La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix A Public Involvement Table A-1. Public Involvement Documents Date Document 2/12/2007 Community Advisory Committee (CAC) formation Notice, Daily Territorial newspaper 7/23/2007 Letter from the Carol Brichta, PCDOT to the CAC re meeting 8/7/2007 CAC meeting agenda 8/7/2007 CAC meeting summary 8/7/2007 CAC meeting sign-in sheet 8/7/2007 Project Features handout 8/7/2007 Presentation of photos and maps of the project 9/24/2007 Letter from Carol Brichta, PCDOT to the CAC re meeting 10/2/2007 CAC meeting summary 10/2/2007 CAC meeting agenda 10/2/2007 Project information bookmark 10/2/2007 CAC meeting sign-in sheet 10/9/2007 CAC meeting agenda 10/9/2007 CAC meeting summary 10/9/2007 CAC meeting handouts 11/23/2007 Letter from Carol Brichta, PCDOT to the CAC re meeting 12/6/2007 CAC meeting agenda 10/9/2007 CAC meeting summary 12/6/2007 CAC meeting sign-in sheet 12/6/2007 CAC meeting handouts 12/6/2007 Letter from Dean Papajohn, PCDOT to the CAC re encouraging written submission of concerns to the County 12/7/2007 PCDOT Interoffice Memorandum from Dean Papajohn to Priscilla Cornelio re CAC concerns about the project 1/15/2008 Letter from CAC to the RTA and PCDOT re CAC/Project 1/24/2008 Letter from Priscilla Cornelio, PCDOT to the CAC re 1/15/08 letter from CAC 1/31/2008 Letter from the CAC to Prescilla Cornelio, PCDOT re 1/24/2008 letter from Priscilla Cornelio 2/11/2008 Letter from Priscilla Cornelio, PCDOT to the CAC re 1/31/2008 letter from CAC 2/2008 Meeting notices for 3/6/2008 Open House 3/6/2008 Open House comment sheet 3/6/2008 Open House sign-in sheet 1 Table A-1. Public Involvement Documents Date Document 3/6/2008 Open House project information handout 3/6/2008 Open House meeting boards 3/6/2008 Open House meeting summary 3/6/2008 Open House comment forms from Bonny Bass and Chad Miller 4/8/2008 Letters from Dean Papajohn replying to comments from the Open House: Tom Danelhy William Mattausch Svein and Carol Larsen Stephen Schweska Chad Miller Donald Williams Jay Van Echo Laura Steakman Terry and Patricia Plog Gloria King Robert Gaona Doris Chardukian Cheryl Carrig Celia Betancourt 6/5/2008 Letter from Dean Papajohn to CAC re update on project activities 7/10/2008 Letter from the Carol Brichta, PCDOT to the CAC re meeting 7/24/2008 CAC meeting agenda 8/4/2008 CAC meeting notice 8/12/2008 CAC meeting agenda 8/12/2008 CAC meeting summary 8/12/2008 CAC meeting sign-in sheet 9/2008 Meeting notice for 9/11/2008 Open House 9/3/2008 Project questionnaire, letter and fact sheet 9/11/2008 Open House meeting summary 9/11/2008 Open House sign-in sheet 9/11/2008 Open House comment summary 9/11/2008 Open House meeting boards 9/2008 Open House public comments 9/18/2008 Letter from City of Tucson—Suntran re bus stops 10/6/2008 Summary of Public Opinion Questionnaire of September 2008 *** Main Street Business Assistance Program Information 2 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthruaff Road to River Road Agenda Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Tuesday, August 7, 2007 6-7:30 p.m. Metro Water Conference Room La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road 1. Welcome and Introductions (Dean Papajohn & Rick Ellis) 2. CAC Purpose (Carol Brichta) a. Role and Responsibility b. Pima County Ordinance c. Communications with the Project Team/Board of Supervisors d. Electing Chairperson e. EAMR/Comment Process/Recommendation Letter 3. Project Overview (Dean Papajohn, Ted Buell, René Tanner) 4. Future Meetings 5. Questions/Open Discussion (All) La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee Meeting Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 6 to 7:30 p.m. Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District Board Room CAC Members Present at Meeting: • Fred Bass • Ellen Clark • Jason Kai • Ann Girvin • Norma Metz • Robert Schwartz • Ellie Towne CAC Members Not in Attendance: • Humbert Arce • Carol Gawrychowski • Andy Hernandez • William Mattausch • Gretchen Ochoa • Kaye Swinford • Ian Stewart • Edythe Walther • Juergen Walther Attending from Project Team: • Pima County Department of Transportation: Carol Brichta, Rick Ellis, John McManus, Dean Papajohn • HDR Engineering: Larry Barela, Ted Buell, Scott Stapp, René Tanner • Gordley Design Group: Barb Alley, Jan Gordley, Arizeder Urreiztieta Materials Distributed: • Agenda • Fact Sheet • Binder for CAC members o Welcome Letter o Project Features o Project Area Maps o Pima County Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance Dean Papajohn, Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) Project Manager, welcomed the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) members to their first meeting. Dean mentioned that there would be presentations from Rick Ellis, PCDOT Engineering Division Manager; Ted Buell, HDR Engineering Project Manager and René Tanner, HDR Engineering Project Scientist. Dean spent a few minutes introducing himself to the group and what his role would be throughout this project. All of the project team members then introduced themselves and the committee members followed suit. Dean began his portion of the presentation by telling the members that the essence of this project will be to “enhance life for people in Pima County.” Dean stated that roads build community and by community he meant getting to homes, schools, hospitals, shopping, friends, family and work. The CAC meetings are intended to analyze and discuss issues throughout the project and for the members to not only be the eyes and ears for the community, but to also educate those located in the project area to become more informed citizens. Dean stated that the agenda for the meeting consisted of introductions, a brief presentation on how a CAC operates, an overview of the project, and receiving comments from the members. Dean introduced Rick Ellis, PCDOT Engineering Division Manager. Rick started out thanking the members for their commitment to this project. He stated there would be a lot of work and a lot of value with some key elements to come. Rick said there are three roles for the CAC on this project and wanted the members to know what to expect. First of all, the project team would be looking for feedback, reallife observations, and would be hearing from the CAC members about what is going on out in the community affected by the project. Secondly, the members were chosen because of the different interests they represent, from homeowners to business owners to community groups, and the project team would be looking for those perspectives. And third, Rick said this group needed to be advocates – allies to the project out in the community. He reiterated Dean’s comment regarding educating the public and portraying a positive attitude. Rick turned the floor back to Dean who introduced Carol Brichta, from PCDOT Community Relations. Carol gave a brief overview of what the CAC members would be responsible for during their time on the committee. Carol first went over what each member would find in his or her notebook. She went on to explain: 1) Each member needs to provide Pima County with feedback from the community; 2) CAC members would be responsible for preparing a collaborative letter hopefully of acceptance of the project that will accompany an Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR) to the Board of Supervisors for approval; 3) Carol referenced the Pima County Participation and Mitigation Ordinance that was in each member’s notebook. She stated that each member should take time to read through this document so that they would fully understand his or her role as a part of this committee. Carol also wanted the members to know that they would also have the opportunity to comment on the artwork that would be a part of the project. Carol described how each member was chosen. People within the project area were mailed an application. A notice was also in the newspaper. From the signed applications, Dean and Carol plotted each applicant on a map, and then members were chosen in a way that assured that different areas of the project would be represented. Carol said that is was important that all CAC members read page eight of the Ordinance. This page outlines what the CAC members are responsible to cover during their time on the committee. Carol also stated that although only eight meetings will be scheduled, there would be the possibility of the group meeting on their own when necessary. She also said that it was important for the group to choose a chairperson or co-chairpersons for this committee. It will become more important when the members start to write the letter that will go to the Board of Supervisors. Carol stated that the next CAC meeting would be in about a month. The CAC members and the public would be notified about the date, time and place when that information becomes available. The suggestion was made that future meetings be held at the new Community Center that will open September 15, 2007. It is closer to the project area and one CAC member thought there might be more community involvement if the meetings were in a more central location. Carol concluded by emphasizing how community outreach is extremely important to this project. A question was asked about how soon the meeting summary would be ready to review. Barb Alley, Public Involvement Coordinator for Gordley Design Group, stated that she would start putting them together and they should be up and on the Web site in approximately two weeks. Carol also stated that the Web site was on the bookmark included in their binders. The members would be able to view not only information on this project, but they could get information on all Pima County projects. A member asked how to give information out to neighbors. Carol stated that the member could make copies of what was passed out at the meetings to distribute or to point residents to the County Web site, which will have additional information for interested parties. Dean introduced Ted Buell, Project Manager for HDR Engineering, to start the PowerPoint presentation that would take the members down La Cholla Boulevard for a project overview. Ted started out by informing the group that La Cholla Boulevard between Ruthrauff Road and River Road would be widened from the two existing lanes to six lanes. Other project features: • Total length of the project will be 1 1/2 miles with .7 of those miles being on La Cholla Boulevard and the rest would be intersection work at Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road • Bike lanes (6 feet wide), also referred to as “multiuse lanes” • Close coordination with Sun Tran regarding the bus stops in the project area • Drainage issues will be addressed at the Rillito River • Storm drains will be addressed where La Cholla Boulevard meets the Rillito River (built in 1984) • Ponding problems will be addressed Dean spoke on available right-of-way (ROW) on La Cholla Boulevard. There is a 150-foot ROW; 75 feet on each side of the center line of the street. There is a mixture of residential and commercial properties in the area and the goal of the project is to make sure there is safe access into and out of these areas. Dean also touched on the fact that there will be landscaping in the project area. The decisions on what type of landscaping that would be needed would have to wait until it is decided on how the configuration of the roadway will unfold. Dean also discussed utilities. He asked the group what utilities they thought were in the project area. Dean furthered the discussion by stating that multiple utilities were in the area; sewer, electric, gas, water, cable, etc. Dean also told the group that there is a gas regulator station in the area. Ideally, this should not be a problem, but if it should become an issue, Southwest Gas can only work on one regulator station at a time, and they are currently working on a station in Marana. The next one is scheduled for an area south of the project in Tucson. If work needed to be done on this station, Southwest Gas’ schedule would have to be accommodated. Again, this is not anticipated work at this time, although it could become an issue in the future. Ted introduced René Tanner, Environmental Planner for HDR, to give a short report on the status of the environmental findings. René stated that one of the tasks of the CAC members would be to review cultural resources as a part of the EAMR. During the research of the project area, there were two cultural sites identified. The next step would be to determine if those sites were within the project limits. Desert Archeology will be surveying the property in order to make that determination for the project team and advise them accordingly. They will also be looking at biological resources, endangered species and wildlife. René informed the group that no bats were located under the bridge, as the current structure was not built in a way so as to support bat colonies. There were swallow nests found, but they were not active and they were deteriorating; however, they will continue to be monitored. René also told the CAC members that there were a couple of old landfills in the area. They were currently looking at historic photos and documents to see what the limits are, and that would take some further investigation. There would also be soil testing done at the intersection of Ruthrauff Road and La Cholla Boulevard since there are some gas stations in the area. Noise level is another area that will be monitored and studied. The monitors used by HDR Engineering are calibrated each year to ensure their accuracy. HDR Engineering uses the Traffic Noise Model, which was developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to assess levels of noise in an area. Ted talked about the Rillito River Bridge. This bridge was built in 1980 and is a four-span bridge. The design of bridges was changed in 1983 to include drill shaft foundations, which are deeper and more robust. Ted showed a rendering of what the bridge may look like. It would have three lanes in each direction along with a sidewalk and bike lanes on both sides. Ted also mentioned that it is possible to build the bridge one side at a time so that the bridge would remain open to traffic during construction. Dean took a few minutes to talk to the members about the public art that will be present along the project area. The ideas are wide open at this point and there is nothing to present to the group today. An invitation was sent to members of the Tucson Pima Arts Council (TPAC), to apply for the artist position on this project, and the team received more than 60 applications. The list was cut to three finalists by a panel of citizens in which CAC member Ellie Towne was a part of. The person chosen was Vicki Scuri. Vicki had done other art along La Cholla Boulevard, but she was chosen because of the variety of experience