the Sonoran desert tortoise. Direct effects could include mortality from equipment and activities during construction and by vehicle traffic after completion. Individuals may be displaced by construction activities and the removal of food sources and cover habitat. Indirect effects could include the degradation of habitat caused by the introduction of invasive species. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Tucson shovelnosed snake. Loss of habitat connectivity The No-Action Alternative would have no immediate effect. Planned and existing development could eventually cause impacts. Some wildlife movement in the Western Section might be restricted because of the barrier that would be created. Wildlife movement has already been substantially affected by ongoing development. In the Eastern Section, the action alternatives would create a physical barrier that could, depending on design, decrease movement of wildlife to and from the South Mountains and Sierra Estrella. Cultural Resources COMPARISON WC E Archaeological sites (NRHPjeligible sites affected) 0 Historic sites (NRHP-eligible sites affected) 0 The W59/E1 and W71/E1 Alternatives would cross the Roosevelt Canal and historic Southern Pacific Railroad, but neither would affect the eligibility of the sites. The W101/E1 Alternative would also cross the railroad with similar outcomes. All of the action alternatives would affect Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve. TCPsk (NRHP-eligible sites affected) 0 All of the action alternatives would affect the South Mountains TCP. 12 11 9–10 W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 All action alternatives would affect large prehistoric villages sites. The extent of these impacts would be determined by subsequent testing. Therefore, it appears that all action alternatives have similar potential for affecting archaeological resources. Prime and Unique Farmlands Conversion of prime and unique farmlands (estimated acreage) No immediate loss would occur, but because of planned development, loss of farmland to urban uses would occur. 723 636 870–923 COMPARISON WC E W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 The W101/E1 Alternative and Options would have the greatest prime and unique farmlands impacts, followed by the W59/E1 Alternative, and then the W71/E1 Alternative. The No‑Action Alternative would not immediately affect prime and unique farmlands. The conversion of farmland would be inconsequential because farmland in the Study Area would eventually be converted to urban uses, although some remnants of farmland would likely remain. Hazardous Materials 0 5 4 1 COMPARISON WC E Disturbance of hazardous materials (number of high‑priority sites) W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 The W59/E1 Alternative would potentially interact with the greatest number of hazardous materials sites. Implementation of the W101/E1 Alternative and Options would involve one high-priority site. The No-Action Alternative would have no impact on hazardous materials sites. (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-17 Table S-3 Environmental Impact Summary Matrix, Proposed Action (continued) Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Type of Impact W59 Alternative + E1 Alternative W71 Alternative + E1 Alternative W101 Alternative and Optionsa + E1 Alternative Quick View of Action Alternatives Context and Intensity of Impacts for all Action Alternatives Visual Resources WC E COMPARISON No immediate impacts would Alteration of visual occur; planned development would resources result in the ultimate appearance of urban use. Impacts on views from residential and rural uses would include construction impacts, new traffic interchanges, and visibility of the new facility. Impacts would not change the low-to-moderate visual quality of views along the W101/E1 and W59/E1 Alternatives. The W71/E1 Alternative would have a higher level of visual sensitivity because of more planned residential development than the other action alternatives; this would create a slightly greater magnitude of impacts. Visual impacts from severe road cuts through ridgelines of the South Mountains would alter views of the natural setting. W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 All action alternatives would introduce a substantial human-made feature into the environment. The W71/E1 Alternative would create a slightly greater magnitude of impacts, followed by the W59/E1 and W101/E1 Alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would have no immediate impacts. Energy Regional energy consumption in 2035 (millions of gallons/year) 2,874 2,848 2,853 2,850 COMPARISON WC E W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 Fuel consumption would vary because of differences in vehicle miles traveled, vehicle mix, and fuel economies. The action alternatives would provide benefits. The No-Action Alternative would result in the greatest energy consumption. Temporary Construction Temporary construction impacts No impacts would occur. Temporary negative effects on air quality, noise levels, water resources, residential and business access, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and utilities would be comparable among action alternatives. Material Sources and Waste Materials Estimated deficit (amount of fill material needed, in millions of cubic yards) No materials would be required. 10.00 6.45 7.20–10.20 COMPARISON WC E W59 + E1 W71 + E1 W101 + E1 The W71/E1 Alternative would have the smallest deficit, while the W101/E1 Alternative Eastern Option would have the largest deficit. These amounts are not considered excessive for a project of this size. No materials would be required under the No‑Action Alternative. Secondary and Cumulative Secondary impacts Growth in traffic, population, and related effects would occur with or without the proposed action, resulting in increased congestion. The action alternatives would also result in secondary impacts on biological resources, water resources, air quality, cultural resources, land uses, community character, and economic conditions. Cumulative impacts All alternatives would occur in an already urbanizing area (most noticeably in the Western Section of the Study Area), an area planned for urban growth as established in local jurisdictions’ land use planning activities for as many as the last 25 years. The purpose of the proposed action is not to promote economic development but to respond to a growing need for additional transportation capacity as a result of regional growth occurring now and as projected. Therefore, the action alternatives are not expected to contribute to induced growth in the region. For the action alternatives, the minimal contribution to overall traffic use is expected to have both positive and negative consequences. Cumulative impacts may occur on biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, land uses, visual resources, recreational land, noise, and air quality. Section 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) resources affected a No use of Section 4(f) resources would occur. All action alternatives would result in the direct use of Section 4(f) resources in the South Mountains; avoidance would not be prudent and feasible. W101/E1 Alternative includes ranges because of design and alignment options. b Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 c carbon monoxide d National Ambient Air Quality Standards e PM10 = coarse particulate matter, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter f mobile source air toxics g U.S. Environmental Protection Agency h Regional Transportation Plan i Transportation Improvement Program j National Register of Historic Places k traditional cultural property SUM S-18 MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS Table S-4 presents measures to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed action. Presentation in the FEIS represents a commitment by ADOT to implement the measures. The commitment by ADOT to the measures was made in cooperation with FHWA and will be reinforced at the time of the ROD. ADOT anticipates the measures (as applicable to ADOT) would be made part of the ROD. Measures committed to will be implemented as part of project development, including R/W acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the Selected Alternative, as appropriate. Other permitting actions and permissions required for proposed action approval are presented later in this chapter. It is possible that mitigation measures proposed for one element would also provide benefits to a secondary element. Other agencies or groups, such as MAG or the City of Phoenix, may take further actions to augment the proposed mitigation measures, but such actions would be independent and not monitored by FHWA or ADOT. Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives Land use Social conditions For the W59 and E1 Alternatives, ADOT and FHWA would coordinate with public land holding agencies (BLM and ASLD) managing affected public land and the various leaseholders to accommodate the proposed action. ADOT would consider methods of reducing the amount of R/W needed; providing alternative access to the local road network to satisfy emergency services access requirements; and using noise barriers, aesthetic treatments of structures, and landscaping to reduce neighborhood intrusions. The ADOT Right-of-Way Group would coordinate during the design phase to designate necessary utility corridors for relocations where appropriate. ADOT would coordinate with all local agencies and private facility owners to minimize the effects of utility relocations and adjustments. Coordination would include, when possible, developing construction schedules to coincide with scheduled maintenance periods and off-peak loads. ADOT would coordinate with appropriate City of Phoenix officials during the final design process to consider and identify, if appropriate, enhancements such as a pedestrian overpass to reduce possible pedestrian related impacts. ADOT would coordinate with municipalities and affected communities to address and resolve impacts on internal road networks. ADOT would develop and implement a public involvement plan for the design and construction phases of the proposed action. Objectives of continued public involvement may include, but would not be limited to, a level of involvement in: l architectural design treatment of structures l measures to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources l the acquisition and relocation process l modification to the local roadway network l construction activity monitoring Impacts on public land uses and leaseholders 4-19 Neighborhood intrusions and impacts on the character of surrounding neighborhoods Utility relocations 4-23 ADOT would coordinate with all appropriate emergency services and efforts would be made to minimize effects on response routes and times for all service areas. Emergency response times during construction Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Element Right-of-Way Impact(s) to be Mitigated Design Mitigation Measure Responsible ADOT Department Roadside Mitigation measures presented in the FEIS represent a range of activities to reduce impacts during construction and operation of the proposed freeway. Some measures are action-specific and some are procedural. If an action alternative were the Selected Alternative, measures would be committed to through the ROD and specific actions would be resolved during design and construction stages. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Environmental Planning Group Are these mitigation measures final? Summary Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM n n n Disruptions to service from utility relocations or damage during construction Impacts to pedestrians n n Impacts to local traffic network n Potential discontinued ADOT and public interaction Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. n n n n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-19 Displacements and relocations Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) 4-51 An acquisition and relocation assistance program would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 C.F.R. § 24), which identifies the process, procedures, and time frame for R/W acquisition and relocation of affected residents or businesses. Relocation resources would be available to all residential and business relocatees, without discrimination. All replacement housing would be decent, safe, and sanitary. Replacement housing is available in the general area; last-resort housing would, however, be provided if it were found that sufficient, comparable housing were not available within monetary limits of owners and tenants. If necessary, specific relocation plans would be developed to assist displaced residents of mobile homes in finding new locations for their mobile homes. All acquisitions and relocations resulting from the proposed freeway would comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with 49 C.F.R. § 24. Private property owners would be compensated at fair market value for land and may be eligible for additional benefits. As for renters, HUD considers anything under a 6 percent rental vacancy rate as a “tight” rental market. The Rental Supplement is based on a calculation between the current rental plus utilities and the determined available comparable rental unit plus utilities times 42 months. This payment would be made available to assist with the difference in rent if the cost of replacement housing were to exceed the rental cost at that time (with conditions). ADOT would provide, where possible, alternative access to properties losing access to the local road network. In the event that alternative access could not be provided, ADOT would compensate affected property owners in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Prior to the ROD, ADOT would consider protective and hardship acquisition on a case-by-case basis in accordance with criteria outlined in the ADOT Right-of-Way Procedures Manual (2011a). Residents and business owners displaced by the proposed action Residents and business owners displaced by the proposed action n ADOT would coordinate with the local jurisdictions, MAG, and Valley Metro to identify opportunities to use excess R/W, whenever possible, for future park-and-ride lots and related public facilities. Potential discontinued ADOT and local jurisdiction interaction n Economic impacts During construction, ADOT would coordinate with local businesses to ensure reasonable access to businesses would be maintained during regular operating hours. Disruptions to businesses during construction 4-67 Air quality The following mitigation measures would be followed, when applicable, in accordance with the most recently accepted version of the ADOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2008). Site preparation l Minimize land disturbance. l Use watering trucks to minimize dust. l Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. l Use windbreaks to prevent accidental dust pollution. l Limit vehicular paths and stabilize temporary roads. l To prevent dirt from tracking or washing onto paved roads, 50-foot-long track-out pads consisting of 12-inch-deep aggregate of 3 to 6 inches in diameter would be placed over geotextile fabric adjacent to paved roads. Particulate matter released into the air during construction 4-85 n Residents and business owners displaced by the proposed action n Land acquired from residents and business n Loss of access to the local road network n n n n n (continued on next page) SUM S-20 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Noise Water resources Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Particulate matter released into the air during construction Design Construction l Use dust suppressants on unpaved traveled