she has in this area and professionalism she would bring to this project. Vicki would have one percent of the total budget of design and construction per Pima County policy to use for her art projects. Dean mentioned some areas that may include art along the project area; the bridge itself, the Rillito Park entrance, sidewalks, bus stops, etc. Dean again mentioned the ongoing data collection and activities that have already begun on this project. Aerial photos have been taken of La Cholla Boulevard in its current state. There have also already been survey crews taking a look at the utilities and checking records. Pima County’s Real Property division has already contacted residents and businesses with Right of Entry letters so that surveys could be made. Traffic engineers are already surveying the traffic flow and the noise levels will be measured once school is back in session. Dean concluded the presentation portion of the meeting by stating that the design phase of this project will take a minimum of two years. It takes time to look at and resolve all the issues that will arise during the planning stage of the widening project improving La Cholla Boulevard between Ruthrauff Road and River Road. He pointed out that in the early fall of 2007 the team should have the Design Concept Report (DCR) and the EAMR ready for the CAC members to review. Once the committee reviews those documents, they will go to the Board of Supervisors for approval and upon approval the team can then go into the design phase of the project. The floor at that time was opened up to questions and comments: Ellie Towne: Concern about heading south on La Cholla Boulevard and making a right-hand turn onto Curtis Road; when vehicles are in the right-hand turn lane, there will be some cars that will go around them to turn in front of them: Dean said that traffic engineers are studying intersections and any problems they currently are experiencing. Fred Bass: Concern about how close the new road will come to the houses in that area; also a concern about the safety of the middle-school kids who walk to and from school; cars do not always yield to the children, and often speed in the school zone. Dean reiterated that the traffic engineers would be surveying that area. One suggestion was that a median be put at the school crossing so that kids would have a place to stop if unable to make it all way across the new lanes on La Cholla Boulevard. Jason Kai: Concern about how to access homes that are in the path of the widening project. He stated that on La Cañada Drive, those residents were given access to their homes from a street behind the main street. Dean talked about some of the options of what the widening may look like from narrowing the median to only putting a sidewalk on one side of the street. There are many alternatives to look at during this design phase to come up with the best one that would meet the needs of everyone involved. This may involve acquiring properties, building a frontage road for safe home and business access, etc. Norma Metz: Concern about her home specifically. She is on the corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road. Her concern was the amount of property the County would have to take in order to widen this stretch of road, leaving her home dangerously close to the busy intersection. She also referred to how difficult is was for her to get to and from her home turning from La Cholla Boulevard in a safe manner. Dean commented about how wide the intersection would be once four more lanes and turn lanes were added. Robert Schwartz: Concerns about drainage problems. He has major problems on his own property on La Cholla Boulevard north of River Road with the vertical road profile that the County contractor did not build according to the plans has caused major issues on his own property. Dean said that that side of the road would have to be examined to determine what occurred. Jason Kai: Concern about the additional three lanes in each direction causing back-ups due to the trains crossing Ruthrauff Road. Dean said the County is aware of the bottleneck in that area and they are taking the improvements one step at a time. Ruthrauff Road is on the long-range plan for improvements as well. There was some discussion about how property might be acquired along the project area. It was stated that different options would be investigated, and the county would make sure if they needed to purchase property, it would be a fair transaction for all parties involved. Dean adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. letting the group know that the team would honor and respect the time of the group. He concluded with the opening statement: that the goal of this project is to: “enhance life for the people in Pima County.” La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road Project Features August 7, 2007 Roadway • • • • • • • • • • It is anticipated that La Cholla Boulevard will be widened from two lanes to six lanes between Ruthrauff Road and River Road. Additional turn lanes will be added at Ruthrauff. Approximately 6-foot multiuse lanes than can be used by bicycles will be added in each direction along with sidewalks. The project team will work with SunTran to determine bus stop locations. Total length of project is approximately 1.5 miles including tapers required along and south of Ruthrauff. New Aerial Photogrammetry and field topography has been prepared. An alignment study is being prepared to determine the new roadway location. A Traffic Report is being prepared to determine future traffic needs, lane configurations, median opening locations and turn-bay requirements. Design Concept Report (DCR) Report will summarize the following discipline reports: Drainage; Traffic; and Bridge Structure Selection Report. Roadway design will follow December 2003 PCDOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM). Drainage • • • • • • The most prominent drainage feature is the Rillito River which crosses La Cholla about 800 feet south of River Road. HDR will model the river using Pima County's HEC-RAS model. A 404 Clean Water Act Section Permit from the USACOE will likely be required. Not sure if it will be a nationwide permit or an individual permit. A major storm drain was installed in La Cholla Blvd from Ruthrauff to the Rillito River in 1984. It outfalls into the river on the southwest side of the bridge. The outfall may need to be re-built to accommodate the lowering of the pedestrian path if it is determined to be needed to provide clearance under the new bridge. The subdivisions to the east are drained with grated catch basins across the roadways at the intersections with La Cholla. There are two ponding/flooding problems on La Cholla at Noreen Street and Calle Narcisco. Both of these problems will be fixed with this project. The open channel along the west side of La Cholla north of Curtis will be investigated and possibly replaced with a box or pipe culver. Right of Way • • • • Most of the corridor has 150’ of right-of-way…existing right-of-way plans are being prepared. It will be tight to fit 6 lanes into the 150' right-of-way. We will look at design alternatives. Most of the native plants have been removed from the right of way over the years. Many property owners have been utilizing the right of way for car and truck parking, which will need to change with the new roadway. Utilities • Utility base maps will be compiled from survey/as-builts, and then confirmed with franchises. Existing utilities are Pima County Wastewater, Xspedius Communications, Southwest Gas, Tucson Electric Power, Tucson Water, Qwest, Comcast, SDT, and Metro Water. HDR Engineering, Inc. 5210 E. Williams Circle Suite 530 Tucson, AZ 85711-4459 Phone (520) 584-3600 Fax (520) 584-3624 www hdrinc com La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road Project Features August 7, 2007 La Cholla Boulevard Utilities: • 6" and 12" water • 8" and 10" sanitary sewer • 4" gas (crosses upstream of the Rillito River Bridge) • Telephone (on bridge in 4" PVC) • Overhead electric (including 46 Kv on Steel Poles) Ruthrauff Road: • 8", 12" and 16" water • 15" sanitary sewer • 4" gas • Telephone • Cable T.V. Environmental/Public Involvement (Ted & Renee) • • • • • The Community Advisory Committee will review and provide input on the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR). Open Houses and Public Meetings will be held in accordance with Pima County requirements. Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report per County requirements; Environmental Assessment per federal requirements. Environmental Discipline reports will include: Cultural Resources; Biological Evaluation; Native Plant Preservation Plan; Noise Study and Hazardous Materials USACOE Permit applications will be prepared. Rillito River Bridge • Existing bridge was built in 1980 and has been determined to be scour critical. It will be removed. • It is expected that the new bridge will accommodate 6 lanes of traffic and will include a raised median, bike lanes and sidewalk. • Bridge will likely have three spans instead of four to avoid conflicts with the existing steel piles. Public Art • The Tucson Pima Arts Council has selected an artist to create public art to enhance the transportation improvements on this project. • It has yet to be determined what type of art will be developed. HDR Engineering, Inc. 5210 E. Williams Circle Suite 530 Tucson, AZ 85711-4459 Phone (520) 584-3600 Fax (520) 584-3624 www hdrinc com Roadway 1 Drainage 2 Right of Way 3 Utilities 4 Environmental/Public Involvement 5 Rillito River Bridge Existing Bridge Existing Bridge July 2006 Flooding Existing Bridge 6 New Bridge Concepts Conceptual Bridge Section Bridge Phase 1 Bridge Phase 2 Bridge Phase 3 Bridge Phase 4 7 Bridge Phase 5 Public Art 8 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee Meeting Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007, 6 to 7:30 p.m. CAC Members Present at Meeting: • Humbert Arce • Fred Bass • Ellen Clark • Ann Girvin • Andy Hernandez • Norma Metz • Wayne Metz • Robert Schwartz • Ellie Towne CAC Members Not in Attendance: • Carol Gawrychowski • William Mattausch • Gretchen Ochoa • Kaye Swinford • Ian Stewart Attending from Project Team: • Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT): Carol Brichta, Rick Ellis, John McManus, Dean Papajohn • HDR Engineering: Larry Barela, Bob Brittain, Ted Buell, René Tanner • Pima County District 3 Representative: Kiki Navarro • Regional Transportation Authority (RTA): Britton Dornquast • Gordley Design Group: Barb Alley, Jan Gordley Materials Distributed: • Agenda • La Cholla Boulelvard Project contact information bookmark • Map of Alternative E • CAC Member individual contact sheet • Binder for CAC members: o Welcome Letter o Project Features o Project Area Maps o Pima County Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance Dean Papajohn, Project Manager, PCDOT, opened the meeting by welcoming everyone to the second CAC meeting. Dean made a brief statement about what was discussed at the previous CAC meeting and again stated to the group that this project is being done to “enhance life in Pima County.” The purpose of this meeting was to focus on the alignment and potential configuration of the roadway. Dean pointed out the rough draft of Alternative E that Bob Brittain, Design Engineer, HDR Engineering, would be presenting to the group. Dean asked everyone to introduce themselves to the group. He started with the design team, consultants, then CAC members. The first speaker was Carol Brichta, Community Relations Department, PCDOT. Carol briefly touched on the roles and responsibilities of the CAC members, and again, asked for someone to step forward to be chairperson. She stated that the chairperson or chairpersons would be the point of contact when it came time to write the letter summarizing their opinions regarding the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR). Carol stated that it is helpful to have one person as the point of contact in this process and she would offer her assistance. Her presentation ended with no one volunteering for the open position. Dean gave a brief overview of the project. He stated there are many disciplines in the design of a roadway including but not limited to, traffic, landscaping, art and bridge design. Dean went on to talk about the five key criteria of this project. They are: 1) safety, 2) function, 3) right-of-way, 4) aesthetics, and 5) budget and schedule. They are described as follows: Safety: This includes drivers, pedestrians, buses and cyclists. a. Adequate timing for traffic flow and pedestrian crossings b. Sidewalks – safe passage for pedestrians c. Paved shoulder – safe riding for cyclists d. Driveway access – safe entrance and exit Options include: 1. Dedicated lane for entrance and exit into driveways 2. Frontage roads: Two-way frontage road on one side or one-way frontage roads on both sides e. Medians f. Bus pullouts g. Storage lanes – cueing up for turns h. Adequate sight distance i. Bridge safety Function: The operations of the project. a. Looking at traffic needs – current and future traffic patterns b. Turn movements off of La Cholla Boulevard onto cross streets c. Adequate lane width d. Accommodation of multiple users e. Median openings to access cross streets f. Frontage roads – reducing friction of vehicles entering the mainline g. Utilities – maintaining access to them h. Drainage Right-of-Way a. Limit property easements b. Limit property acquisitions – leave property owners where they are Aesthetics a. Landscape design (currently limited from River Road to Ruthrauff Road) b. Urban design/public art (will go into detail at future meeting) c. Bridge – modern design, clean lines d. Roadway profile– smooth design (rubberized asphalt – for noise control) Budget and Schedule – funded by the RTA and Pima County a. The public voted for the RTA La Cholla Boulevard project and its budget b. Limit acquisitions due to budget constraints c. Bridge – careful where placed – keep away from utilities Dean commented that the main goal of this meeting was to discuss alignment, roadway and planning. All the options need to be researched so that a balance can be found and the team can move forward according to the schedule. This is important in order for this project to stay on course and on its projected time line. Questions: Ellen Clark: With the occasional high water in the Rillito, is there a way to deepen the riverbed or elevate the bridge? Dean Papajohn: Those issues will be researched and addressed when the design is being done on the new bridge Ted Buell: The girders are one foot above the 100-year flood level currently; however, they will be looking into options when reconstructing the bridge. Ellen: There is a lot of debris in the riverbed. What can be done about that? Carol Brichta: That is