paths. l Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. l To prevent dirt from tracking or washing onto paved roads, 50-foot-long track-out pads consisting of 12-inch-deep aggregate of 3 to 6 inches in diameter would be placed over geotextile fabric adjacent to paved roads. l To the extent practicable, construction equipment that meets EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards shall be used. l Where feasible, construction equipment powered by alternative fuels (e.g., biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electricity) shall be used. l ADOT would provide training to contractor’s personnel regarding air quality impacts from construction activities, potential health risks to nearby receptors, and methods to reduce emissions. Postconstruction l Revegetate or use decomposed granite on all disturbed land. l Remove dirt piles and unused materials. l Revegetate all vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities. A traffic control plan would be developed and implemented to help reduce impacts of traffic congestion and associated emissions during construction. An approved dust permit would be obtained prior to construction from the Maricopa County Air Quality Department for all phases of the proposed action. The permit would describe measures to control and regulate air pollutant emissions during construction. General locations of noise barriers have been identified, but these locations and general noise wall design would be reevaluated as design progresses. Where feasible, noise barriers would be constructed as early as possible in the construction phasing to shield adjacent properties from construction-related noise impacts. The proposed freeway would have properly designed roadway channels to resist erosion, energy-dissipating structures at all culverts where discharge velocity may cause downstream erosion, and sediment-trapping basins strategically located to maximize sediment removal and to function as chemical-spill containment structures. Vegetative or mechanical means would be used to minimize erosion from cut and fill slopes. Vegetation would slow surface runoff, help bind soils, reduce raindrop impact, and break up flow patterns. Mechanical means include retaining walls, rock slope protection, and geotextiles such as matting. Where appropriate, retaining walls would decrease cut and fill slopes, which, in turn, would reduce runoff velocities and erosion potential. Rock slope protection, where placed, would armor the slope, thereby preventing soil movement. Geotextiles would prevent extensive contact between surface runoff and soil, keeping the soil intact. Runoff discharge from the roadway to the irrigation district canals and conveyance ditches would be minimized by roadway design and the use of BMPs. Element Air quality (continued) Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM 4-85 n n n n Pollutants released into the air from slowed and idling vehicles Particulate matter released into the air during construction Noise generated by construction and operation of the proposed action Pollutants reaching the Gila and Salt rivers n n n n 4-91 n n n 4-106 n Erosion from cut and fill slopes and from ground disturbing activities n Pollutants reaching irrigation district canals and conveyance ditches Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-21 To reduce the potential impact of contaminants such as oil, grease, soil, and trash, settling basins would be used to collect water and allow materials to settle. The basins could also serve to contain chemical spills resulting from vehicle accidents. Each basin would be designed to contain a certain rainfall runoff volume before allowing discharge. If an accident were to occur, and the basins were dry at the time of the accident, the spill volume, in most cases, could be accommodated. These settling basins would require periodic cleaning and would be accredited as part of the Statewide Stormwater Management Program. A construction AZPDES permit, for ground-disturbing activities exceeding 1 acre, would be obtained from ADEQ for the Selected Alternative (if an action alternative) in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 402 of the CWA. The AZPDES permit must be consistent with discharge limitations and water quality standards established for the receiving water. A SWPPP would be prepared by the contractor that would use ADOT’s project erosion and sediment control plans, details, and specifications for controlling construction-related pollution discharges to waters of the United States as defined in the CWA. BMPs set forth in the project erosion and sediment control plans, details, and specifications would be included in the contractor’s SWPPP. BMPs may include: l Silt barriers (silt fences, compost-filled socks, or straw barriers) would be constructed to restrict and filter sediment flowing to off-site channels. l Trapped silt and debris would be removed to an off-site location before removing barriers. l Contamination from leaking equipment would be reduced or prevented through frequent construction equipment inspections. Faulty equipment would be repaired when discovered. l Construction equipment would be cleaned on a regular basis to minimize potential runoff contamination from petroleum products. l Sediment basins would be constructed to treat sediment-rich runoff before discharge to off-site drainage channels. l Equipment would be fueled and serviced at designated locations to minimize work site contamination. These fueling locations would be located away from nearby channels, swales, or other features that would quickly facilitate movement in the event of a spill. l Upon construction completion, all contaminated material (e.g., concrete wash water) would be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, regional, and federal regulations. ADOT would coordinate with appropriate governmental bodies such as flood control districts and the Community when designing drainage features for the proposed action. Runoff containing pollutants from ground-disturbing activities entering waters of the United States ADOT would replace water lost through well acquisitions. This would be done through full well replacement or well abandonment and compensation (if requested by the owner). Loss of wells Existing irrigation canals affected by the freeway may be relocated to allow for conveyance of irrigation water (through installation of pipe, conduit, or extension) from one side of the freeway to the other. Impacts to irrigation canals The contractor would file a Notice of Intent and a Notice of Termination with ADEQ in accordance with Section 402 of the CWA and provide copies to ADOT. Runoff containing pollutants from ground-disturbing activities entering waters of the United States Selected Contractor Construction District 4-106 n n n n Potential discontinued ADOT, local jurisdiction, and tribal interaction Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Water resources (continued) Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) n n n n n n (continued on next page) SUM S-22 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Water resources (continued) Floodplains Waters of the United States Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District 4-106 n n Impacts to the area’s water resources n n Impacts to floodplains 4-114 n Floodplain impacts would be minimized by implementing transverse crossings of the floodplain and avoiding longitudinal encroachments. n The Maricopa County Floodplain Manager would be given an opportunity to review and comment on the design plans. n Design criteria for on-site drainage would be based on ADOT’s Roadway Design Guidelines (2012a) and Highway Drainage Design Manual – Hydrology (1993) and on FHWA’s Urban Drainage Design Manual (2001a). n ADOT’s Roadway Design Guidelines (2012a) provides criteria to be used for off-site flows affected by the proposed action: l Culverts would be sized based on the design discharge of a 100-year storm. l Increases in water surface elevations as a result of the new facilities would be contained within the existing and proposed R/W or as noted in accordance with Section 611.3.C. l Culverts would be designed to be self-cleaning, Section 611.3.E. l Reinforced concrete box culvert and reinforced concrete pipe would be provided with adequate cover. The Selected Alternative (if an action alternative) would require comprehensive hydrologic, hydraulic, sediment transport, and erosion-related assessments regarding potential 100-year flood effects associated with ephemeral washes. Results would provide information necessary to make a determination regarding what mitigation measures would need to be implemented. Measures may include physical structures associated with the freeway such as culverts. These measures would be determined during the design phase. ADOT would prepare and submit an application to USACE for a CWA Section 404 permit as appropriate, dictated by impacts on jurisdictional waters. The permit conditions would be developed according to the current Memorandum of Agreement between USACE, ADOT, and FHWA. No work would occur within jurisdictional waters until the appropriate CWA Sections 401 and 404 permits were obtained. Right-of-Way Runoff containing pollutants from ground-disturbing activities entering waters of the United States Design The contractor, in association with the District, would send a copy of the certificate authorizing permit coverage and a copy of the Notice of Termination acknowledgement letter to the ADOT Environmental Services Water and Air Quality Group, Glendale, Phoenix, Chandler, Goodyear, Tolleson, and Avondale, as appropriate, based on the location of project activities. ADOT would comply with the State of Arizona Surface Water Quality Standard Rules (18 A.A.C. § 11). Other measures that ADOT would undertake include: l improving surface water quality when the freeway would be open to operation by proper maintenance of the retention, detention, and stormwater runoff facilities l mitigating, as previously outlined, for wells that may be adversely affected during construction l conveying affected irrigation ditches through pipe under the roadway l securing CWA Section 401 certification by ADEQ l relocating existing irrigation district canals that may be affected by the proposed action to allow for conveyance of irrigation water (through installation of pipe, conduit, or extension) Bridge structures for all action alternatives would be designed to cross floodplains in such a way that their support piers and abutments would not contribute to a rise in floodwater elevation of more than a foot. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM n n Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. 4-118 n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-23 Waters of the United States (continued) The CWA Section 401 water quality certification would certify only the activities and construction of the Selected Alternative and would be valid for the same period as the CWA Section 404 permits. If project construction were not started by the USACE deadline, the applicant would notify ADEQ. ADOT would provide a copy of the Section 401 water quality certification conditions to all appropriate contractors and subcontractors. ADOT would post a copy of these conditions in a water-resistant location at the construction site where it may be seen by workers. ADOT would maintain the project authorized by the permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of the permit. ADOT would not be relieved of this condition even if ADOT were to abandon the project. Should ADOT cease to maintain the freeway or abandon the freeway without a good faith transfer, ADOT would obtain a modification of the permit from USACE. If a substantive change/modification to the project were necessary, ADOT would provide notice and supporting information to ADEQ and USACE for review. ADEQ and USACE would then modify the certification to include the change/modifications, provided that water quality standards for surface waters (18 A.A.C. § 11, Article 1) would be achieved. When construction were to begin, ADOT would notify ADEQ and USACE prior to the start date. When notification were made, ADOT would provide the start date and the name and phone number of the primary contractor and a contact person. When the activities were completed, ADOT would notify ADEQ and USACE as soon as practicable after project completion. Water used for dust suppression would not contain contaminants that could violate ADEQ water quality standards for surface waters or aquifers and would not be discharged off site. ADOT would obtain the necessary permits for such activities. ADOT would comply with all conditions set forth in the Section 401 water quality certification made as part of the project. ADOT would allow USACE and ADEQ representatives to inspect the project at any time as determined to be necessary to ensure that it was being accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. ADOT would prepare written instruction for all supervisory construction personnel on the protection of cultural and ecological resources, including all agreed-to environmental stipulations for the project and all conditions required by the permit. The instructions would address federal and State laws regarding antiquities, plants, and wildlife, including collection, removal, and the importance of these resources and the purpose and necessity of their protection. Impacts to cultural resources within waters of the United States Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States Design If more time were to be required to complete the proposed action than authorized by the Section 404 of the CWA permit, ADOT would submit a request for a time extension to USACE at least 1 month prior to reaching the authorized date. If previously unidentified cultural resources were to be encountered in or adjacent to waters of the United States during the proposed undertaking, ADOT would notify FHWA and USACE immediately to make arrangements for the proper treatment of those resources. If ADOT were to sell the freeway, ADOT would obtain the signature of the new owner in the applicable space provided in the permit and forward a copy of the permit to USACE to validate the transfer of the authorization. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) 4-118 n n n n n Pollutants reaching waters of the United States Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States n n n Pollutants reaching waters of the United States n Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States n Pollutants reaching waters of the United States n n Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States Impacts to cultural and ecological resources within waters of the United States n n (continued on next page) SUM S-24 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States Design Prior to initiating construction activities under the permit, ADOT would ensure that the contractor(s) would have been provided with a copy of the Section 404 authorization. This would be intended to confirm that the contractor(s) would comply with the terms and conditions of the Section 404 authorization. Debris (such as soil, silt, sand, rubbish, cement, asphalt, oil or petroleum products, organic materials, tires, or batteries) derived from construction or demolition activities would not be deposited at any site where it may be washed into waters of the United States. After completion of the proposed project, the washes would be left in an environmentally acceptable condition, with all temporary construction and nonnative materials removed from the watercourse. Pollution from the operation of equipment in the floodplain would be cleaned up and removed before it could be washed into a watercourse. Spills would be promptly cleaned and properly disposed. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures would be installed, at a minimum, according to ADOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2008) and Erosion and Pollution Control Manual (2012c), prior to construction and would be maintained as necessary during construction and would be maintained as necessary during construction and would not be installed in a manner that causes noncompliance with the Section 404 permit. If permanent erosion and sediment control measures were required, they would be installed as soon as practicable, preferably prior to construction activities, and would be maintained throughout the life of the project. Permanent erosion and sediment control measures would be located to protect downstream entities from construction impacts when there would be a flow in watercourses within the project boundary. Access roadways and staging areas would be designed to allow normal storm flows to pass unimpeded. There would be no significant change to the hydraulic conditions of the upstream waters as a result of the temporary constructed features. No petroleum products would be stored within the 25-year flood boundary of the Salt River, the Gila River, or unnamed tributary washes. Any soil contaminated as a result of contractors’ operations would be disposed of in an appropriate, approved disposal facility. No excavation, fill, or leveling would be permitted in the watercourses, outside the boundaries of the permitted work area. No fill would be taken from any watercourse outside the boundaries of the permitted work area. Fill would come from an area outside the OHWM of any watercourses and would be free of any contaminants or pollutants. Element Waters of the United States (continued) Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM 4-118 n Pollutants reaching waters of the United States n n n n Impacts to ecological resources within waters of the United States n Pollutants reaching waters of the United States n n n Heavy equipment traffic would be restricted from entering the watercourses outside the boundaries of the permitted work area. Appropriate barricades would be installed to preclude this activity. n During construction, the work sites would be maintained such that no construction debris or material spillover would be allowed in the watercourses. Upon completion of the work, all construction debris and excess material would be removed from the job sites and disposed of appropriately outside the USACE jurisdictional areas. During construction, appropriate measures would be taken to accommodate flows within the watercourses, such that waters would not be diverted outside the OHWM. Pollutants reaching waters of the United States Impacts to ecological resources within waters of the United States n Prior to construction, the contractor would review and sign the Checklist for Environmental Compliance. ADOT would also sign the checklist and return it to ADOT EPG 7 calendar days prior to construction. Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States n Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-25 Waters of the United States (continued) Topography, geology, and soils Biological resources 4-118 Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Unauthorized activities in waters of the United States Design The contractor should comply with all terms, general conditions, and special conditions of the Section 404 permit, as established by USACE and the Section 401 Water Quality Certification certified by ADEQ. No work would occur within jurisdictional waters until the appropriate CWA Sections 401 and 404 permits were obtained. According to the ADOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2008), the contractor would be required to perform in-depth pre- and postconstruction surveys for all structures located within onehalf mile in the event any blasting and/or heavy ripping were planned for construction purposes. This documentation should include photographic and video documentation. Geotechnical-related construction effects would be mitigated through use of appropriate design, including excavations and slopes in soil and rock with an accepted degree of safety, placement of fills with an accepted degree of safety, protection of excavation and fill slopes against erosion, and design of roadway subgrade and foundations in accordance with accepted practices. An acquisition and relocation assistance program would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (49 C.F.R. § 24), which identifies the process, procedures, and time frame for R/W acquisition and relocation of affected businesses. Relocation resources would be available to all business relocatees, without discrimination. All acquisitions and relocations resulting from the proposed freeway would comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with 49 C.F.R. § 24. Private property owners would be compensated at fair market value for land and may be eligible for additional benefits. In the final determination of potential relocation impacts during the acquisition process, ADOT would provide, where possible, alternative access to properties losing access to the local road network. In the event that alternative access could not be provided, ADOT would compensate affected property owners in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 24. ADOT would consider protective and hardship acquisition on a case-by-case basis in accordance with criteria outlined in the ADOT Right-of-Way Procedures Manual (2011a). During the design phase, ADOT EPG would coordinate with USFWS, AGFD, and the Community’s Department of Environmental Quality to determine whether any additional species-specific mitigation measures would be required. Protected native plants within the project limits would be affected by this project; therefore, the ADOT Roadside Development Section would determine whether ADA notification would be needed. If notification were needed, the ADOT Roadside Development Section would send the notification at least 60 calendar days prior to the start of construction. The proposed action would be designed to protect and maintain opportunities for wildlife movement between the South Mountains, the Gila River, and the Sierra Estrella. These opportunities would be located in the region where the E1 Alternative would intersect the southwestern portion of the South Mountains. Some drainage structures incorporated into the roadway plans would be designed to accommodate multifunctional crossings in appropriate locations that would allow limited use by the Community and also serve wildlife. These crossing structures and associated fences would be designed to reduce the incidence of vehicle-wildlife collisions and reduce the impact of the proposed action on wildlife connectivity between the South Mountains, the Gila River, and the Sierra Estrella. ADOT would coordinate with USFWS, AGFD, and the Community’s Department of Environmental Quality during the design phase regarding the potential for locating and designing wildlife-sensitive roadway structures. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) n n Damage to structures resulting from blasting or other heavy construction methods 4-124 n Potential mass failures of excavated and/or constructed rock faces n Displacements of sand and gravel operations within Salt River riverbed n n n Potential discontinued ADOT and USFWS interaction 4-138 n Loss of protected native plants n n n Obstacles to wildlife movements and wildlife-vehicle collisions n n n (continued on next page) SUM S-26 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Biological resources (continued) For drainage structures such as culverts located in potential wildlife movement corridors, wildlife friendly design would be considered during final design. ADOT would coordinate with USFWS, AGFD, and the Community’s DEQ during the design phase regarding the potential for locating and designing wildlifesensitive roadway structures. All disturbed soils not paved that would not be landscaped or otherwise permanently stabilized by construction would be seeded using species native to the project vicinity. Prior to signing the ROD for the project, the status of species and critical habitat proposed, listed, or designated under the ESA would be reviewed. If new species have been proposed or listed following completion of the Biological Evaluation, an update to the Biological Evaluation would be prepared and any required consultation with USFWS would be completed. During final design of the project and within 90 days of approval to begin construction of each phase of the project, the status of species and critical habitat proposed, listed, or designated under the ESA would be reviewed. If new species or critical habitat have been proposed, listed, or designated following completion of the Biological Evaluation, or if the potential effects on species or critical habitat from the project have changed from those described in the Biological Evaluation, an update to the Biological Evaluation would be prepared and any required consultation with USFWS would be completed. Prior to construction, ADOT EPG would arrange for surveys to be completed for the Sonoran desert tortoise, Tucson shovel-nosed snake, bats, and other species as determined by ADOT or FHWA to be necessary. During the design phase, ADOT would coordinate with USFWS, AGFD, and the Community’s Department of Environmental Quality and determine whether any additional species-specific mitigation measures would be required. During the design phase, ADOT EPG would review and update biological requirements for the project, completing bird surveys as necessary, and developing species-specific mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA. ADOT would coordinate for the contractor’s personnel to receive training regarding procedures for interactions with sensitive species that may be encountered during construction. If clearing, grubbing, or pruning of trees, shrubs, or cacti would occur between March 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist would conduct a bird nest search of all vegetation that would be cleared or pruned within 5 calendar days prior to vegetation clearing/pruning. If an active nest or nest cavity/hole of birds protected by the MBTA were observed, the vegetation clearing/pruning would be delayed in the immediate vicinity until the nest is no longer active or ADOT would obtain required permits from USFWS. To prevent the introduction of invasive species seeds, the contractor would inspect all earthmoving and hauling equipment at the equipment storage facility and the equipment would be washed prior to entering the construction site. To prevent invasive species seeds from leaving the site, the contractor would inspect all construction equipment and remove all attached plant/vegetation and soil/mud debris prior to leaving the construction site. Obstacles to wildlife movements and wildlife-vehicle collisions Habitat impacts would be minimized by restricting construction activities to the minimum area necessary to perform the activities and by maintaining natural vegetation where possible. Loss of wildlife habitat Loss of vegetation Impacts to newly listed threatened and endangered species Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM 4-138 n n n n n n Impacts to newly listed threatened and endangered species n n n Potential impacts to reptiles and amphibians n Potential impacts to specific species n Potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA n n n Potential impacts to specific species Interference with wildlife reproduction n n n n n n Introduction of invasive species to the construction area Spread of invasive species from the construction area Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. n n n n n n n n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-27 Biological resources (continued) Cultural resources If any Sonoran desert tortoises were encountered during construction, the contractor would adhere to the most current guidelines regarding encounters with Sonoran desert tortoises. The contractor would adhere to the procedures for encounters with sensitive species that would include allowing the animal to leave of its own accord or contacting a trained person if the animal needed to be removed from the work area. A biologist would be employed to complete a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls 96 hours prior to construction in all suitable habitat that would be disturbed. The biologist shall possess a burrowing owl survey protocol training certificate issued by AGFD. Upon completion of surveys, the survey results would be reviewed with the ADOT biologist and a course of action would be identified. If any burrowing owls are located in the work area, the contractor would immediately stop work at that location and notify the Engineer. The Engineer would contact the ADOT biologist to determine whether the owls could be avoided or must be relocated. The contractor would not work within 100 feet of any active burrow until the situation had been evaluated by the ADOT biologist. If the ADOT biologist determined that the owl must be relocated, a biologist holding a rehabilitation permit from USFWS would relocate burrowing owls from the project area. Strategies for prehistoric sites would include: l A preconstruction testing plan would be developed and implemented for the sites by ADOT EPG’s Historic Preservation Team. The testing plan would define locations of test excavations within sites to determine whether important archaeological deposits exist within the area of potential effects. The Historic Preservation Team would consult with SHPO and other consulting parties as required. Depending on the results of the testing program, follow-up data recovery excavations might also be required. Strategies for prehistoric sites would include: l A burial agreement with the ASM and concerned Native American tribes would be developed to outline procedures for proper removal, treatment, and reburial of any human remains and associated funerary objects that might be encountered. Impacts on the Roosevelt Canal and historic Southern Pacific Railroad would be avoided through the use of bridges to span the resources. ADOT, on behalf of FHWA and in conjunction with tribal and local authorities, Western, and BIA, developed a PA for the proposed action. A PA is a document that spells out the terms of a formal, legally binding agreement between lead agencies and other interested parties for the proper treatment and management of affected cultural resources. A PA establishes a process for consultation, review, and compliance with federal and State preservation laws as the effects of a project on historic properties were to become known. ADOT would follow the terms and conditions of the Section 106 PA developed for the proposed action. No ground-disturbing activities would be conducted until ADOT EPG has notified the District Engineer that the terms and stipulations of the PA have been fulfilled. ADOT and FHWA would fund an eligibility report for the South Mountains TCP to be prepared by the Community. Consultation is continuing with the Community and other tribes regarding other appropriate mitigation strategies; selected, limited disclosure of locations of cultural resources sites; and other cultural resources issues related to the proposed action. Loss of Sonoran desert tortoises 4-138 Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) n n Potential impacts to specific species n n Loss of burrowing owls or their habitat n n Loss of burrowing owls n n Loss of NRHP-eligible properties 4-158 n Loss of NRHP-eligible properties n n n Harm to South Mountains TCP n (continued on next page) SUM S-28 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Cultural resources (continued) Prime and unique farmlands Hazardous materials Although pedestrian access to traditional cultural places would