a separate issue and an order can be placed with the county to have that area cleaned up. Ellen Clark: Is there anything planned for Curtis Road like bike lanes? Dean: Curtis Road is not a part of this project. Bob Brittain talked about Alternative E, which is the leading option for La Cholla Boulevard. He distributed a small version of the display map. Ann Girvin asked whether the traffic study had been done prior to the closing of the exit and entrance ramps on Interstate 10. Bob stated that the study is done mostly on projected traffic patterns into the year 2030. [Note: current traffic volumes were collected in Spring 2007 before school was out for the summer.] While current traffic patterns are observed, the overall study is over a 23-year period. Bob went into detail on what the map showed and the points are as follows: a. Lanes would be narrowed one foot from 12 feet to 11 feet – this still meets lane width standards b. The median has been reduced two feet from 20 feet to 18 feet from the County standard detail. c. There will be double left turn lanes at Ruthrauff Road – they would be as long as possible d. There will be left turn median openings at Jay Avenue and northbound Calle Narcisco e. Ruthrauff Road will need to be widened at the intersection f. South of Ruthrauff Road the lanes would be narrowed down to tie back in with the three lane section heading south g. Sidewalks would be included on both sides of the road through the entire project at a width of five feet A study will be done, if the time comes that cars cannot turn through traffic from the left turn bays onto cross streets, to see if a light is warranted. Fred Bass: What about the bus stops? Will there be pullouts in order to get the buses out of traffic? Bob: Stated that it was not shown in these preliminary drawings to have pullouts; however he felt there was enough room to put them in. There was some discussion about just how close the sidewalks would come to resident’s front doors. [Note: There is approximately 25’ from the back of sidewalk to most front doors on the west side.] There was also discussion about the single, one-way frontage road. Residents would have to U-turn in order to get back to their homes. There was concern about the lack of visitor parking on La Cholla Boulevard on the frontage road, and there was also a comment about enhancing everyone’s life by this improvement project except the people who live along the project area. Dean stated that they will try to balance all the elements and that maybe a stake survey should be done for each resident to show the right-of-way so each resident can see where their property lines are and where the project would begin. [Note: pink whiskers were placed in the ground on the east and west side right-of-way lines on Oct. 8.] Ellie: Where will the center line of the roadway be? Bob: The center line will not change. The improvements will be added out from the original roadway’s center. Fred: What will happen to the noise level as the road moves closer to the houses? Rick Ellis: The roadway paving material will be rubberized asphalt to help reduce the noise in the area. Dean asked the CAC members to go around the table and make any comments they wanted so that each member had a chance to voice their concerns. Andy Hernandez: It sounds like a sound plan – some issues, but we are in the planning stage. There will need to be more discussions and there will be time to keep talking. Ellen: Since there will be two years prior to construction, there is time to discuss other options. Dean: They can study the alignment; however, the more time the process takes with the public, the further the project is pushed out, leading to increased costs. Norma: There is a two-year time frame before construction will begin on the roadway. Fred: I would like to see all the affected properties taken by the county so that the construction can take place without impacting anyone as described; however, I understand budget concerns. Ann: She has concerns about the current condition of the bridge. Fred: Asked about the total cost of the project. Dean: The total cost of construction is approximately 17 million dollars. The bridge will be made mainly of concrete, which is very expensive and has gone up in price since the original estimates. In order to purchase property in the project area, several million dollars would be needed around the order of magnitude of three to five million dollars. Humbert Arce: What is going in on the corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road? Dean: There is a WalMart Market store going in at that corner. Dean went over briefly what he heard the CAC members saying about the proposed Alternative E: positive reaction to additional lanes, wider bridge, turn lanes and lighting at intersections, sidewalk and bike lanes; concerns over proximity of residences that front La Cholla Boulevard. He stated that is was important for everyone to be on the same page during this process; the process is a collaboration between the County, consultants, and citizens. He thought it would be best for the members to meet back in a week or two. This would give the team a chance to discuss some possible changes and the CAC members will get a chance to see what their neighbors have to say about the proposed improvements. A meeting date of October 9, 2007 was agreed upon and Carol stated she would check on the availability of the room and notify everyone to confirm the date. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthruaff Road to River Road Agenda Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Tuesday, October 2, 2007 6-7:30 p.m. Pima County Department of Natural Resources Parks and Recreation La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road 1. Welcome and Introductions (Dean Papajohn) 6:00 pm to 6:10 pm 2. CAC Participation(Carol Brichta) 6:10 pm to 6:20 pm 3. Design Criteria (Dean Papajohn) • Safety • Function • ROW • Aesthetics • Budget and Schedule 6:20 pm to 6:40 pm 4. Roadway Alignment (Bob Brittain) 6:40 pm to 7:00 pm 5. Discussion (Dean Papajohn) 7:00 pm to 7:25 pm 6. Future Meetings (Dean Papajohn) • CAC • Open house 7:25 pm to 7:30 pm La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthruaff Road to River Road Agenda Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting #3 Tuesday, October 9, 2007 6-7:30 p.m. Pima County Department of Natural Resources Parks and Recreation La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road 1. Welcome and Introductions (Dean Papajohn) 6:00 pm to 6:10 pm 2. Project Update (Ted Buell) 6:10 pm to 6:20 pm • • Activities completed and on-going Activities dependent on roadway alignment 3. CAC Feedback from Neighbors (CAC, Dean Papajohn, Bob Brittain, Ted Buell) • • • • Ordinance: 10.56.030 General Considerations and 10.56.220 CAC - Review Design criteria: Safety, Function, ROW, Aesthetics, Budget and Schedule Summarize design needs Discussion 6:10 pm 4. Future Meetings (Dean Papajohn) • • CAC Open house to 6:55 pm 6:55 pm to 7:00 pm La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee Meeting Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2007, 6 to 7:30 p.m. CAC Members Present at Meeting: • Humbert Arce • Fred Bass • Ann Girvin • Norma Metz • Wayne Metz • Ellie Towne CAC Members Not in Attendance: • Ellen Clark • Carol Gawrychowski • Andy Hernandez • Jason Kai • William Mattausch • Gretchen Ochoa • Kaye Swinford • Ian Stewart • Robert Schwartz Attending from Project Team: • Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT): Carol Brichta, Rick Ellis, Dean Papajohn • Pima County Department of Public Works; Real Property: Greg Foster, Kelley Hall • HDR Engineering: Larry Barela, Bob Brittain, Ted Buell • Kimley-Horn and Associates: Mary Rodin • Gordley Design Group: Barb Alley, Jan Gordley Materials Distributed: • Agenda • Map with Alternative E • CAC Member individual contact sheet • Binder for CAC members: o Welcome Letter o Project Features o Project Area Maps o Pima County Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance Dean Papajohn, Project Manager, PCDOT welcomed the CAC members and the public to the meeting. He stated that this meeting was being held as a follow-up to the previous week’s meeting and the format would be a round table discussion rather than a presentation. The team members, CAC members, and the public made introductions. Ted Buell, Project Manager, HDR Engineering, gave a brief update on the status of the project. The following tasks have been completed or are in progress: • Mapping and surveys on adjacent properties along the project corridor • Testing for hazardous materials • Utility mapping • Traffic reports • Noise monitoring (monitoring the existing noise levels) • Roadway alignment study • Drainage • Bridge research Ted stated that a draft of the Design Concept Report (DCR) would include the information from these tasks. There are several activities dependent on roadway alignment according to Ted, and they are as follows, along with the timeframe that has been planned for these activities to take place: • Roadway alignment – as soon as possible • Open house to present the alignment to the public – about a month after an alignment has been identified • Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR) – drafted by February 2008 • Soil testing for the bridge and roadway – targeted for February 2008 • Roadway plans for design and elevation – end of 2009 or January 2010 Dean stated that choosing an alignment is critical for this project to be able to move forward. Dean went on to talk about the positives that the team heard from CAC members at the Oct. 2, 2007 meeting. He stated that he heard the CAC members liked proposed sidewalks, bus pullouts, turn lanes, median openings and bridge improvement. The area of concern seemed to be the approximate 1,000-foot stretch where homes are adjacent to the widening project. Dean stated he had wanted the CAC members to have time to think about the proposed alignment for a while and have a chance to talk with neighbors to get their input on Alignment E, the proposed alignment. Dean asked Carol to comment on the debris in the Rillito River that was a concern brought up by some CAC members from the previous meeting. Carol stated that she needed to know the specific area and the debris that needs to be cleaned up, and then she would contact the Pima County Flood Control District. They would send out a representative from their department to survey the area and put in a request for cleanup. She asked that the CAC members approach her after the meeting, so that she could take down the information and start the process. Mary Rodin, Traffic Planner, Kimley-Horn and Associates, gave a brief report of the traffic study. She stated that the report was based on traffic forecasts for the year 2030, which were obtained from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG). PAG does travel forecasting for the entire Tucson region. The PAG model, based on the Regional Transportation Plan (RTA), assumes that La Cholla Boulevard would become a major north/south parkway from Tangerine Road south to Interstate 10 (I-10). The I-10 connection would be made using Ruthrauff Road. Dean pointed out that in the Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance there is a section that states the project must follow the PAG model. The design team is doing its best to balance the guidelines set forth by PAG with the County and team’s ideas with input from CAC members. Questions were brought up regarding funding, and Dean stated that there were no additional funds for this project. The 17 million dollars that was budgeted for this project is what the team has to work with. Dean also stated that he had pictures to pass around that showed the Right-Of-Way (ROW) lines staked by whiskers (a pink fuzzy on the top of a stake driven into the ground). Since the CAC members wanted to know exactly where the ROW lines were in relation to their property, the team felt the ROW being staked for the affected properties along the project area would be beneficial to the homeowners. Dean opened up the discussion to the CAC members for their comments, and then expressed the desire to hear comments from the public that came to share their thoughts and ideas. Fred Bass requested hearing the other options that were not presented. Bob Brittain, HDR Engineering, gave a brief overview of the alternatives that were not discussed at earlier meetings. They are as follows: Alternative A: Buys the adjacent residential properties on the east side of the road, portions of some business properties and shifts the roadway to the east Pro – this option allows for a 30-foot wide two-way frontage road, potential noise wall and extra room on the west side of La Cholla Boulevard, and a 16-foot median Con – the cost to purchase these properties would involve an additional cost of 4.3 million dollars or more Alternative B: Buys the adjacent residential properties on the west side of the road and moves the roadway to the west Pro – same as option A – except the extra room would be on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard Con – the cost to purchase these properties would involve an additional cost of 3.6 million dollars or more. The number of properties needed to buy on this side would be less than on Alternative A. Also, this option would have to take the existing well and move it (It can only move within 500 feet of its existing site). Alternative C: Instead of a frontage road, this option would simply add an additional lane to the roadway for residents to turn directly in and out of their homes Pro – none Con – not considered a safe option if vehicles back out onto La Cholla Alternative D: Buys residences only on both sides that have driveways directly on La Cholla Boulevard and widens the road from its existing center line Pro – roadway centerline can remain in the center of the existing right-of-way Con – still expensive at a cost of 3.6 million dollars or more that is not in the budget Alternative F: Buys every other residential property in order to have room to put circular drives in at the homes that are left; this will allow for those residents to safely exit and enter their properties off La Cholla Boulevard without a frontage road Pro – safe access, reduces number of residences to purchase Con – additional budget still required; every other property would be County-owned; question remains as to who would maintain that property. Bob briefly went over Alternative E – Not purchasing any property. City of Tucson well site is not disturbed. This option provides adequate lane width of 11 feet and median width of 18 feet, one-lane frontage roads and allows for safe access to residences. Humbert Arce: Which alternative is more schedule-friendly? Bob stated that they all have their issues, so they all involve about the same time frame. Those alternatives that would require purchasing property could potentially take a little longer due to the acquisition process. Dean made the statement that the RTA’s plan was for a six-lane roadway, which was voted on, and the six lanes are what are needed for future growth in the area. He also said that acquisitions on this project were not possible due to the budget constraints. Some of the CAC members and others in attendance were concerned about the noise, reduced speed needed for six lanes of traffic and the safety of children playing in their front yards so close to the road, and the loss of parking; residents are currently using the street in front of their homes and that will no longer be available. The team stated that the noise would be buffered by the fact that the frontage road would be between the homes and the throughway. It was also stated that René Tanner, HDR Engineering, would be reporting at a future meeting on the noise study and the reduction of noise by using rubberized asphalt. The other concerns brought up by the CAC members had to do with the socioeconomic status of the residents in the project area. The CAC members feel that because they are at a lower income level than those on some of the other County projects, the decision makers at upper levels in the County are not hearing their concerns. The CAC members feel that the County set precedents because they have purchased homes throughout the County on other projects – but it was not provided for in the budget for this project. The CAC members are also concerned about the safety of children crossing La Cholla Boulevard from the middle school. Dean suggested that if the CAC members wish to communicate their concerns to others at a higher level in the County, they could draft a letter, outlining their concerns, which he could present to his superiors. The CAC members agreed that would be a good idea. The issues brought up by the public were as follows: • Why were they not told of these proposed plans? The team stated that this project has been talked about for many years, has been of public record and had been voted on by the public. • The bridge was not widened as originally planned because funds were shifted to other projects. The team stated that the County is no longer operating in that manner, and funds allocated for a project will stay for that project and within the budget that was set forth. Fred Bass was chosen as the chairman for the CAC. The members decided to meet Monday, Oct. 15, 2007 to draft their letter. Dean adjourned the meeting. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthruaff Road to River Road Agenda La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Thursday Dec. 6, 2007 6-7:30 p.m. Ellie Towne Community Center 6:00 Welcome and Introductions 6:10 Agenda and meeting format 6:15 Committee and community concerns Previously stated Additional Prioritize 6:45 Discussion regarding CAC concerns 7:15 Project update 7:20 Next Steps DCR and EAMR Public Involvement: Individuals CAC General Public 7:30 Adjourn meeting Team will remain for individual questions La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee Meeting Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center CAC Members Present at Meeting: • Fred Bass • Ellen Currey • Ann Girvin • Norma Metz • Wayne Metz • Ellie Towne CAC Members Not in Attendance: • Carol Gawrychowski • Andy Hernandez • Jason Kai • William Mattausch • Gretchen Ochoa • Kaye Swinford • Ian Stewart • Robert Schwartz Attending from Project Team: • Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT): Carol Brichta, Dean Papajohn • HDR Engineering: Larry Barela, Ted Buell, Bethy McGehee, Scott Stapp, René Tanner • Gordley Design Group: Barb Alley, Jan Gordley Attending from the public: • Timothy & Jamie Barrett • Bonny Bass • Marsha Brendlinger • James Brendlinger • Bill Erickson • Norman Franzen • Robert Gaona • Marvin Horn • Steve Schweska Materials Distributed: • Agenda • Fact Sheet • Travel Demand Volume Data for the project area • Meeting Minutes from 10/09/07 CAC Meeting Dean Papajohn, Project Manager, PCDOT, welcomed the CAC members and the public to the meeting. All who attended made introductions and Dean stated that the purpose of this CAC meeting was for the committee members to focus on the aspects of the project and the tasks that the CAC is charged with and responsible for. Dean told the group that the team members would stay after the meeting was adjourned in order to answer individual questions including those from members of the audience. Dean turned the meeting over to Jan Gordley, Gordley Design Group, to review the agenda and facilitate the meeting. Jan stated the purpose of her facilitating the meeting was so that Dean and the rest of the team could really focus on what the members were saying about the issues and concerns. Prior to the meeting, Jan had checked with Dean and Fred Bass, chair of the CAC, to see what their goals were for the meeting. In Jan’s discussion with Fred, she found that he had three concerns. Those concerns were traffic, noise and drainage. The team was prepared to give an update on those three areas, and to address other concerns the members had. Jan took this time to go over an exercise that would allow individuals, including the public, to participate and voice their concerns. Categories of concerns were written on white paper and taped to the wall. The categories chosen were based on discussion at the previous CAC meeting, namely: Safety, Noise, Access, Parking, Visual and Other. Each CAC member was given pink paper while the public received blue paper. Each person was given the opportunity to write down their major concerns and tape them on the relevant white concerns paper. After that exercise was complete, the group was given three dots to put on the issues that were most important to the individual. Once this exercise was over, everyone took their seats and Jan went over the results. Jan asked Ted to speak a few minutes on lane width, which was a concern under safety. Ted Buell, Project Manager, HDR Engineering, stated that the width of the lanes met the requirements of the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which governs the design of the roadway. The lane width acceptable by AASHTO’s standards is 10-12 feet. In this project, the projected lane width would be 11 feet, which is within the guidelines. Fred’s issue with the 11-foot lane width relates to the large number of semi tractortrailers that travel La Cholla Boulevard and Fred feels the 11-foot lanes will be a safety issue. Fred stated that he is aware of the budget constraints and voiced that this stretch of road needed to be built with the safety of drivers and pedestrians in mind. Fred also stated that this area should be widened to match what had been done farther north on La Cholla Boulevard in another widening project. Dean stated that the traffic projections for the year 2030 suggested a pavement cross-section between four and six lanes. Because of this, a six-lane section provides extra space for vehicles resulting in less benefit for 12-foot lanes. La Cholla Boulevard north of River Road has 10-foot wide paved shoulders for bikes. However, the County has learned that vehicles start driving in the shoulders or using it for turn lanes if the shoulders are that wide, which introduces conflicts between bicycle use and motorized vehicle use. The new bike lanes would be limited to five to six feet in order to avoid that problem in the future. At that point, Jan asked to move forward with some other concerns. Dean commented on safety and asked Ted to talk about a High-intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) crossing. This is a crossing signal that is activated when there is a pedestrian present. They push a button that begins a yellow flashing light that turns to a red light so that a pedestrian can cross at the specified location. One of the guidelines for installing a HAWK crossing is 20 pedestrians per hour crossing the street during a peak time of day. Ted stated that to install a HAWK crossing is approximately $100,000 and if the volume of pedestrians is not what was anticipated, drivers will learn to ignore the crossing, causing another safety issue. Ellie Towne asked when a decision would be made about the crossing and Dean stated that would be determined after the roadway was built. Ellie wondered how pedestrians would cross the street to get to the southbound bus stop. A study would be done to determine what would be best for that area; however, the team could also recommend what they feel would work best. Dean stated that no matter which roadway alignment is chosen for this project, pedestrians would have a safe place to cross the street at the signalized intersections. Scott Stapp, Environmental Manager, HDR, gave a brief overview of noise and how it is measured. He reviewed some basic noise concepts including dBA – decibels within the range of human hearing, Leq – average sound level and NAC – Noise Abatement Criteria. Scott stated that to require consideration of mitigation with sound barriers, the sound level must be above 66 dBA. Scott explained that up to 66 dBA, people could hold a normal conversation without having to raise their voices. Once above that number, mitigation is generally sought to help reduce the noise level. There are three places where roadway noise comes from: tires hitting the pavement, engine noise and exhaust. Criteria for assessing noise mitigation includes whether it is Feasible in terms of topography, geometry, drainage and safety, whether it is Reasonable in terms of cost per benefited receiver and if it is wanted by the affected property owners. In Scott’s presentation, he stated that landscaping was not enough to substantially lessen noise levels and noise walls only work where drainage, safety (sight distances) and continuous walls are provided. When a wall is not continuous (i.e. breaks in a wall to allow people access to their driveways), the noise will enter through the opening and render the wall ineffective. The best method of lowering noise in this situation is through rubberized asphalt. The increase in noise that may occur through year 2030 due to the increased traffic should not amount to more than three-dBA. A three-dBA reduction is generally allowed when using rubberized asphalt. Scott also let the group know that monitoring of existing noise levels had already been done and a report will be prepared projecting the noise levels to the year 2030. All of the data will be analyzed and a recommendation will be made based on the information that was determined by the noise study. Scott stated that he couldn’t move forward with his study until the final alignment and roadway profile are determined. Ted stated that the traffic report was in draft form and would be completed shortly. He passed out the travel demand numbers so that the committee could see where the volume is now and what the projected numbers would be for 2030. On this section of La Cholla Boulevard, traffic volumes currently range from 23,000-28,000 vehicles per day, with traffic volumes for 2030 predicted at 41,000-44,000 vehicles per day. Ted and Dean reported on the status of the drainage study letting the members know that drainage goes hand in hand with the design, so that process is on hold until they are able to move forward in the design process. Jan suggested the members each take a turn to go over their main concerns, one more time, for the team. Norma Metz: No more comments at that time. Wayne Metz: Voiced displeasure with Alternative E and wanted the County to look at some of the other alternatives that he feels are a better fit for this improvement project. Wayne feels the county should pick the best option for this project, and if the money isn’t available, they should wait until more funds could be allocated. Fred Bass: The road should be built with the best option for the project. Ellie Towne: She voiced some concerns about where the residents would have to U-turn safely in order to get on the frontage road to access their homes. Ellie also had a question about the bridge and its height and width. Ann Girvin: Her comment was to restate that she was not a homeowner and would not be directly affected by the project. However, she voiced her concern for the residents that will be directly affected by the widening of La Cholla Boulevard and stated she would support the decision they felt was right. Ellen Currey: She stated that she had lived in Pima County since 1969 and wanted to see this project done correctly. Ted stated that they would take specific questions from the public following the CAC portion of the meeting. Jan discussed what the CAC’s role was in moving this process forward. She reiterated that it was extremely important for anyone who had a concern to write a letter to Pima County so that the County was aware of specific concerns that either the group or individuals had. Jan let the members know that the public process was important and the County had made a commitment to this project. Carol Brichta, Community Relations, PCDOT, wrote the contact information for PCDOT’s management on a flip chart for members and the public at the meeting to write their letters to Priscilla Cornelio, Transportation Director, PCDOT, 201 N. Stone Ave., Tucson, AZ, 85701, so that she could see their concerns and issues in writing. Jan indicated the project was ready for a public meeting and that one would be scheduled after the first of the year. Dean distributed a project fact sheet and the meeting was adjourned. The team stayed for individual questions and comments from the public as well as CAC members. PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE, FOURTH FLOOR TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 PRISCilLA S. CORNELIO, DIRECTOR P. E. (520) 740-6410 FAX (520) 740-6437 January 24,2008 La Cholla Boulevard, River Road to RuthrauffRoad Community Advisory Committee Attention: Bonny L. Bass 145 South Sixth Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701-2007 Subject: Your Letter Dated January 15,2008, Regarding La Cholla Boulevard: RuthrauffRoad to River Road Dear Community Advisory Committee Members: We received your letter dated January 15, 2008, expressing your views on the roadway alignment design for La Cholla Boulevard. This project is one of the County's key Capital Improvement Projects in the first quarter of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) plan and we appreciate the Community Advisory Committee's (CAC) concern to "get it done right." We have communicated your concerns to County Administration and to Supervisor Sharon Bronson, Pima County Board of Supervisors. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify several important issues that may impact on how the CAC views the proposed alignment. Below is a clarification of the issues that relate to safety features of the roadway, aesthetics, utilities, access, and general right-of-way issues: Roadwav Features Crosswalks: Marked pedestrian crossings are proposed for the RuthrauffRoad intersection. Travel Lanes: The proposed width of travel lanes meets the national standards provided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and is not considered unsafe or substandard. Sidewalk: The proposed sidewalk width meets Pima County standards. Bike Lanes: Currently, bicyclists ride on the two-lane pavement or they ride in the dirt right-of-way where drivers turn in and out randomly. A proposed 5' paved shoulder that bicyclists can use will improve safety. Bus Stops: Bus stops will be provided for SunTran. La Cholla Boulevard, River Road to Ruthrauff Road Community Advisory Committee Your Letter Dated January 15, 2008, Regarding La Cholla Boulevard: RuthrauffRd to River Rd January 24, 2008 Page 2 HAWK Light: The use ofHA WK lights for pedestrian crossings are carefully reviewed by the County Traffic Division. Specific criteria must be met to justify aHA WK light otherwise the HAWK light can turn into a liability rather than an asset. Currently, a HAWK light would not be justified at Jay Avenue. After the La Cholla Boulevard improvements are built the situation can be reviewed again to see if a HAWK light is warranted. Aesthetics Public Art: By Pima County policy, one percent of the planning, design and construction costs of arterial roadway projects should be designated for public art. Vicki Scuri of SiteWorks has been selected as the project artist. This selection process was managed by Tucson Pima Arts Council. Information about the artist can be found at www.vickiscuri-siteworks.com. Landscape: Pima County provides appropriate roadway landscape in medians and parkways. Roadway landscape must take into consideration issues such as site distances and underground and above ground utilities. McGann and Associates has been selected as the landscape architect (www.mcgannland.com/). V tilities Well Site: The well site on the west side of La Cholla Boulevard is owned by the City of Tucson. Pima County does not have a need to acquire property adjacent to the City's well. Access Access and V-turns: Arterial roadways in Pima County frequently have raised medians which greatly improves safety. Drivers generally are able to adjust their travel patterns and/or utilize u-turns to access certain streets, businesses, and residences. This is necessary to provide safe access management. Parking: Boulevard properties important Typically, Pima County does not provide parking on arterial roadways. Since La Cholla was designated an arterial roadway prior to 1960 and prior to the development of the fronting La Cholla Boulevard, property owners should have been aware that it would be to provide adequate on-site parking. Frontage Road: The proposed frontage road is 16' wide, not 11' wide as stated in the letter. Examples of frontage roads in the community include Swan north of Speedway, Wilmot at Julia, and Broadway at Melville. Frontage roads provide managed access to properties fronting busy roadways. Alley: Pima County will maintain access to all lots fronting La Cholla Boulevard. In your letter, the alley west of La Cholla Boulevard was described as a utility easement only; however, it is also available for ingress and egress and as such provides alternative access to properties. La Chona Boulevard, River Road to Ruthrauff Road Community Advisory Committee Your Letter Dated January 15, 2008, Regarding La Chona Boulevard: RuthrauffRd to River Rd January 24, 2008 Page 3 Properties Adjacent to La Chona Accidents: The CAC has raised concerns that traffic on La Chol1a Boulevard may create accidents that end up on private property. La Chol1a Boulevard was designated as an arterial roadway prior to 1960 and before any residences were built north of Ruthrauff Road. The developer that built and the subsequent people that acquired property fronting La Cholla Boulevard did so with the knowledge that La Cholla Boulevard was designated a wide arterial roadway intended to carry large volumes of traffic. This urbanization is found in many parts of Pima County and the City of Tucson and does not pose unreasonable threats to safety. Noise: Noise is a factor related to urbanization. Prior to 1960 and prior to development of properties adjacent to the road, La Chol1a Boulevard was designated an arterial roadway and the adjacent properties were designated Multi-Use zoning. Noise wal1s are not effective when driveways are spaced closely and are better suited for residential zoning with large lots rather than for multi-use zoning areas with closely spaced lots. Property Value: Roadway improvements generally help improve the value of adj acent properties. La Chol1a Boulevard improvements will reduce traffic congestion, increase intersection capacity at the RuthrauffRoad intersection, improve capacity of the bridge, provide sidewalks for pedestrians, provide paved shoulders for bicyclists, provide landscape and public art for aesthetics, provide ADA access to bus stops, and provide access management. These capacity, safety, and aesthetic improvements generally help property values. I hope this explanation helps to clarify the issues the community may have about the La Chol1a Boulevard project. Many of these issues revolve around the fact that La Chol1a Boulevard was designated an arterial roadway before adjacent properties were developed. This places the burden on property owners to correctly develop and use their properties for an urbanizing environment. The proposed alignment that includes one-way frontage roads for approximately 1000' for the properties north of Ruthrauff Road meets all the needs and many of the wants of Pima County residents. Other alternatives requiring right-of-way acquisition would unnecessarily increase the cost of the project, cause disruption to property owners and increases the schedule for the project. In your letter you have asked the County to build the road "correctly." Based on the information here, I trust you will have confidence that the improved La Chol1a Boulevard wil1 be built to National and County standards for a safe and efficient roadway. If you have any questions, please contact our Community Relations representative Carol Brichta at 740-6410, or the Project Manager Dean Papajohn at 740-6471. Priscilla S. Cornelio, P.E. Director PSC:DP:sap c: Dean Papajohn, Project Manager, Engineering Division Carol Brichta, Community Relations PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS CENTER 201 N STONE 4TH FLOOR TUCSON AZ 85701–1207 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED March 6, 2008 Open House PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS CENTER 201 N STONE 4TH FLOOR TUCSON AZ 85701–1207 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED March 6, 2008 Open House Pima County Department of Transportation La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road OPEN HOUSE Pima County Department of Transportation (P.C.D.O.T.) will be holding an open house meeting to provide information on the widening of La Cholla Boulevard from Ruthrauff Road to River Road. Proposed improvements consist of: six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new six-lane bridge over the Rillito river, a raised landscaped median, and urban design (public art). This two year design process is just beginning. The open house is intended to keep the public informed on project goals and to provide a forum for public input. Thursday, March 6, 2008 6:00-8:00 p.m. Introductory Overview at 6:15 Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center 1660 W. Ruthrauff Road N l 1 6 6 0 ELLIE TOWNE FLOWING WELLS COMMUNITY CENTER 1660 W. RUTHRAUFF RD W WETMORE RD Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations for effective participation and communication in the meeting may call Community Relations at 740-6410 by February 28 to make appropriate arrangements. All meeting sites are accessible. N FLOWING WELLS RD N FLOWING WELLS The Open House begins at 6:00 p.m. with a brief presentation to describe the project beginning promptly at 6:15 p.m. After the overview, public can interact with team members who will have displays and information regarding roadway, bridge, archeology, environment, landscape, urban design, business concerns, and right-of-way. We hope you will come to share your thoughts about the project. Pima County Department of Transportation La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road OPEN HOUSE Pima County Department of Transportation (P.C.D.O.T.) will be holding an open house meeting to provide information on the widening of La Cholla Boulevard from Ruthrauff Road to River Road. Proposed improvements consist of: six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new six-lane bridge over the Rillito river, a raised landscaped median, and urban design (public art). This two year design process is just beginning. The open house is intended to keep the public informed on project goals and to provide a forum for public input. Thursday, March 6, 2008 6:00-8:00 p.m. Introductory Overview at 6:15 Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center 1660 W. Ruthrauff Road Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations for effective participation and communication in the meeting may call Community Relations at 740-6410 by February 28 to make appropriate arrangements. All meeting sites are accessible. N l 1 6 6 0 ELLIE TOWNE FLOWING WELLS COMMUNITY CENTER 1660 W. RUTHRAUFF RD W WETMORE RD N FLOWING WELLS RD N FLOWING WELLS The Open House begins at 6:00 p.m. with a brief presentation to describe the project beginning promptly at 6:15 p.m. After the overview, public can interact with team members who will have displays and information regarding roadway, bridge, archeology, environment, landscape, urban design, business concerns, and right-of-way. We hope you will come to share your thoughts about the project. La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Comment Form March 6, 2008 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla? I live in rented property adjacent to this section of La Cholla. I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla. I own rental property in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla. I work in a business on this section of La Cholla. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla. Other, please explain. 2. What do you like about this project? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Please list any questions or concerns about this project. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Please list any other comments you have concerning this project. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ IMPORTANT! Please print the following information: Name: ______________________________________________________________ Telephone: _________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________ City: ____________________________________State:______________________ Zip: _______________________ e-mail: _______________________________________________ Mail to: Pima County Community Relations Office, 201 N. Stone 4th floor, Tucson, Arizona 85701 or Fax to 740-6439 For more information visit http://www.roadprojects.pima.gov/LaChollaRiver/ or contact Carol Brichta at 740-6410 La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Design Project Information 1. What are the benefits of the project? • Provides a safe parkway-type alternative north-south route to Oracle Road. • Continues and connects recently completed widening projects on La Cholla south of Magee Road to River Road. • Provides access to I-10 via Ruthrauff Road. • Improves mobility, access, and safety for busses. • Improves bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety. • Provides ADA accessible transit stops. • Enhances the right-of-way with landscape and urban design (public art). 2. What type of improvements will the project contain? • Proposed improvements include: six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new six-lane bridge over the Rillito river, a raised landscaped median, and urban design (public art). • The voters of Pima County approved the scope of this project in the RTA vote of 2006. 3. How long will it take to improve La Cholla Boulevard? • A new roadway design takes approximately 24 months. Procurement of a contractor takes approximately 3-9 months. Construction takes approximately 18-24 months. The design phase is just beginning. 4. How wide is the La Cholla Boulevard right-of-way? • The right-of-way is 150’ wide. The County acquired this right-of-way prior to 1960 in anticipation of widening La Cholla Boulevard. Much of the property adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard was zoned multi-use prior to any development to allow flexibility with private property as La Cholla Boulevard became busier and expanded over the years. 5. Will there be public input on this project? • A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has been formed. The design team has met with the CAC four times so far. Input from the CAC is considered in design and all CAC input is shared with the Board of Supervisors before preliminary design concepts are approved. • Open Houses are held to provide project updates to the public and to receive input from the public. 6. How can I learn more about the project? • The project web site is at: http://www.roadprojects.pima.gov/LaChollaRiver/ • Specific questions can be directed to: Carol Brichta, Pima County Community Relations, 740-6410. March 6, 2008 1 PROPOSED BRIDGE construction Not for Preliminary- TYPICAL SECTION - (LOOKING NORTH) 2265 PROPOSED BRIDGE Not for 65 Preliminary- 22 60 22 55 22 0 50 5 2 22 2 BRIDGE ELEVATION (LOOKING WEST) construction 55 22 60 22 LOCATION PLAN New R/W Existing R/W 40’ S L 75’ C L 4:1 2% 43’ SB La Cholla Blvd. Raised Median NB La Cholla Blvd. 12’ 12’ 13’ Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane 2% 10’ 10’ 13’ 12’ 12’ 6’ 15’ 30’ Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Shoulder 20’ 6’ 75’ 40’ 43’ Shoulder 10’ 12’ Existing R/W Raised Median Frontage Rd. 2% 2% TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION LA CHOLLA BLVD. OPTION WITH RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR AN ADDITIONAL +/- $4 MILLION N.T.S. 10’ 7’ 2% 4:1 LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD: RUTHRAUF ROAD TO RIVER ROAD + ( $ + " #$ % ' & $' ) - %% / / / *+ , . #$ ' + 2 *% * $ $ "'+ % / ( ' %- " % *( % #$ "'+ % ( + ( 9 7 , ' ! ( : / '+< < 6 = ' 6 / " '+$ + ( " = # - 4; 6' - =$ = ( - " = + 0 1 + 6 % + +0 + = $ "'+ % 3 - 4 - '* + + * 56% 6 * + + 8 4'+ ( + 0 4 ' !! 