be modified extensively by the proposed action, access would be provided by proposed crossings under the freeway. These multifunctional crossings are proposed near the cultural resources sites and would facilitate pedestrian access to these sites. Gaps in the cultural resources inventory would be investigated by ADOT in the design phase, prior to any construction or other ground-disturbing activities. If previously unidentified cultural resources were to be encountered during activity related to the construction of the proposed freeway, the contractor would stop work immediately at that location and would take all reasonable steps to secure the preservation of those resources and notify the ADOT Engineer. The ADOT Engineer would contact the ADOT EPG Historic Preservation Team immediately and make arrangements for the proper treatment of those resources. ADOT would, in turn, notify the appropriate agency(ies) to evaluate the significance of those resources. During the design phase, ADOT would implement a R/W acquisition program in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (49 C.F.R. § 24). Isolation of the Community from culturally important places During the design phase of the proposed action, ADOT would coordinate with affected property owners as part of the R/W acquisition process to provide access, if possible, for farm equipment between divided agricultural parcels or to purchase remaining farm parcels considered too small to be farmed either economically or functionally. Provision would be made for access to farmland otherwise made functionally inaccessible by the project. Additional mitigation measures might be considered based on NRCS guidance. Loss of prime or unique farmlands through segmenting of parcels Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM 4-158 n Loss of NRHP-eligible properties n Loss of discovered properties that may be NRHP-eligible n Loss of prime or unique farmlands through segmenting of parcels n n 4-162 n n n A site-specific Phase I assessment would be performed prior to site acquisition for each of the high-priority Disturbance of hazardous material sites. sites 4-165 n ADOT would review the status of open regulatory cases relating to hazardous materials releases during the design phase. Responsible parties associated with any open regulatory cases would be determined at that time. ADOT would coordinate with responsible parties to determine the status of any required cleanup actions. ADOT would conduct asbestos and lead-paint inspections of structures to be demolished and require Releases of asbestos or lead during abatement measures during demolition. demolition of acquired structures The ADOT project manager would contact the ADOT EPG hazardous materials coordinator to determine the need for additional site assessment. Disturbance of hazardous material sites Staging for construction activities near wells or dry wells would be located in areas where accidental releases of potential contaminants would be minimized and any accompanying threat to groundwater resources minimized. In cooperation with the contractor, ADOT’s Construction District would develop and coordinate emergency response plans with local fire authorities, local hospitals, and certified emergency responders for hazardous materials releases or chemical spills. If suspected hazardous materials were to be encountered during construction, work would cease at that location and the ADOT Engineer would arrange for proper assessment, treatment, or disposal of those materials. Hazardous materials reaching groundwater Hazardous materials reaching groundwater or surface waters or affecting human health Disturbance of previously unknown hazardous material sites Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. n n n n n n n n n n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-29 Hazardous materials (continued) The contractor would develop an on-site health and safety plan for construction activities. Visual resources If relocation or removal of an aboveground storage tank or underground storage tank were necessary, the removal/relocation activities would be addressed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations of the State of Arizona. A hazardous waste management plan should be prepared for the handling of hazardous materials during construction. Hazardous materials reaching groundwater or surface waters or affecting human health Impacts to human health and safety Use of asbestos-containing materials would be avoided during construction. Releases of asbestos during construction or afterward During the design phase, ADOT would evaluate: l leaving in place rock outcrops—if stable and not a hazard to the traveling public—not interfering with construction or looking out-of-place in the natural landscape l using vegetative buffers to screen views both of the road and from the road l transplanting larger saguaro cacti, mature trees, and large shrubs likely to survive the transplanting and setting-in period to visually sensitive or critical roadway areas l blending retention basins and their landscape treatments into their natural surroundings l placing landscape treatment on the periphery of R/W areas at overpass locations as well as at other areas adjacent to residential development l clustering or grouping plant material in an informal pattern to break up the linear form of the freeway l using strategic gaps in plantings to frame positive views from the road l using earth colors for overpasses, retaining and screen walls, and noise barriers l using natural-tone metals with a noncontrasting, nonglare finish for guardrails and handrails l using riprap that blends with the surrounding rocks and exposed soil color l using shotcrete that matches the color and texture of adjacent rocks l using bridges and overpass structural systems that help unify a visually complex landscape l minimizing structural sizes and/or recessing the face of structural members from the edge of the roadway to reduce real or apparent breadth of structures If a jurisdiction through which the proposed freeway would pass were to request treatments other than ADOT’s standard palette of treatments to noise barriers, screen walls, piers, concrete barriers, retaining walls, or highly visible headwalls, such efforts may be negotiated with ADOT. (Treatments beyond the ADOT standard palette may be more expensive to construct and/or maintain. In such cases, a given jurisdiction may wish to cover the additional expenses to secure the desired treatment.) Disruption of natural landscape views or views of scenic value and incompatible views of proposed action from adjacent land Selected Contractor Construction District Hazardous materials reaching groundwater or surface waters or affecting human health Impacts to human health and safety Maintenance District Any existing aboveground storage tanks or underground storage tanks would be removed or relocated. 4-165 Right-of-Way Releases of asbestos or lead during demolition of acquired structures Design Asbestos- and lead-paint-containing materials identified in structures to be demolished would be properly removed and disposed of prior to demolition. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) n n n n n n 4-170 n General public concerns over aesthetic treatments n (continued on next page) SUM S-30 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Visual resources (continued) Temporary construction impacts Road cuts proposed for the South Mountains would incorporate the newly exposed rock faces characteristic of the adjacent natural rock features, including scale, shape, slope, and fracturing to the extent that could be practicable and feasible as identified through geotechnical testing and constructibility reviews. ADOT would require the contractor to round and blend new slopes to mimic the existing contours to highlight natural formations. ADOT would evaluate having the contractor adjust and warp slopes at intersections of cuts and natural grades to flow into each other or transition with the natural ground surfaces without noticeable breaks. A traffic control plan would be developed and implemented to help reduce impacts of traffic congestion and associated emissions during construction. The following mitigation measures would be followed, when applicable, in accordance with the most recently accepted version of the ADOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2008). Site preparation l Minimize land disturbance. l Use watering trucks to minimize dust. l Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. l Use windbreaks to prevent accidental dust pollution. l Limit vehicular paths and stabilize temporary roads. l To prevent dirt from tracking or washing onto paved roads, 50-foot-long track-out pads consisting of 12-inch-deep aggregate of 3 to 6 inches in diameter would be placed over geotextile fabric adjacent to paved roads. Construction l Use dust suppressants on unpaved traveled paths. l Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. l To prevent dirt from tracking or washing onto paved roads, 50-foot-long track-out pads consisting of 12-inch-deep aggregate of 3 to 6 inches in diameter would be placed over geotextile fabric adjacent to paved roads. l To the extent practicable, construction equipment that meets EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards shall be used. l Where feasible, construction equipment powered by alternative fuels (e.g., biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electricity) shall be used. l ADOT would provide training to contractor’s personnel regarding air quality impacts from construction activities, potential health risks to nearby receptors, and methods to reduce emissions. Postconstruction l Revegetate or use decomposed granite on all disturbed land. l Remove dirt piles and unused materials. l Revegetate all vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities. An approved “Application for Earth Moving Permit, Demolition, and Dust Control Plan” would be obtained prior to construction from the Maricopa County Air Quality Department for all phases of the proposed action. The permit would describe measures to control and regulate air pollutant emissions during construction. Disruption of natural landscape views or views of scenic value Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM 4-170 n Pollutants released into the air from slowed and idling vehicles Particulate matter released into the air during construction Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. 4-173 n n n n n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-31 Temporary construction impacts (continued) Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Particulate matter released into the air during construction Design The following measures would be implemented for the Selected Alternative: l All equipment exhaust systems would be in good working order. Properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers would be used. l Equipment would be maintained on a regular basis. l New equipment would be subject to new product emission standards. l Stationary equipment would be located as far away from sensitive receivers as possible. l Construction-related noise generators would be shielded from noise receivers (e.g., use temporary enclosures to shield generators or crushers, take advantage of site conditions to provide topographic separation). l Construction alerts would be distributed to keep the public informed of construction activities, and a toll-free number for construction-related complaints would be provided. l During the design phase, hours of operation would be evaluated to minimize disruptions during construction. Congestion from construction-related traffic would create temporary impacts in the project vicinity. The magnitude of these impacts would vary depending on the location of the sources of the fill material and of the disposition sites for surplus material, the land uses along the routes, the duration of hauling operations, staging locations, and the construction phasing. To identify acceptable routes and times of operation, ADOT, or its representative, would prepare an agreement with local agencies regarding hauling of construction materials on public streets. Traffic would be managed by detailed traffic control plans, including coordination with potentially affected public services. Access would be maintained during construction, and construction activities that might substantially disrupt traffic would not be performed during peak travel periods. To minimize disruption, ADOT would coordinate with local jurisdictions regarding traffic control and construction activities during special events. Requirements for the use of construction notices and bulletins would be identified as needed. The effectiveness of the traffic control measures would be monitored during construction and any necessary adjustments would be made. ADOT would coordinate with the responsible local entities regarding the relocation of utilities, as appropriate. ADOT coordination with affected utilities would be ongoing and would continue through the design phase. Utilities with prior rights would be relocated at ADOT cost according to the requirements of the utility. Disruptions to utility services, if necessary, would be restricted to being short-term and localized. ADOT and project contractors would continue to coordinate with utility providers during the design phase and project construction to identify potential problems and/or conflicts and to provide opportunities for their resolution prior to proposed actions. Replacement and/or relocation of utilities would be coordinated with ADOT construction activities and other projects in the area. Planning would include scheduling of disruptions and prior notification of adjacent property owners who would be affected by temporary service cut-offs. Emergency response procedures would be outlined by ADOT in consultation with local utility providers to ensure quick and effective repair of any inadvertent or accidental disruptions in service. Pedestrian access to the TCPs would not be precluded during construction, but might temporarily involve out-of-direction travel. It is understood that Community use of the TCPs is not seasonal, so avoidance of impacts would not be possible through construction scheduling. All TCPs would be appropriately protected (e.g., temporary fencing) during construction. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) 4-173 Nuisance noise during construction n Traffic congestion related to construction hauling operations n n n n n Interference with normal traffic patterns on area roads Disruptions to service from utility relocations or damage during construction Disruptions to utility service and traffic from utility relocations or damage during construction n n Restriction of access to TCPs and potential harm to TCPs n n n (continued on next page) SUM S-32 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Material sources Section 4(f) Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Acquisition of unapproved material for project construction to address the deficit of material needed (material not generated by project construction) Design The contractor would use material sources from the ADOT Contractor-Furnished Materials Sources List. If the source that the contractor prefers to use is not on the ADOT list, then the contractor would complete ADOT EPG’s Material Source Environmental Analysis Application in accordance with ADOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 104 Material Sources (2008 Edition) (Stored Specification 104.12 General) prior to using material from that source. Contractor-furnished material sources must go through a process to obtain environmental clearance for use on ADOT projects. The material source owner or operator must submit a Material Source Environmental Analysis Application, with cultural survey and reports, to ADOT EPG. After receiving the completed application, ADOT EPG would initiate a cultural consultation process. Upon successful completion of this process, the material source would receive a tracking number and may be included on the ADOT Contractor-Furnished Materials Sources List. Where the proposed action would cross NRHP-eligible properties (specifically, the Grand Canal, Roosevelt Canal, and the historic Southern Pacific Railroad [Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line]), the proposed action would be constructed as an elevated span to clear the properties. Because existing access to some of the NRHP-eligible properties afforded protection under Section 4(f) may be affected, alternative access would be provided. In those instances, access would not be restricted and utility of the resources would not be altered. Where the proposed action would cross over trail segments (specifically, Segments Seven, Fifty-six, Sixtyeight, and Sixty-nine of the Maricopa County Regional Trails System, and Segment One of the Sun Circle Trail), the proposed action would be constructed as an elevated span to clear the trail segments. ADOT would engage Maricopa County in the design phase to coordinate the design of the proposed action with relevant segments of the County’s trail system and to identify beneficial opportunities to locate trail segments along the proposed action. During the design phase, ADOT would consult directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office to identify and implement other design measures, when possible, to further reduce land needed for the proposed action. The City Manager’s office represents its constituents, including the Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council, Mountain Bike Association of America, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board, and Arizona Horsemen’s Association. During the design phase, ADOT would consult directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office in representing City of Phoenix interests to enter into an IGA to identify and purchase replacement land. Replacement land would not exceed a 1:1 ratio (minus previously purchased replacement land) unless ADOT and the City of Phoenix determine jointly that exceeding the 1:1 ratio would be in the best interests of both parties. Pursuant to State law, ADOT cannot purchase land for the sole purpose of transferring it to other ownership. Therefore, under provisions set forth in the IGA entered into by both ADOT and the City of Phoenix, the City would be responsible for identification of replacement land. Once agreed upon under the terms of the IGA, ADOT would issue payment to the City of Phoenix for the acquisition of replacement land. Provisions of the IGA would ensure commitment of the transaction would be solely for the purposes of timely acquisition of parkland for public use within Phoenix. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM 4-176 n n Potential harm to NRHP-eligible historic properties 5-7 n Potential restriction of access to NRHP-eligible historic properties Potential harm to trail segments n n 5-9 n Potential lack of coordination regarding trail design Harm to SMPP (loss of land) Notes: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of this table, on page S-34. The purple-colored bars designate the entity(ies) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. n 5-23 n n n n (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-33 Section 4(f) (continued) ADOT would undertake the condemnation process to obtain the land for the proposed action. Because replacement land would be provided as a measure to minimize harm, ADOT would request City of Phoenixwritten and published support prior to beginning the condemnation process. Design measures would be implemented to blend the appearance of the cuts with the surrounding natural environment, as feasible. The degree of slope treatment would depend on the interaction of two primary factors: the angle of the cut slope and the receptivity of the cut rock to rock sculpting and rounding to mimic existing contours and allow for staining, revegetation, and other related measures to blend the slope with the South Mountains’ natural setting. ADOT would undertake additional geotechnical investigations during the design phase to determine, in part, how receptive the proposed slope angles would be to slope treatments. During this period, ADOT would consult directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office in representing City of Phoenix interests and on behalf of the Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board, and Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council in establishing a slope treatment plan for cut slopes through the ridgelines, with the clear intent to blend as well as would be possible the cut slopes with the South Mountains’ natural setting. Barriers proposed to mitigate noise impacts on neighboring residential developments (near the Foothills Reserve residential development and the Dusty Lane residential area), while not specifically intended to mitigate noise intrusion into SMPP, would provide incidental noise mitigation. Where appropriate, visual intrusions would be reduced by a number of measures: l Vegetation buffers would be used to screen views of the freeway from SMPP. l Larger saguaros, mature trees, and larger shrubs likely to survive the transplanting and setting-in period would be transplanted in relatively natural areas near the proposed action to blend with the existing landscape. l Clustering or grouping plant material in an informal pattern to break up the linear form of the freeway would be undertaken where appropriate to “naturalize” areas within the R/W. l Landscape treatments using native plants on the periphery of R/W areas at overpass locations and areas near residential developments would be installed where appropriate. l Aesthetic treatments and patterning would be applied to noise barriers and other structures (lighting standards, overpasses, abutments, retaining and screening walls). ADOT would consult directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office in representing City of Phoenix interests and on behalf of the Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board, and the Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council in establishing a slope treatment plan for cut slopes through the ridgelines, with the clear intent to blend as well as would be possible the cut slopes with the South Mountains’ natural setting. To set clear parameters defining the scope of the mitigation measures to be implemented and for making environmental determinations, an IGA would be created between ADOT and the City of Phoenix. For the proposed action through SMPP, ADOT would consult directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office in representing City of Phoenix interests and on behalf of the Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board, and the Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council and with Community representatives to develop the aesthetic treatment of landscaping and structures through the park/preserve. Harm to SMPP (loss of land) Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Design Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) 5-23 n n Harm to SMPP (visual impacts) n Harm to SMPP (visual impacts) n Harm to SMPP (noise intrusions) n Harm to SMPP (visual impacts) n n n n (continued on next page) SUM S-34 Summary South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table S-4 Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives (continued) Section 4(f) (continued) A.A.C. – Arizona Administrative Code ADA – Arizona Department of Agriculture ADEQ – Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department ASLD – Arizona State Land Department ASM – Arizona State Museum AZPDES – Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System BIA – U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM – Bureau of Land Management BMPs – best management practices C.F.R. – Code of Federal Regulations Community - Gila River Indian Community CWA – Clean Water Act EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPG – ADOT Environmental Planning Group FHWA – Federal Highway Administration 5-23 n Harm to SMPP (habitat connectivity and visual impacts) n Harm to the South Mountains as a TCP (loss of land) Harm to the South Mountains as a TCP (destruction of a contributing element and access) Harm to the South Mountains as a TCP (documentation of the TCP) Harm to the South Mountains as a TCP (visual impacts) 5-27 n n n n n Harm to the South Mountains as a TCP (access and habitat connectivity) n n Harm to AZ T:12:112 (ASM) as a TCP (destruction and access) HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development IGA – intergovernmental agreement MAG – Maricopa Association of Governments MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP – National Register of Historic Places OHWM – ordinary high-water mark PA – programmatic agreement n ROD – record of decision R/W – right-of-way SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office SMPP – Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve SWPPP – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCP – traditional cultural property USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western – Western Area Power Administration Selected Contractor Construction District Maintenance District Right-of-Way Harm to SMPP (access and habitat connectivity) Design Based on locations, likelihood/effectiveness as multifunctional crossings, and on preliminary cost estimates, preliminary designs of some crossings would be enhanced to accommodate the movement of wildlife and provide access to SMPP for hiking, equestrian, Community, and bicycling use. Some of the crossings would provide direct access to SMPP; all would permit wildlife to move unimpeded in and out of the park preserve at the crossing locations. During the design phase, ADOT would consult directly with the Phoenix City Manager’s office (which represents its constituents, including the Sonoran Preserve Advisory Committee, Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council, Mountain Bike Association of America, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board, and Arizona Horsemen’s Association), Maricopa County, Arizona Department of Public Safety, USFWS, AGFD, and the Community’s Department of Environmental Quality to finalize design features and locations of the crossings designed to provide access to SMPP. During the design phase, ADOT would consult directly with the Community to identify and implement other design measures, when feasible, to further reduce land requirements for the proposed action. The consultation would likely include the City of Phoenix. The E1 Alternative was designed to avoid a site that is a contributing element to the TCP, resulting in no direct use of this TCP element. A R/W fence would limit access to the site by freeway users, but Community members would continue to gain access to the site as they currently do. As a measure to minimize harm to the TCP, ADOT and FHWA would provide funds for the Community to conduct the TCP evaluation. ADOT would invite the Community to participate in direct consultation with the City of Phoenix in establishing a slope treatment plan for cut slopes through the ridgelines, with the clear intent to blend the cut slope with the South Mountains’ natural setting. ADOT would invite the Community to participate in direct consultation with the City of Phoenix to develop the aesthetic treatment of landscaping and structures (e.g., noise barriers) through the TCP. The multipurpose crossings proposed as a measure to minimize harm to SMPP would provide access from the Community to the mountains. During the design phase, ADOT would invite the Community to participate in direct consultation with the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and assigned staff from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and AGFD to finalize design features and locations of the crossings. The E1 Alternative was designed to avoid site AZ T:12:112 (ASM), resulting in no direct use of this TCP element. A R/W fence would limit access to the site by freeway users, but Community members would continue to gain access to the site as they currently do. Element Roadside Impact(s) to be Mitigated Responsible ADOT Department Environmental Planning Group Mitigation Measure Beginning Page Reference(s) SUM South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation IDENTIFICATION OF A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A preferred action alternative in the Western and Eastern Sections has been identified. Identification of a Preferred Alternative in the Western Section (W59 Alternative) This section summarizes the alternatives screening process and factors considered for the identification of a Preferred Alternative in the Western Section. It begins with the identification of a preliminary preferred alternative, the W55 Alternative, and then discusses the shift to the W59 Alternative. The concluding discussion focuses on the reasons that ADOT and FHWA identified the W59 Alternative, and not the W71 or W101 Alternative, as the Preferred Alternative in the Western Section. A side-by-side comparison of the factors used in the alternatives screening process for each action alternative is presented in Figure S‑10. Additional detail regarding the impacts associated with each action alternative is presented in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, and is summarized in Table S-3, beginning on page S-10. In the summer of 2006, ADOT, with FHWA concurrence, identified the W55 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative in the Western Section. The public announcement in 2006 of the W55 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative prior to issuance of the DEIS was in response to increasing requests by officials of affected municipalities and land developers to allow better land planning in the rapidly developing Western Section. The announcement was grounded in the following context: ➤➤ Identification of the preliminary preferred alternative applied only to the Western Section of the proposed action corridor. ➤➤ Identification of the W55 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative in the Western Section was independent of a similar identification to be made regarding a Preferred Alternative in the Eastern Section. ➤➤ Because of outstanding issues at the time (2006) regarding Community coordination and the South Summary Mountains, ADOT and FHWA elected to postpone a similar identification of a preliminary preferred alternative in the Eastern Section to continue Community coordination efforts. ➤➤ ADOT and FHWA have sought permission to develop alternatives on Community land. Coordination among ADOT, FHWA, and the Community regarding permission has occurred since project inception; however, despite those efforts, ADOT and FHWA have determined that an alternative alignment on Community land is not feasible. (Issues relevant to Community coordination are presented in Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination.) ➤➤ Identification of the W55 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative in the Western Section of the corridor would not preclude the No-Action Alternative from being the Selected Alternative later in the EIS process. ➤➤ Identification of the W55 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative would not represent a final determination by ADOT and FHWA. In identifying the preliminary preferred alternative, ADOT concluded the W55 Alternative would best balance fiscal responsibility, regional mobility needs, community sensitivity, and additional considerations such as consistency