7 + 7 6 % ' + '+ ( + ' +% + '7 = LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD JAY A VEN UE CST. C L & S L 4:1 Existing R/W Raised Median Existing R/W 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% CST. C L & S L Existing R/W 4:1 2% 2% 4:1 Existing R/W 2% 2% 4:1 RIL LIT OR IVE R LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD RIL LIT O ER CURTIS ROAD RIV LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Pima County Department of Transportation La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road The Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) held an informational public meeting to address roadway improvement conceptual design on La Cholla Boulevard from River Road to Ruthrauff Road. Area residents, property owners, stakeholders and jurisdictional representatives attended the public meeting. PCDOT representatives and the design team conducted a formal presentation at 6:15 p.m. Before and after the presentation, the meeting followed an open house format with maps, displays and other informational materials available for the public to view. Those in attendance were encouraged to complete and submit comment forms. Public Meeting • Thursday, March 6. 2008 o Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center o 6 – 8:00 p.m.; Presentation at 6:15 p.m. Public Notification • Invitation-postcard announcing meeting mailed the week of Feb. 18, 2008 o Mailing area included businesses and residences one half mile north of Ruthrauff Road and one half mile south of River Road; and one half mile east-west of La Cholla Boulevard between Ruthrauff Road and River Road • Newspaper advertisements ran in the Arizona Daily Star on Feb. 24, 2008 and the Daily Territorial on Feb. 15, 2008 • Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) made contact with more than 100 businesses along the corridor providing them with information about the RTA Mainstreet program and invitations to the public meeting Team Attendance • PCDOT: Carol Brichta, Priscilla Cornelio, Ali Fermawi, Dean Papajohn, Annabelle Quihuis • Pima County District III: Kiki Navarro – Representative for Supervisor Sharon Bronson • HDR: Larry Barela, Bob Brittain, Ted Buell, Scott Stapp, René Tanner • Kimley-Horn and Associates: Scott Beck • McGann & Associates: Darlene Showalter • Public Artist: Vicki Scuri • RTA: Britton Dornquast, Steve Taylor • Tucson Pima Arts Council (TPAC): Jane Hallet • Gordley Design Group: Susan Parcells, Arizeder Urreiztieta Materials • Fact Sheet • Comment forms • Sign-in sheets • RTA brochures Displays and Presentation • Six information stations each with displays o Aerial photos showing alignment and access management o Typical cross-sections o Informational display board on noise o Notebook with examples of public art o Landscape design concepts and Rilllito River Park access concepts o Brochures (RTA/Mainstreet; Pima County Real Property) o Concept bridge plans • PowerPoint presentation Name Address Phone E-mail Add to Mailing List 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla? 2. What do you like about this project? 3. Please list any questions or concerns about this project. 4. Please list any other comments you have concerning this project. Comments Received at the Open House Betancourt, Celia 2121 W. Calle Narciso Tucson, AZ 85705 yes I own the property in which I live Side walks; Sound Barriers in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. More Traffic; Access into Calle Narciso in and out Have a sound barrier or wall between house and road; narrowing of lanes further down the road. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Carrig, Cheryl 4964 N. Jay Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 888-5685 Yes I own the property in which I live Kill the congestion. in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Chardukian, Doris 5242 N. Royal Palm Dr. Tucson, AZ 85705 690-0690 Yes I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. If expansion is to the east, which I I am concerned with what will own property and reside in, what happen to my property, if anything. will happen to my property? When heading south on Curtis Road, there is a lane with a solid white line crossing out this lane. this was made into a right-turn lane now, it would help traffic some. I have almost been hit by vehicles in that lane. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I own property off of Curtis Road. Gaona, Robert 4921 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 King, Gloria 2202 W. Calle Narciso Tucson, AZ 85705 887-1395 Yes I own the property in which I live Fix the traffic flow. in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulveard. Drainage Will we be bought out? Yes I ownthe property in which I live in Drainage problems to be the area adjacent to this section of corrected; sidewalks; landscaping La Cholla Boulevard. There need to be sound barriers between roadway and housing areas - this was not mentioned, but there is a need for them. Questions from the floor were no encouraged. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Wider roads attract more traffic. Larsen, Svein Larsen, Carol 2125 W. Calle Fortunado Tucson, AZ 85705 690-9091 Yes I own the property in which I live This will be a wonderful northin the area adjacent to this section south roadway. of La Cholla Boulveard. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Page 1 What is the plan for access to an from Calle Narciso? Where is the art work going to go? I live at 2125 W. Calle Fortunado. Access is on La Cholla Boulevard at Calle Narciso. When La Cholla is completed, I believe access will be very difficult because of the closeness to the traffic light at Ruthrauff Road, and just in general because of a major thoroughfare. I have lived at this address since 1964. The lanes south of River Road need to be the same width as north of River Road - they should not be narrower. This was a good meeting and a very nice community center. I hope the traffic lights at Ruthrauff and Curtis Roads can somehow work as a team. The light at Ruthrauff Road now just makes traffic more congested instead of helping traffic. Name Address Phone E-mail Mattausch, William 2462 W. Kimberly Pl. Tucson, AZ 85705 293-2958 Plog, Patricia Plog, Terry 235-0289 patriciaplog@ 1965 W. Cusco Pl. # 2 Tucson, AZ 85705 Add to 1. What is your primary 2. What do you like about this 3. Please list any questions or Mailing interest in La Cholla? project? concerns about this project. List Will we be able to pull heavy Yes I own the property in which I live It is a good thing. It will move trucks off the residental streets, in the area adjacent to this section traffic quickly and safely. i.e.; Kain Avenue (north and of La Cholla Boulevard. south) between Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road? I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 4. Please list any other comments you have concerning this project. The three comanpies who move very large and heavy equipment; can they be required to use Curti Road and La Cholla Boulevard routes. Yes yahoo.com I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. More space!! Traffic flow. No questions. I was hoping this project was further along. Need it now!! No wall being put up. A wall. How long will it take? I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulveard. I live two blocks away from La Cholla Boulevard. Price, Robert 4950 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 888-2708 rprice15@ Yes comcast.net I live in rented property adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I own rental property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Schweska, Stephen 4846-4854 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 906-2961 Yes Ingress/egress is needed for businesses on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard. I would like to enter straight in and straight out no frontage road. I am concerned that the bus stop is too close to the intersection of Ruthrauff Road and La Cholla Boulevard. Page 2 Name Steakman, Laura Address 5484 N. Bramble Brook Ln. Tucson, AZ 85704 Phone E-mail 888-9730 laurafree@ comast.net Add to 1. What is your primary Mailing interest in La Cholla? List Yes I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 2. What do you like about this project? Everything, especially relief from traffic congestion. I live in Riverside Place subdivision next to Bashas'. Van Echo, Jay 6750 W. El Camino del Cerro, Tucson, AZ 85745 Williams, Donald 5242 N. Royal Palms Dr. Tucson, AZ 85705 917-4534 jay.vanecho@ Yes I regularly drive though this section of La Cholla Boulevard: to and from work and to shop regularly at River Road and La Cholla Boulevard - also a regular at Dairy Queen! Yes I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. dmjmharris. com 6900690 Improve a.m. and p.m. peak turn movements; improve roadway safety and reduce congestion; new bridge at the river; improved access. 4. Please list any other comments you have concerning this project. What is the tentative timeline to When is the widening of River Road to six lanes going to begin so completion? we can make a U-turn at the intersection of La Cholla Boulevard and River Road to go east on River Road? 3. Please list any questions or concerns about this project. Please do not spend my tax money foolishly; if you can build it within existing Rignt-Of-Way and not spend $4 million more - do it!! However, make sure landscape amenities and safe access are provided to homeowners - signal timing will be critical. Build it now take advantage of a lull in construction activities to get a good bid! Until this project is started or completed, is there any reaso going south on La Cholla Boulevard across the bridge, that drivers could merge right into a lane that is striped as a no-drive lane to make a right on Curtis Road? It might help the flow of traffic until completion of the project. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I live off of Curtis Road. Anonymous I regurlarly drive through this Looks nice. section of La Cholla Boulevard. Anonymous Commercial Development Page 3 The eastbound-to-northbound an conversely the southbound- towestbound movements are extremely critical - please make sure turn-bay storages are sufficient. How about a free southbound-to-westbound rightturn lane into a dedicated westbound Ruthrauff Road acceleration lane to drop at a sufficient distance to the west? Construction time - five years? This is a major way to the hospital. Get this project bid!!! This is a period one RTA commitment! Forget the Right-Of-Way purchase! Get the constructio cost more in line with the budget. Name Address Phone E-mail Add to Mailing List 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla? 2. What do you like about this project? 3. Please list any questions or concerns about this project. Increase in the width of the intersection at La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road. This will directly impact the safety of the students commuting to and from school. 4. Please list any other comments you have concerning this project. Miller, Chad 4545 N. La Cholla Blvd. 696Tucson, AZ 85705 8557 millerch@ flowingwells. K12.az.us Yes I regularly drive through this To move traffic through the section of La Cholla Boulevard. bridge and Curtis Road intersection while traveling I work at the school south of southbound-northbound. Also, this section of La Cholla the sidewalks will be an added Boulevard. safety feature for students walking home from school. Bass, Bonny 1502 W. Kilburn Tucson, AZ 85705 bbass@pd-law .com Yes I own a rental property in the I like the fact that the project See attached comments. area adjacent to this section of is getting done. I think the section of road is long overdue La Cholla Boulevard. for repairs and upgrading, and I regularly walk or bike through will ultimately be an asset to this section of La Cholla people who live in the area and commute through it. Boulevard. See attached comments. Danehy, Tom 5880 N. Edenbrook Ln. Tucson, AZ 85741 I regularly drive through this It is a logical extension of the section of La Cholla Boulevard. widening that has occurred on La Cholla Boulevard north of River Road. I prefer the one-way frontage roads to the two-way frontage roads. 2936841 c13yd@aol. com Page 4 Why are the lane widths reduced in the areas where there will be frontage roads? It seems like 6.5-foot sidewalks could be reduced to 5 feet (as in the other sections) to provide 12-foot lanes throughout the entire segment. I would like to request that th intersection at Ruthrauff Road have long enough "walk" time so students can safely travel through the intersection. Also, why are bus pullouts no included? Public Attendance • 84 attended Public Comments • Sixteen individuals submitted comment forms at the public meeting and during the two-week comment period ending March 20, 2008. Sample Letter; Distributed to all CAC Members PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE, FOURTH FLOOR TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 PRISCILLA S. CORNELIO, P. E. DIRECTOR (520) 740-6410 FAX (520) 740-6439 July 10, 2008 Re: La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Community Advisory Meeting (CAC) Dear Neighbor: The Pima County Department of Transportation will be hosting a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting for the La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road improvement project. The meeting will be held on Thursday July 24, 2008 from 6:00 - 7:30pm at the Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center located at 1660 W. Ruthrauff Road. The meeting agenda will include the review of the noise report. If you have questions regarding the meeting, please contact me at (520)740-6410 or e-mail Carol.Brichta@dot.pima.gov. Sincerely, Carol Brichta, Community Relations, Program Coordinator xc: Dean Papajohn, Project Manager Annabelle Quihuis - Community Relations Manager La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthruaff Road to River Road Agenda La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Thursday July 24, 2008 6:00-7:30 p.m. Ellie Towne Community Center 6:00 Welcome and Introductions 6:10 Agenda and meeting format 6:15 Project Update 6:20 Presentation of Noise Report 7:00 Discussion 7:25 Next Steps • CAC meeting on Thursday August 7, 2008 from 6:00-7:30 to distribute and discuss the draft Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR) and the draft Design Concept Report (DCR). CAC will be asked to write a response letter to the EAMR. • Open House September 9 or 11. 7:30 Adjourn meeting Team will remain for individual questions PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE, FOURTH FLOOR TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 PRISCILLA S. CORNELIO, P. E. DIRECTOR (520) 740-6410 FAX (520) 740-6439 August 4, 2008 Re: La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Community Advisory Meeting (CAC) Dear Neighbor: The Pima County Department of Transportation will be hosting a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting for the La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road improvement project. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 from 6:00 - 7:30pm at the Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center located at 1660 W. Ruthrauff Road. The meeting agenda will include the review of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation (EAMR) report. If you have questions regarding the meeting, please contact me at (520)740-6410 or e-mail Carol.Brichta@dot.pima.gov. Sincerely, Carol Brichta, Community Relations, Program Coordinator xc: Dean Papajohn, Project Manager Annabelle Quihuis - Community Relations Manager La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthruaff Road to River Road Agenda La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Tuesday August 12, 2008 6:00-7:30 p.m. Ellie Towne Community Center 6:00 Welcome and Introductions 6:10 Presentation of Draft Design Concept Report 6:30 Presentation of Draft Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report 7:00 Follow up on Noise Report 7:10 Discussion 7:25 Next Steps • Open House September 11. 7:30 Adjourn meeting Team will remain for individual questions La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Community Advisory Committee Meeting Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Thursday, Aug. 12, 2008 6 to 7:30 p.m. Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center CAC Members Present: • Fred Bass • Ann Girvin • Norma Metz • Wayne Metz • Robert Schwartz • Ellie Towne CAC Members Not in Attendance: • Ellen Currey • Carol Gawrychowski • Andy Hernandez • Jason Kai • William Mattausch • Gretchen Ochoa • Ian Stewart • Kaye Swinford Attending from Project Team: • Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT): Carol Brichta, Rick Ellis, Dean Papajohn • Representative from Supervisor Sharon Bronson’s office: Kiki Navarro • HDR Engineering: Larry Barela, Catherine Bolm, Bob Brittain, Ted Buell, Scott Stapp • Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) – Jim DeGrood • Gordley Design Group: Barb Alley, Arizeder Urreiztieta Attending from the Public: • Bonny Bass • Timothy Barrett • Marvin Horn • Bob Iannarino • Jerry Jones Materials Distributed/Presented: • Agenda • Comment forms • RTA booklets • Draft Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report and Draft Design Concept Report Dean Papajohn, PCDOT Project Manager, welcomed the group to the CAC meeting, and again thanked the members for their commitment to the La Cholla Boulevard project. He took a moment to go around the room and have everyone introduce themselves and state their affiliation. 1 The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to discuss two very important project documents. The CAC will be provided with the draft Design Concept Report (DCR) and the draft Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR). Although the DCR is in draft form, it is quite thorough at this stage and it includes all the documentation that has been presented to the CAC members over the past several months. The draft EAMR contains all the information to date and it summarizes all the investigations, analysis and design work that has been completed for this project. With the amount of information in the reports, the team felt it would be beneficial to the members to present them with the documents in order to help them navigate through some of the major elements in the documents. It will be the role of the CAC members to respond to the DCR and the EAMR, and present that information back to the design team. Dean took a moment to direct the CAC to the Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance, section 10.56.200, which is located in their member notebooks. He stated that this section spells out the functions and the duties of the CAC. At this point in the process, the CAC is to provide written comments containing the CAC’s recommendations on the DCR and the EAMR. The written summary and response will not only be presented to the design team, but will also be presented to the Pima County Board of Supervisors (BOS). The CAC members on this project are further in the process than other CAC’s; they had written a letter to the BOS in January. Dean stated that the team did their best to incorporate their concerns in the documents that the committee had received. Dean stated that the group would need to come together after reviewing the documents in order to write their letter. He stated that PCDOT would be available to meet with the members if requested. Dean stated that the committee could use the comments that they submitted to the BOS in January, or they could write a new letter. Dean informed the members that as a part of the process, the team would be getting the additional input from the community at a public meeting that has been scheduled for Sept. 11, 2008, at the Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. The county will mail invitations to everyone that lives within one-half mile of the project area. The team will be there with displays and available to answer questions from the public. There will also be surveys that will be passed out to the attendees of the meeting as well as mailed to all who received the invitation for the public meeting. The results will be gathered and given to the project team and the CAC members so they can address the public’s comments in their letter to the BOS. Dean introduced Bob Brittain, HDR Engineering, who would present the draft DCR to the CAC members. The DCR is the report that is drafted to document the design approach on how to prepare the construction plans. This report summarizes all the reports, surveys, etc. that have been performed in the project area. Bob pointed out that at the front of the draft DCR there would be an Executive Summary and a Table of Contents. The following is a quick overview of each chapter: Chapter 1 – Project Overview – how and why this project exists Chapter 2 – Project Description – scope of work Chapter 3 – Project Area Characteristics – existing conditions; environmental and physical Chapter 4 – Traffic and Accident Data – summarizes traffic volumes, capacity, accidents, etc. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) did a safety study of the intersection of La Cholla Boulevard and River Road due to the number of accidents at that intersection. Even though that intersection is not a part of this RTA project, there will be some improvements under the recommendation of ADOT that will occur as a result of that study. Chapter 5 – Design Standards and Criteria – 2003 Pima County Roadway Design Manual and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2 Chapter 6 – Major Design Features – horizontal and vertical alignment, access control, right-of-way, drainage, earthwork considerations, intersections, utilities, structures, pavement design, signalizing, construction issues, design exceptions Chapter 7 – Social, Economic and Environmental Considerations – summarizes all environmental studies Chapter 8 – Public Involvement – includes the Public Participation Plan, information from the CAC and summarizes public open houses; documentation including meeting minutes, can be found in Appendix B; information and documentation from the Sept. 11, 2008, open house will be added to this document Chapter 9 – Agency Coordination – environmental review and intergovernmental agreements Chapter10 – Alternatives – lists Roadway Alternatives A, B, C, D, E (recommended by PCDOT), F and variations of Alternative E Chapter11 – Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter12 – Cost Estimate and Budget Considerations Chapter13 – References Appendix A – Construction Costs and Estimate Appendix B – Community Advisory Committee and Public Involvement Information Appendix C – Stage 1 (15%) Construction Plans – bound separately Appendix D – Right-of-Way Requirement Plans – bound separately There were several questions from the CAC regarding the DCR as follows: Where will the money come from to improve the La Cholla Boulevard and River Road intersections? The River Road intersection is a separate project with a separate budget. The County has allocated money separate from the La Cholla Boulevard project to build the River Road intersection improvements. Where will the money come from for the installation of the new drainage improvements along this corridor? The project cost estimate has included the additional storm drain since early planning and design identified this as a need. Was the cost of sound walls added into the cost estimate? Yes. When the noise study found walls to be warranted, the cost became a part of the estimate. When will the CAC need to write the letter to the BOS? After the open house comments are received and documented. The summary of comments will be made available to the CAC prior to writing the letter to the BOS. The public has two weeks after the open house to return comments to be included in the EAMR. What about the alternative that the CAC is going to recommend? Dean stated that the team had brought both alignments with them to the meeting tonight. PCDOT is aware that the CAC wants to choose an option that is not being recommended by the County. Dean said that all of the alternatives are summarized in the draft DCR, but the County will only develop one set of plans. It is not cost-effective to design several roadway alternatives. At the 15-percent stage of plans, since the alternatives are not dramatically different, the team is able to show the CAC’s alignment choice conceptually. However, further along in the process, it will not be feasible to continue to develop multiple alternatives in detail. 3 In Alternative B, how far would the road have to be moved over? Bob stated that the lanes would be wider with Alternative B and he would most likely move the road over 40 feet. With Alternatives A and B, that would allow for wider lanes and a much wider frontage road since property would be purchased in those alternatives. In Alternative D, that alternative would be purchasing both sides of La Cholla Boulevard, reducing the need for frontage roads along the project corridor. This alternative would also keep the roadway on its current centerline. Dean let the members know that on Page 60 of the draft DCR, there was a cost estimate of the different alternatives. Construction costs for Alternative B would be approximately $23.8 million in comparison to Alternative D, which would be an approximate cost of $23.5 million. Would the CAC’s alternatives be presented at the open house? PCDOT plans to bring the county’s recommended Alternative E to the open house. The team will also bring the CAC’s alternative they will be recommending; however, they will not bring all of the alternatives to the public meeting. How will south La Cholla Boulevard look with the intersection expanded at Ruthrauff Road and the possibility of La Cholla Boulevard being expanded past Wetmore Road? After passing through the intersection, the roadway will gradually narrow back to two lanes. There are no plans in the 20-year plan to widen La Cholla Boulevard in that area. The traffic counts collected do not anticipate much growth. If Alternative D purchases both sides of La Cholla Boulevard, there would not be frontage roads. Would the cost be reduced because frontage roads would not be needed? No, there would be other costs incurred like wider lanes. Dean referred the members to Page 50 of their draft DCR to see which houses would be purchased and what the roadway would look like. Money is tight on this project and Dean stated that PCDOT already has the right-of-way needed to build Alternative E. Dean stated that the team still had the EAMR to brief the members on. He said that the EAMR has a lot of the same information, as the DCR and Scott Stapp, HDR Engineering, would be presenting the EAMR to the members. The EAMR begins with the executive summary. Scott stated that the summary only summarizes the information that is written in the report, so he is strongly urging everyone to read the entire report prior to reading the summary. After the title page of the EAMR, there will be a table of contents that will outline what is in the report. The actual report begins on page one, after the executive summary. For your reference, the executive summary portion has ES before each page number. Scott again stated that the draft EAMR has most of the same information as the draft DCR. This EAMR contains: Chapter 1 – Background – project cost and funding, direction by BOS, and project design process Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need Chapter 3 – Project Setting 4 Chapter 4 – Proposed Project Chapter 5 – Environmental Screening Chapter 6 – Environmental Assessment and Mitigation – Natural/Physical Environment; biological resources, drainage and clean water act, floodplain, air quality, noise, utilities, hazardous materials, construction activities, cultural resources, visual resources; and Neighborhood/Social Environment; right-of-way acquisition, temporary and permanent access and parking impacts, neighborhood disruption, parks and recreational areas, consistency with other plans Chapter 7 – Agency Coordination Chapter 8 – Public Participation – public participation activities; community comments Chapter 9 – Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter10 – References Chapter11 – Abbreviations and Acronyms Scott told members to refer to Chapter 10 in order to get information on the documentation used in this report. He referred members to Chapter 11 for a list of acronyms that will be used throughout the documents. He also pointed members to the inside cover of their booklets where a CD is located that includes all the text and appendices in the document. Scott referred everyone to table ES – 7, which is the summary for the environmental impacts and recommendations. He stated that in the summary it would show potential impacts, recommended mitigation, agency coordination and consultation and parties responsible for implementation. Scott mentioned was there were cultural sites found and the design of the roadway was slightly altered to avoid the sites. These sites will continue to be monitored during the course of construction. There was also a lot of past discussion regarding traffic noise. The entire study is contained in this report and what areas were found to warrant sound barriers as a result of the noise study. Another area of concern was hazardous material. Because of the potential of hazardous material from prior businesses, trenches were dug along the corridor and soil samples were gathered. The area was found to be free of any hazardous material. Borings were also done where known storage tanks were located once known to have been leaking. No concerns were noted with the extensive investigations that took place as a part of this report. Scott took a moment to explain to everyone how to read the main report. He asked the members to turn to Page 18 of their report. Under Section 6.1.1, the CAC would find the Biological Resources section of the report. Under this section the members will find the existing conditions, what permits are needed, potential impacts and mitigation measures. Each chapter has this information available along with addititional supporting documentation as warranted. This report was based on Alternative E. Scott stated that some of this information would change if another alternative were to be chosen. For example, if the design moves out of the existing right-ofway, there may need to be additional contamination testing done to ensure the area is safe to work in. There were several questions from the CAC regarding the EAMR as follows: Where are the cultural sites located that were mentioned? That information is excluded from the public record to ensure the areas stay undisturbed. I was under the understanding that there were not any sites located in this project area? There are no cultural resources within the project site; however, there are some sites that are adjacent to the project area that will be monitored. 