with long-range planning goals, economic and environmental impacts, and public and agency input. The SMCAT, formed specifically to evaluate the proposed action, was empowered to consider many of the same parameters as ADOT examined and, in doing so, to recommend a preliminary preferred alternative to ADOT for its consideration. As presented in Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination, the SMCAT evaluation resulted in its recommending the W101 Alternative. In doing so, the SMCAT emphasized the importance of addressing longterm regional mobility issues, but also expressed concern regarding possible impacts on community character and cohesion. ADOT shared SMCAT concerns about both long-term regional mobility and community sensitivity. These concerns, when combined with ADOT’s concern for potential reduction in community services, in Tolleson in particular, ultimately contributed to ADOT’s 2006 identification of the W55 Alternative—and not S-35 the W101 Alternative—as the preliminary preferred alternative. ADOT’s determination was reached after: ➤➤ consideration of overall transportation needs in the region as identified in the RTP as adopted by Maricopa County voters ➤➤ consideration of consistency with clearly established long-range regional planning goals ➤➤ comparison of environmental and societal impacts expected from each of the alternatives and assessment of the ability to mitigate impacts ➤➤ a comparative examination of operational performance among the three action alternatives in the Western Section ➤➤ estimation of project costs in the context of fiscal responsibility to overall regional transportation infrastructure costs ➤➤ consideration of more than 4 years of public and agency input, including comments received at more than 200 formal and informal information exchanges with the public (through public meetings, the project Web site, and project telephone log, as well as recognition of resolutions passed by local communities and the SMCAT recommendation) In 2009, MAG suggested that a portion of the W55 Alternative could be shifted west onto 59th Avenue to take advantage of the existing R/W and reduce cost and business displacements. This shifted alignment (called the W59 Alternative) would connect to I-10 (Papago Freeway) at an existing service traffic interchange. After further analysis was conducted related to alignment, traffic operations, construction impacts, and environmental considerations, the following advantages and disadvantages were identified: ➤➤ would enable better I-10 traffic performance than would be achievable with the W55 Alternative ➤➤ would offer certain design advantages over the W55 Alternative ➤➤ would be preferred from a security perspective because it would be farther from the petroleum storage facilities at 51st Avenue and Van Buren Street ➤➤ would not reconstruct the 51st Avenue Bridge at I-10 ➤➤ would require the relocation of fewer businesses SUM SUM S-36 Summary ➤➤ would require the relocation of utilities along 59th Avenue ➤➤ would cause increased disruption of traffic during South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ➤➤ The duration and extent of congested conditions on I-10 would be the least desirable of the alternatives considered. construction along 59th Avenue ➤➤ Residential impacts and relocations would be high (up 59th Avenue and vice versa (indirect access would be provided by a system of access roads connecting to 51st and 67th avenues) ➤➤ Regional and public support is lacking. ➤➤ would eliminate direct access from I-10 to ➤➤ would require the relocation of more single-family residences and two apartment complexes Believing that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, ADOT and FHWA identified the W59 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative in the Western Section. The process and factors leading to identification of the W59 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative in the Western Section mirror those considered by ADOT and FHWA in 2006 to identify the W55 Alternative as the preliminary preferred alternative. In preparing the FEIS for the proposed action, ADOT and FHWA identified the W59 Alternative as the Preferred Alternative in the Western Section and reconfirmed the following: ➤➤ Identification of the W59 Alternative as the Preferred Alternative in the Western Section does not preclude the No-Action Alternative from being the Selected Alternative later in the EIS process. ➤➤ The issues and factors leading ADOT and FHWA to identify the W59 Alternative as the Preferred Alternative remain applicable and well-founded. (However, identification of the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS does not represent a final determination by ADOT and FHWA; identification of a Preferred Alternative could change.) In undertaking the process leading to this identification, ADOT and FHWA compared performance between the W59, W71, and W101 Alternatives. This process is described below. When comparing action alternatives in the Western Section, the W71 Alternative was considered the least desirable of the three action alternatives because: to 839 properties affected). ➤➤ The presence of an alignment is not consistent with local land use plans dating back to the mid-1980s. ADOT continued the evaluation of the Western Section action alternatives by conducting a comparative analysis of the W59 and W101 Alternatives, as summarized below. Overall Transportation Needs ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would better link the southern areas of the region with the central metropolitan area and would provide an alternative route to I-10 for regional connectivity. ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would be more consistent with local and regional transportation plans, including the RTP. ➤➤ Northbound and southbound motorists using the W101 Alternative would have a direct connection to SR 101L (Agua Fria Freeway) and would not have to travel on I-10 (Papago Freeway). This would complete a true loop around the Phoenix metropolitan area. ➤➤ The W101 Alternative would need additional widening improvements to SR 101L (Agua Fria Freeway). ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would need additional widening improvements to I-10 (Papago Freeway). Consistency with Regional and Long-range Planning Goals ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would result in less land being converted to freeway use, thereby optimizing opportunities for planned development. ➤➤ Since the mid-1980s, City of Phoenix land use planning has progressed in recognition of the planned location of the proposed freeway near the W59 Alternative. Related land use planning for the Phoenix Villages of Estrella and Laveen has been consistent with the City’s long-range land use planning. ➤➤ The location of the Salt River crossing of the W59 Alternative would be consistent with the Rio Salado Oeste joint use project planned by the City of Phoenix, USACE, and FCDMC. ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would avoid impacts on the planned expansion of the City of Tolleson wastewater treatment facility. Environmental and Societal Impacts ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would result in fewer residential displacements. ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would have a nominal effect on the local tax base in Phoenix. It would result in less impact on the local tax bases in Tolleson and Avondale. ➤➤ Conversely, the W101 Alternative would have a severe impact on the City of Tolleson’s tax base and would lead to a reduction in City-provided services. ➤➤ R/W for the W101 Alternative would eliminate a substantial portion of the remaining developable land in Tolleson. Tolleson is landlocked by Phoenix and Avondale, with no opportunity for future expansion of its city limits. Operational Differences ➤➤ The W101 Alternative would provide a direct connection to SR 101L (Agua Fria Freeway), thus completing the loop system without any overlap on I-10. ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would provide more direct access to downtown Phoenix. ➤➤ The W101 Alternative would provide better access to destinations west and north of downtown Phoenix. ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would optimize the long-term system of freeways planned in the southwestern portion of metropolitan Phoenix. However, these benefits would not be realized until SR 30 and SR 303L, south of I-10, are completed. ➤➤ The W59 Alternative would avoid the skewed arterial street interchange configurations that would be needed for the W101 Alternative to connect with the planned SR 30, Avenida Rio Salado (ARS), and several arterial streets. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-37 Figure S-10 Comparative Analysis, Action Alternatives, Western Section R/W cost: $910 million R/W a cost: $800–$950 million Lowest construction and design cost: $625 million Highest construction and design cost: $924 million Total project cost: $1.54 billion Highest total project cost: $1.72–$1.87 billion Displaced businesses: 14–30 Lowest number of high-priority hazardous material sites affected: 1 Displaced businesses: 26 Greatest number of displaced residential properties: 940–1,318 single-family Construction and design cost: $805 million Lowest total project cost: $1.23 billion Greatest number of displaced businesses: 42 Lowest number of displaced residential properties: 727 Displaced residential properties: 839 High-priority hazardous material sites affected: 4 Reduction in City of Avondale annual total tax revenues of $387,600 Lowest R/W cost: $427 million No impact on City of Tolleson or City of Avondale annual total tax revenues Reduction in City of Tolleson annual total tax revenues of between $3.6 and $4.1 million I-10 traffic conditions better than No-Action Alternative Greatest number of high-priority hazardous material sites affected: 5 No impact on City of Tolleson or City of Avondale annual total tax revenues Greatest reduction in City of Phoenix annual total tax revenues of $4.9 million Reduction in City of Phoenix annual total tax revenues of $3.9 million Optimizes use of SR 30d and provides best access to downtown Location of action alternatives, Western Section Reduction in City of Phoenix annual total tax revenues of between $2.3 and $3.6 million No BLM reclassification required Would require BLM reclassification of land designated under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act Black Canyon 17 Freeway LOOP Provides direct connection to loop system with no overlap on I-10b No BLMc reclassification required W59 (Preferred) Alternative Beneficial project effect or has comparatively least impact Comparable impact Comparatively most impact Denotes consideration of options under the W101 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Note: Improvements to Interstate 10 would be implemented under all Western Section action alternatives to ensure safe and adequate facility operation. For the W101 Alternative only, appropriate improvements would also be made to State Route 101L. a right-of-way b Interstate 10 c Bureau of Land Management d 51 Piestewa Freeway Agua Fria 101 Freeway Papago 10 Freeway Resolutions supporting an alternative near 55th Avenue (now closely represented by the W59 Alternative) and opposing the W101 Alternative: City of Tolleson, 12/13/05 City of Tolleson, 3/23/04 City of Avondale, 3/20/06 City of Phoenix, 12/17/03 City of Litchfield Park, 4/06/06 City of Buckeye, 4/18/06 Town of Gila Bend, 4/25/06 Detail area Maricopa 10 Freeway Approximate scale 1 5 miles Note: Alternatives and documented impacts continue south to the common point at 59th Avenue. State Route 30 A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to identifying a Preferred Alternative in the Western Section led the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to an alternative identification that balanced overall transportation needs; consistency with regional and long-range planning goals; environmental, economic, and societal impacts; operational differences; estimated costs; regional support; and public input. SUM SUM S-38 Summary Estimated Costs ➤➤ The total cost of the W59 Alternative would be $490 million to $640 million less than the W101 Alternative (see the section, Planning-level Cost Estimates, beginning on page 3‑59). Regional Support and Public Input ➤➤ Resolutions passed by the City/Town Councils of Avondale, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Phoenix, and Tolleson supported an alternative near 55th Avenue (now closely represented by the W59 Alternative) and opposed the W101 Alternative. ➤➤ Public input was split in support of either the W55 (now closely represented by the W59 Alternative) or W101 Alternative. The SMCAT supported the W101 Alternative, but expressed concern about its impacts on the communities surrounding the proposed freeway. After considering the above points, ADOT, with concurrence from FHWA, identified the W59 Alternative as its Preferred Alternative in the Western Section. Identification of a Preferred Alternative in the Eastern Section (E1 Alternative) The E1 Alternative is the only action alternative developed for the Eastern Section. ADOT and FHWA sought permission to study alternatives in detail on Community land, but the Community decided such alternatives would not be in the Community’s best interest (see Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination). Therefore, ADOT, with concurrence from FHWA, identified the E1 Alternative as its Preferred Alternative in the Eastern Section. In reaching its determination, ADOT sought to balance its responsibilities to address regional mobility needs while being fiscally responsible and sensitive to local communities. STATUS OF GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES – AT THE FEIS STAGE At the time of FEIS issuance, only one action alternative in the Eastern Section had been studied in detail. Other South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation alternatives, not located on Community land, were subjected to the alternatives development and screening process (see text beginning on page 3-7). Another way to increase the number of action alternatives for detailed study in the Eastern Section would be to examine action alternatives on Community land. A primary concern from the start of the EIS process for the proposed action has been whether ADOT and FHWA would be able to study an alternative in detail on Community land. Both agencies have worked to engage the Community throughout the study process. In response to a January 2010 letter from the Community Governor, ADOT developed an environmental and engineering overview document that outlined the freeway characteristics and potential impacts of an alignment on Community land. The Community Council considered this document and extensive Community member comments and authorized a referendum of Community members to favor or oppose the construction of the proposed South Mountain Freeway on Community land or to support a no-build option. The Community coordinated referendum occurred in February 2012 and Community members voted in favor of the no-build option; therefore, the on‑Community alignment was eliminated from further study. As a sovereign nation, the Community must grant permission to the State before any alternatives that would cross Community land can be planned and studied in detail. Under federal law, an Act of Congress is required before a state may condemn tribal land. The Secretary of the Interior retains the statutory authority to grant different types of easements across tribal land. While outreach efforts to the Community have been ongoing for many years, efforts to obtain permission to develop an alternative on Community land were unsuccessful (see Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination). Therefore, FHWA and ADOT have determined that an alternative alignment on Community land is not feasible. Should the Community grant permission to develop alternatives on its land, ADOT and FHWA—in cooperation with the Community—would determine R/W needs for the alternative(s), conduct the appropriate analyses, and report findings in a NEPA document released to the public as part of this EIS study process (the specific document type would depend on progress made to that point through the EIS process). If an alternative(s) through Community land were determined to be a reasonable alternative(s), impacts of the alternative(s) would be disclosed in the appropriate NEPA document and would be compared with impacts of the other alternatives carried forward for detailed study in this EIS study process. Regardless of the document type, a Notice of Availability would be published in the Federal Register and a new public comment period would be opened following document publication. If permission were granted, should an action alternative (after being studied) on Community land be subsequently identified as the Selected Alternative, the Community would need to grant additional permission to ADOT and FHWA to construct the alternative. To conclude, no action alternatives on Community land are studied in detail in the FEIS. The Community has not granted permission to plan or study such alternatives in detail. TREATMENT OF RESOURCES AFFORDED PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 4(f) – AT THE FEIS STAGE Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act provides the Secretary of Transportation with a means to protect land that may be affected by construction and operation of a transportation project. The protection extends only to significant publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, as well as significant historic sites, whether they are publicly or privately owned. This protection stipulates that those facilities can be used for transportation projects only if South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ➤➤ there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the Summary Figure S-11 Sovereign Nation and Section 4(f) Constraints, Action Alternatives land ➤➤ the project includes all possible planning to minimize 10 Interstate 10 Black Canyon 17 Freeway harm to the land [see Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation] Approximately 16,600 acres of Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve (SMPP) (see Figure S-11) are afforded protection under Section 4(f) as a publicly owned recreation area and a historic property. Land area used for the proposed freeway would be approximately 31.3 acres, which represents less than 0.2 percent of the total parkland. The South Mountains are also considered a traditional cultural property (TCP) and are afforded protection under Section 4(f). Defining a meaningful boundary for the entire TCP would require detailed study of the traditional uses and cultural significance of the South Mountains. ADOT, FHWA, and the Community agree that any of the action alternatives would adversely affect the TCP, regardless of its precise boundary. The South Mountains are highly valued by area residents: ➤➤ SMPP is arguably the largest city park in the United States and is considered a centerpiece of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve system. ➤➤ As a property eligible for listing in the National ➤➤ As a TCP and a resource directly associated with other TCPs, the mountains are considered sacred—playing a role in tribal cultures, identities, histories, and oral traditions—and appear in many creation stories. Many traditional religious and ceremonial activities continue on the mountains. Avoidance of the South Mountains is not prudent and feasible because: ➤➤ Located south of downtown Phoenix and north of the Community, the mountain range serves as a physical barrier for regional transportation (see Figure S-11). Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport 143 Av oi da nc ea lte rna tive s Gila River Indian Community Hohokam Freeway nor th o f the South M and ountains would not satisfy the project pur would pose and result in impacts of extraordinar y magnitu need de. Some South Mountain resources afforded protection under Section 4(f) extend onto Gila River Indian Community land through this area, preventing avoidance of the resources. Study Area Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community boundary Maricopa County line Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Maricopa 10 Freeway Western Section W59 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section E1 Alternative Approximate scale Sierra Estrella 0 1 2 d oi r A v ( p e A lt Register of Historic Places (NRHP), SMPP’s origins are rooted in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. SMPP is a symbol of Phoenix’s parks program origins. SUM S-39 an m ce a iss lt er ion ern na a tiv to d tives eve sou es th o eve lop ft s nf art uch alt he South her e M sou rnatives h ountains would b th w e located on Gila River Indian Community land as not ould been gran not sa ted by the Gila River Indian Community government). tisfy the purpose and n eed of the proposed action. 3 miles Section 4(f) affords protection to the South Mountains because of their status as a publicly owned public park, a National Register of Historic Places-eligible site, a traditional cultural property (TCP) itself, and a site geographically and culturally linked to other TCPs. Because of the sensitive nature of cultural resources, neither the boundary of the South Mountains TCP nor those of the associated TCPs are shown on the above map. The related TCPs are found within the South Mountains TCP, whose boundary generally extends beyond that of Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve. SUM S-40 Summary ➤➤ Alternatives located north of the mountains to avoid the protected resource would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and would create impacts of extraordinary magnitude (see Table 3‑5 on page 3‑12). ➤➤ Alternatives located south of the mountains would pass through Community land. Because the Community has not granted permission to develop alternatives on its land, there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid use of the mountains. Placing an alternative even farther south of the Community land would not satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed action. Therefore, using a portion of the mountains is the only build action available. ADOT and FHWA would implement all possible measures to reduce impacts on the resource (see the section, Measures to Minimize Harm, in Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation, beginning on page 5-23). The continuing communications among ADOT, FHWA, and the Community to obtain permission to develop action alternatives on Community land could imply the following: ➤➤ If permission were granted, an alternative(s) on Community land could avoid use of the mountains but would not guarantee avoidance of other Section 4(f) resources on Community land. ➤➤ If avoidance of the South Mountains would occur, all other things being equal, other non-Community alternatives (or at least, the portion passing through SMPP and the TCPs) could be eliminated from further study. As noted in the section, Status of Gila River Indian Community Alternatives – At the FEIS Stage, on page S-38, Community permission granting the development of alternatives on Community land would not directly mean such alternatives could be constructed. The Community would still maintain its right to not permit construction of the proposed action on its land. Therefore, while alternatives on Community land would be studied in detail (if Community permission were granted to do so), the determination as to whether such alternatives would be prudent and feasible, as defined South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation in Section 4(f), could be made only if and when the Community were to grant permission to construct an alternative on its land. Therefore, if the Community were to grant permission to develop an alternative(s) on its land at some future date, the E1 Alternative as presented in the FEIS would continue to be studied in detail. OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS Several major transportation projects are under study, design, or construction in the region, including Valley Metro Regional Transit System projects, improvements to U.S. Route 60 (Grand Avenue), I-10 (Papago Freeway), SR 202L (Red Mountain and Santan freeways), and major studies for SR 303L, SR 30, ARS, SR 24 (Williams Gateway Freeway), I-10 (Maricopa Freeway), and Interstate 17 (Black Canyon Freeway). Impacts of the connection between the proposed action and SR 30 (under study) will be addressed in the environmental assessment conducted for SR 30. These major projects and study efforts are subject to preparation of their own design reports and appropriate environmental documents and permits. ADOT has accounted for these projects in the analyses presented in the FEIS. They have been considered when evaluating and planning systemwide regional transportation performance and when considering impacts that would result from the proposed action. Improvements to the arterial and local street networks would occur during implementation of the proposed action. Local street improvements would be implemented by the Cities and County as appropriate. PERMITS AND PERMISSIONS REQUIRED Other permits and permissions applicable to the proposed action are listed in Table S-5. These would apply to all action alternatives. AREAS OF CONCERN It is not uncommon for specific technical and procedural aspects to be areas of continuous concern for a project of the magnitude of the proposed action; this is particularly so when considering the diversity of environments in which the proposed action would pass. Areas of known concern are: ➤➤ The EIS process requires that a full range of reasonable, yet distinct alternatives for the proposed action be considered. To achieve this, some action alternatives are on different alignments from the originally adopted alignment. Considering the extensive amount of public involvement that was undertaken by ADOT to establish the original alignment and by MAG to complete the RTP, and considering that the City of Phoenix has attempted to maintain the village core concept in the Western Section along the original alignment but has allowed residential development to occur in the Eastern Section along the original corridor, a substantial amount of public and agency concern has been expressed about the proposed action, specifically about introducing new alignment alternatives. ➤➤ A substantial amount of development has occurred and been planned in the area of the originally planned alignment. In some instances, development was located to avoid conflicts with the freeway location; in other instances, development (sometimes incompatible with a freeway) has been allowed to encroach in the area of the planned alignment. Impacts relative to air quality, noise levels, visual quality, and displacements that did not exist in the late 1980s now would exist in relation to the action alternatives. ➤➤ At least three studies have been undertaken addressing the location of the proposed action since the 1980s. Some public comments suggest this EIS process reflects “just one more study” that may result in relocation of the alignment but will not result in freeway construction. Study of the corridor for the proposed freeway for more than 20 years has created uncertainties for many long-term residents near the proposed action. ➤➤ The original version of the proposed action placed the freeway on relatively undeveloped land that lies immediately north of the Community boundary (on what is now Pecos Road). Land to the north of the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Summary S-41 Table S-5 Major Permits and Permissions Permit/Permission Granting Agency(ies) Applicant Application Time Granting Time Application Portion of Project Section 404 of the CWAa permit USACEb ADOTc Concurrent with design in accordance with Memorandum of Agreement between USACE, ADOT, and FHWA Section 401 of the CWA certification ADEQd ADOT Concurrent with design Concurrent with design Required for Section 404 permit issuance Section 402 (AZPDES)e of the CWA permit ADEQ ADOT Design and/or construction phases Prior to construction of each phase Stormwater quality during construction phase Change of Access Report FHWAf ADOT EISg phase Concurrent with RODh Interstate access changes Application for earthmoving permit, demolition, and dust control plan Maricopa County ADOT Design and/or construction phases Prior to construction of each phase Air quality during construction phase, including emissions from equipment Federal land reappropriations BLMi FHWA Design phase Design phase BLM-owned land directly affected by the Selected Alternative Construction-related permits and clearances for all of the above (potentially) Various Contractor Contractor Prior to construction Impacts associated with off-site activities such as construction staging, borrow areas, batch plant sites Utility relocation or new location Various Various Design and/or construction phases Prior to construction Major utility relocations Design phase Architectural treatments of structures, landscape plans, measures to minimize harm applicable to Section 4(f) as addressed in Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation Intergovernmental agreements Various Various Design phase Concurrent with design Portions of construction in waters of the United States Note: Table S-4, Mitigation Measures, Arizona Department of Transportation, Action Alternatives, beginning on page S-18, and applicable sections in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, further elaborate permitting requirements. a f Clean Water Act b U.S. Army Corps of Engineers c Arizona Department of Transportation d Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Federal Highway Administration g environmental impact statement h record of decision iBureau of Land Management original alignment was also primarily undeveloped. ADOT adopted the alignment because it avoided Community land but kept the alignment along the southern limits of the beginnings of the planned Ahwatukee Foothills Village community so as to minimize impacts. Since that time, Ahwatukee Foothills Village has developed extensively. By reopening the alternatives development and screening process, the public again inquired about possible use of Community land for the proposed freeway. Some have requested the proposed action be located primarily within the Community. The Community has not granted permission to develop such alternatives. Members of the general public, however, continue to e Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ask ADOT to move a portion of the proposed freeway to Community land because other sections of the Regional Freeway and Highway System have been located on other tribal land. ➤➤ The location of the freeway was formally adopted by ADOT and MAG in 1988 and 1989 when ADOT prepared preliminary design and State-level environmental documents according to ADOT mandates. At the time when the original version of the proposed action was adopted in the late 1980s, ADOT undertook agency coordination and public involvement activities in anticipation that State funds would be sufficient to develop the project. The City of Phoenix has made land use planning decisions (i.e., general plan designations and zoning) in the context of the proposed freeway’s general alignment. ➤➤ During the 1988 and 1989 planning process, primary public concerns focused on the freeway’s potential effects on the quality of residential life, specifically the compatibility of a freeway with residential areas, air pollution and noise, visual impacts caused by spillover effects of freeway lighting and by the contrasts of hard and harsh surfaces associated with modern freeways, reductions in property values, and the obstruction of views to resources such as the South Mountains. Other comments identified concerns about protecting desert areas and associated wildlife habitat. SUM SUM S-42 Summary ➤➤ The RTP included an alignment for the South Mountain Freeway that closely followed the W59 Alternative. A footnote to a figure indicated that the EIS and design concept report (DCR) study process are underway and are considering multiple location options. If any major modifications to the RTP are necessary, MAG would need to follow the process outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes § 28‑6353. ➤➤ With the Study Area now developed, the proposed action would entail acquisition of properties within the proposed freeway R/W and relocation of affected residents. In an effort to retain their properties, several property owners have claimed that the City of Phoenix, the developers, and ADOT did not disclose the potential for a proposed freeway and, thus, they should not have to sell their property. Review of previously published ADOT, City of Phoenix, MAG, and developer documents shows that disclosure of the proposed freeway and alignments has occurred (seller disclosures, public announcements, several public meetings, frequent articles in print and broadcast media, etc.) since 1980. ➤➤ Several potentially affected property owners have requested consideration for advance or hardship acquisitions. The hardship acquisition process is similar to the regular acquisition process, except properties must meet strict criteria outlined in the ADOT Right-of-Way Procedures Manual, Project Management Section (2011a), to be eligible for hardship acquisitions. ➤➤ Some property owners who may reside adjacent to the proposed action if it were constructed are concerned about compensation for perceived damages. Claims for structural damages are evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the ADOT Risk Management Section. A formal process is established for damage claims. ➤➤ Near the South Mountains, bedrock may be encountered during construction of the proposed freeway. Cuts through ridgelines of the South Mountains are anticipated. As a result, blasting may be required to fragment the rock material for removal. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Members of the public expressed concerns about potential damage to structures caused by blasting. ADOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2008) assigns responsibility for all damage resulting from the use of explosives to the contractor that uses the explosives. In the special provisions of the construction contract for the proposed action, ADOT would include a requirement for the contractor to perform in-depth pre- and postconstruction surveys for all structures located within ½ mile in the event any blasting and/or heavy ripping would be planned for construction purposes. This documentation would include before-and-after photographs and videos. ➤➤ Many public comments have been received suggesting the proposed freeway would function primarily as a bypass for trucks. Based on comments received, some people perceive the purpose of the proposed freeway to be the removal of trucks from I-10 through downtown Phoenix. It is not a goal of ADOT and FHWA for the proposed freeway to function as a truck bypass. The majority of trucks using I-10 to pass through Arizona would bypass the greater Phoenix metropolitan area using SR 85 and Interstate 8 (I-8). SR 85 and its connections to I-10 and I-8 are currently being rebuilt to freeway standards to improve this route. These improvements are projected to result in even greater use of the Phoenix bypass, such that by 2020, the segment of I-10 between I-8 and Tucson will be the most heavily used interstate segment by trucks in the state (ADOT 2007b). This is not intended to imply that commercial trucks would not use the proposed freeway. Truck traffic within Arizona is associated with the import, export, and internal distribution of freight. Maricopa County functions as a hub for freight entering the state for eventual distribution within the state. Most current commercial vehicle destinations are in the vicinity of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and areas directly south and east. Commercial trucks would use the proposed freeway. But it is not expected that the entire volume of truck traffic using I-10 would divert from I-10 to use the proposed freeway if it were constructed. The most important factor in achieving the efficient and fast movement of freight—the lifeblood of the trucking industry—is finding ways to shorten travel times. Truckers conducting local commerce in or traveling to and from distribution centers in the Phoenix metropolitan area must necessarily enter congested areas. Through-truck traffic (those not having to stop in the metropolitan area) would continue to use the faster, designated, and posted existing bypass system of I-8 and SR 85. ➤➤ Public comments were received requesting the restriction of the transportation of hazardous materials if the proposed action were constructed. Questions were raised about how restrictions would be imposed and why some state routes are restricted from hazardous materials transport. To plan hazardous material transportation routes, carriers use lists of designated and restricted routes, by state, published in the Federal Register. Through federal delegation, ADOT is responsible for restricted route designations. Local governments may request that ADOT restrict hazardous material transport through a particular area, and it is ADOT’s responsibility to analyze and adopt or reject that request. The agency’s determination is based on a number of considerations, including, but not necessarily limited to, public safety and the presence of acceptable alternative routes. Consistent with the majority of freeway facilities within the Phoenix metropolitan area, it is not anticipated that hazardous materials carriers would be restricted from using the proposed freeway. ➤➤ Recent concerns have been expressed regarding mobile source air toxics (MSATs), which are part of a larger group of air pollutants labeled hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). HAPs refer to “a range of compounds that are known or suspected to have serious health or environmental impacts” (40 C.F.R. §§ 80 and 86). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), motor vehicles are major contributors to national emissions of several HAPs, and EPA has released a rule addressing emissions of HAPs from mobile sources. This rule identified the initial list of South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 21 compounds that are emitted from motor vehicles and are known or suspected to cause detrimental health effects. In the rulemaking, EPA noted that the methodology used to select the compounds for the list may be used in the future to add or remove compounds as new information becomes available. The health effects referenced earlier provide some information regarding the types of effects that could result from MSATs under some level of exposure. Although MSATs are expected to decline over time, an MSAT analysis has been included in the FEIS. COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION – INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AND AGENCIES IN THE EIS PROCESS The federal government has established minimum requirements for public input during the EIS process. Since the start of the EIS process for the proposed action in 2001, ADOT, with the concurrence of FHWA, has exceeded the minimum requirements of NEPA; the efforts by ADOT and FHWA to engage the public, agencies, and other stakeholders represented open, frequent, diverse, and comprehensive opportunities for those providing information, those seeking information, or those wishing to otherwise influence the analytical and alternatives screening processes. ADOT and FHWA developed an extensive public involvement plan, soliciting input into the process throughout all phases. Purposes of seeking public input were to: ➤➤ identify new data pertinent to the proposed action to assist in determining the full scope of the study ➤➤ gauge the general public’s understanding of the proposed action and disseminate information to help further that understanding ➤➤ identify any preferences regarding the proposed action’s location ➤➤ identify and address, to the extent practicable, public questions and concerns regarding the proposed action Summary To accomplish these goals, a variety of communication tools were used at major project milestones, including: ➤➤ A 2-day agency scoping meeting was held with 95 agency representatives at the beginning of the EIS process. ➤➤ Communication with local, regional, State, and federal agencies continued throughout the process with monthly coordination meetings. ➤➤ Both ADOT and FHWA have sought and encouraged the Community to allow study of alternatives on its land for the Eastern Section. The Community has not granted permission to study an alternative in detail within Community boundaries. Therefore, FHWA and ADOT have determined that an alternative alignment on Community land is not feasible. The following items highlight the results of public outreach efforts undertaken leading up to publication of the DEIS in April 2013: ➤➤ Over 200 presentations were made to community groups, homeowners’ associations, chambers of commerce, village planning committees, trade associations, and other interested parties. ➤➤ Twelve formal public meetings were held. Fifteen days prior to each meeting, display advertising was placed in The Arizona Republic, the Ahwatukee Foothills News, the Gila River Indian News, the Tribune, La Voz, and the West Valley View. Total distribution was approximately 260,000 newspapers per formal meeting. ➤➤ One meeting notice flier and four newsletters were distributed throughout the Study Area in the following quantities (per distribution per meeting): 28,500 door hangers, 5,000 inserts in the Gila River Indian News, and 28,000 inserts in the Ahwatukee Foothills News. In addition, newsletters and fliers were sent to over 4,500 individuals on the project mailing list. S-43 ➤➤ The November 2008 project newsletter was mailed to 78,700 businesses and residences in the Study Area and to 3,300 individuals on the project mailing list. ➤➤ The February 2010 project newsletter was mailed to 62,400 businesses and residences in the Study Area and to 3,600 individuals on the project mailing list. ➤➤ The February 2011 informational postcard was mailed to 5,000 businesses and residences on the project mailing list. A project Web site was developed to provide the public with project information and an e-mail address (projects@azdot.gov) was provided to obtain feedback. Approximately half of comments received prior to publication of the DEIS in April 2013 were submitted electronically through the Web site’s online survey or e-mail. Over 5,000 comments were received by the project team up to publication of the DEIS. Since 2001 and up to publication of the DEIS, more than 800 news articles were published in the region’s newspapers. A project hotline number (602-712-7006) was established so that the public could provide feedback on the study. The hotline is monitored daily. Between 2006 and 2013, more than 500 calls were received. The public outreach program for the DEIS phase (April 2013 to July 2013) was developed to maximize opportunities for the public to review and provide comments on the DEIS, maintaining compliance with NEPA requirements. The outreach program had four main components: ➤➤ awareness campaign – included a fact sheet, “how to participate” handout and video, events, and briefings of elected officials and key stakeholders ➤➤ public hearing – held on May 21, 2013, at the Phoenix Convention Center from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., with an estimated 500 attendees, including 117 people who spoke before a panel of project team members SUM SUM S-44 More to come . . . The public and agencies will continue to be invited to participate through the completion of the EIS process. (See Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination, to learn more about agency and public involvement efforts for the proposed action.) Summary ➤➤ online public hearing – went live at 10 a.m. on May 21, 2013, at and linked to , with 1,864 people visiting the site ➤➤ community forums – held between June 4 and July 11, 2013, at six locations: in the Estrella, Laveen, and Ahwatukee Foothills villages of Phoenix; within the Community; and in Chandler and Avondale Public involvement during the DEIS 90-day public comment period included participation by 1) attending the public hearing or community forums, 2) viewing the online public hearing, or 3) submitting a comment. Approximately 900 people attended one of the public events held during the comment period. Almost 1,900 unique visitors viewed information from the online hearing. The project team received 8,201 comments from federal, State, local, and tribal agencies; special interest groups; businesses; and members of the public. When combined, over 10,000 people participated in the DEIS phase through one or more of the public involvement methods available. To advance project communication and coordination, a voluntary, advisory working group of 25–30 representatives South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation was formed to provide a forum for ongoing communication among ADOT, FHWA, and the local and regional community regarding the development of the EIS. The SMCAT met regularly to review project status, serve as a conduit of information with community organizations, and define neighborhood and regional issues and concerns. Public opinion regarding a project like the proposed action can change. Several factors can play a role in the ebb and flow of public opinion over the course of time. Seeking input into the process provides awareness of any changes. As an example, during the first half of the EIS process, comments from the public indicated a need for the proposed freeway, but opinions on location were divided. As action alternatives were identified for detailed study and their alignments presented to the general public, comments from the participating public revealed a change in the perception of the need for the proposed action. Further analysis of the comments revealed many people living adjacent to proposed alignments were the most likely to comment either that there is no purpose or need for the proposed freeway or to simply oppose the proposed action entirely. Conversely, the remainder of the comments received from residents throughout the region revealed continued support for the proposed action as an effective way to reduce traffic congestion in the region. Public comments strongly suggested the need to clarify how much coordination has occurred with the Community regarding the proposed action and also a desire for ADOT and FHWA to exhaust efforts to study alternatives for the proposed action on Community land. In addition to written and verbal conversations, over 110 meetings have been held since 2001, at which Community representatives were invited to discuss issues pertaining to the proposed action. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE FEIS The lead and cooperating agencies have been integral in providing guidance regarding document content and format. The agencies have evaluated the document independently and provided further guidance for incorporation into the FEIS. Upon completion of the EIS process, the lead and cooperating agencies will adopt the document according to CEQ procedures.