5 Dean took a moment to point everyone to Pages ES – 12 and 13. This section contains a summary of the CAC and public concerns within the project area. More detail on this subject could be found in the main document beginning on Page 67. There is also information in the Appendix on public art. Ellie Towne, CAC member, was on the selection committee to choose the artist that will work on this project. Vicki Scuri from Seattle Wash. was chosen as the artist on this project. There is not a lot of information at this point. She has some preliminary concepts she is working on. When the project is further along, she will come to Tucson and meet with the CAC to discuss her ideas on the public art that will be along La Cholla Boulevard. She is currently exploring art on the railing of the bridge and noise barrier walls. She will want the input from the committee when she is ready to move forward in her designs. Will she be aware of all the safety features that will be a part of this project? Yes, she will have all the necessary information when it is time to move forward. Are there noise walls needed for Alternative D? Noise walls will not be needed with Alternative D because both sides of the roadway would be purchased eliminating the need for sound mitigation. Dean stated that Scott would be available for any noise questions. What if some residents don’t want walls where walls are warranted? If noise walls are still warranted upon approval from the BOS, there is a process the team will go through to find out who wants the walls in the areas where noise walls could be added. There has to be a majority of approval for each wall in order for the wall to be constructed. Are all the documents in this report specific to Alternative E? All the alternatives are presented in this report. PCDOT’s recommendation is Alternative E, which stays within the current right of way, meets the mandates of the County and disrupts as few residents in the area as possible. Dean stated that since there were no further questions, he wanted to remind everyone of the public open house which would be held on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008, from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. at the Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center. Dean reminded the CAC that their responsibility would include reading through the documents to get prepared to write their letter to the BOS. Dean stated that it would be up to the CAC if they wanted to use the letter that the CAC sent to the BOS in January; however, they could write a new one if they felt it was necessary. The public has a two-week period after the open house in which comments can be received. Those comments will be given to the CAC for their review. The members should have their letter completed near the end of September. Dean stated that if there were any individual questions, the team would stay to answer those specific questions. Can the CAC get a copy of the mailing list? The members would like to send information to the people who received the invitation to the open house. Carol Brichta, PCDOT Community Relations, stated she would have to check to see if that would be possible. Dean stated that he would like the CAC and PCDOT to work together on any mailing that goes out to the community; it is important the CAC and PCDOT work as a team in this process. Dean 6 stated the team would be happy to have questions on the survey if the CAC wanted specific concerns addressed with the public. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 7 Pima County Department of Transportation (P.C.D.O.T.) will be holding an open house meeting to provide conceptual design information on the widening of LaCholla Boulevard from Ruthrauff Road to River Road. Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations for effective participation and communication in the meeting may call Community Relations at 740-6410 by September 4 to make appropriate arrangements. All meeting sites are accessible. 10 l With this open house format, you may stop in any time between 5:30 to 7:30 to view the project displays and to interact with project staff. We hope you will come to share your thoughts about the project. ROLLER COASTER RD. RR D. Ri lito Riv e r RUTHRAUFF RD. E RIV N WETMORE RD. FLOWING WELLS Proposed improvements consist of: six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new six-lane bridge over the Rillito river, a raised landscaped median, and urban design (public art). Project design is approximately at the 30% stage. Information from the Design Concept Report (DCR) and the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR) will be presented at the open house. Team members will be available to informally discuss roadway design, bridge design, drainage design, proposed sound barrier walls, and other project features. The open house is intended to keep the public informed on project progress and to provide a forum for public input that will be provided to the Board of Supervisors with the EAMR prior to Board approval. CURTIS RD. OBETKA AV La Cholla Boulevard from Ruthrauff Road to River Road Improvement Project ROMERO RD. OPEN HOUSE Thursday, September 11, 2008 Stop by between 5:30 -7:30 p.m. Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center 1660 W. Ruthrauff Road LA CHOLLA BLVD. Pima County Department of Transportation PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE, FOURTH FLOOR TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 PRISCILLA S. CORNELIO, P. E. DIRECTOR (520) 740-6410 FAX (520) 838-7537 September 3, 2008 Dear Community Member: Pima County is planning roadway improvements on La Cholla Boulevard from Ruthrauff Road to River Road and would like your input. Proposed improvements consist of: six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new six-lane bridge over the Rillito river, a raised landscaped median, and urban design (public art). The enclosed project information sheet provides additional background on the project An open house to present preliminary design concepts has been planned for September 11, 2008, from 5:30-7:30 at the Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center at 1660 W. Ruthruaff Road. If you were unable to attend or did not already complete a survey at the open house, we would still like to hear from you. Please consider completing the enclosed survey and returning it by Sept. 26 to the address listed at the bottom of the survey. All feedback received by this date will be summarized and placed in the project report given to the Community Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors. We look forward to receiving your survey. Sincerely, Dean Papajohn, P.E. Project Manager Encl. La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Project Information 1. What are the benefits of the project? • Provides a safe parkway-type alternative north-south route to Oracle Road. • Continues and connects recently completed widening projects on La Cholla south of Magee Road to River Road. • Provides access to I-10 via Ruthrauff Road. • Improves mobility, access, and safety for busses. • Improves bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety. • Provides ADA accessible transit stops. • Enhances the right-of-way with landscape and urban design (public art). 2. What type of improvements will the project contain? • Proposed improvements include: six travel lanes, paved shoulders for bicycles, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains, intersection improvements at Curtis and at Ruthrauff, a new six-lane bridge over the Rillito river, a raised landscaped median, and urban design (public art). • Walls to mitigate sound are feasible if determined desirable by adjacent property owners. • The voters of Pima County approved the scope of this project in the RTA vote of 2006. 3. How long will it take to improve La Cholla Boulevard? • Design is at approximately 30%, with approximately 16 months of design work remaining. Procurement of a contractor takes approximately 3-9 months. Construction takes approximately 18-24 months. 4. How wide is the La Cholla Boulevard right-of-way? • The right-of-way is 150’ wide. The County acquired this right-of-way prior to 1960 in anticipation of widening La Cholla Boulevard. Much of the property adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard was zoned multi-use prior to any development to allow flexibility with private property as La Cholla Boulevard became busier and expanded over the years. 5. Will there be public input on this project? • A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has met with the design team six times so far. Input from the CAC is considered in design and all CAC input is shared with the Board of Supervisors before preliminary design concepts are approved. • Open Houses are held to provide project updates to the public and to receive input from the public. The first open house was held in March 2008. A community survey will be conducted in conjunction with the September 2008 open house. 6. How can I learn more about the project? • The project web site is at: http://www.roadprojects.pima.gov/LaChollaRiver/ • Specific questions can be directed to: Carol Brichta, Pima County Community Relations, 740-6410. September 11, 2008 La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey September 11, 2008 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla? (check all that apply) I live in rented property adjacent to this section of La Cholla. I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla. I own rental property in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla. I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla. Other, please explain. 2. Please describe what you like about this project ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Name: ______________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________ City: ____________________________________State:______________________ Zip: _______________________ e-mail: _______________________________________________ Telephone: Please return by Friday September 26, 2008 to: Carol Brichta, Pima County Community Relations Office, 201 N. Stone 4th floor, Tucson, Arizona 85701 or Fax to 740-6439 or email to carol.brichta@dot.pima.gov Project information can be viewed at: http://www.roadprojects.pima.gov/LaChollaRiver/ Pima County Department of Transportation La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Open House Summary Date, Location and Time o Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008 o Ellie Towne Flowing Wells Community Center o 6 to 8 p.m. Public Notification • Postcard announcing meeting mailed: o Week of Aug. 11, 2008 o Mailed to approximately 900 residents and businesses in a one-half-mile radius of the project area • Newspaper notification: o Arizona Daily Star – Aug. 27, 2008 o Daily Territorial – Aug. 27, 2008 • Web site: o Meeting date and time was posted on project Web site • Business outreach o Sept. 2 and 3, 2008; attempted to or made contact with 62 businesses along the corridor Team Attendance • Pima County: Priscilla Cornelio, Rick Ellis, Ali Fermawi, Ana Olivares, Dean Papajohn, Annabelle Quihuis • HDR Engineering: Larry Barela, Mike Barton, Catherine Bolm, Ted Buell, Martha Davis, Christine Jacobs-Donoghue, Bethy McGehee, Arturo Ledesma • McGann & Associates: Darlene Showalter • City of Tucson Water Department: Patricia Eisenberger • Regional Transportation Authority (RTA); MainStreet Program: Britton Dornquast, Steve Taylor • SunTran: Bea Paulus • Gordley Design Group: Barb Alley, Arizeder Urreiztieta Public Attendance • 50 Comments • Six comments received at the open house • Thirty one comments received during the two-week period following the open house Materials • Comment forms • Fact sheets • Sign-in sheets Agenda • Introductory remarks: Sharon Bronson, Pima County Board of Supervisor • Question-and-answer session • Team introductions 1 • Review displays with one-on-one interaction Displays • Bridge design • City of Tucson Water • Environmental • Landscape design • Roadway Design (two display tables) • RTA MainStreet • SunTran Room Set-up • Sign-in table • Refreshment table • Eight display tables set up around the room • Seating for approximately 45 people with podium Signs • A-frame signs to direct traffic into parking lot and facility 2 La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Address Phone E-mail 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? 2. Please describe what you like about this project. 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. Comments received at the Open House Basterfield, Gary and Jackie Erickson, Bill 5745 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85741 4967 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 609-6969 The reason we like this project is because it will help with traffic congestion in the area along La Cholla Boulevard. I own rental property in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Please make sure the bike lanes are wide enough. Also, at Ruthrauff Road and La Cholla Boulevard, is it possible to have right-turn arrows? Too many people make the right turn on red to beat out the people making a left turn off of Ruthrauff Road onto La Cholla Boulevard. Taggers spray painting on the sound barrier wall. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Jarvis, James 4935 N. Jay Ave. P.O. Box 50703 Tucson, AZ 85705 888-2497 I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I like the three-lane each way design. Please include wide sidewalks and Hopefully it will prevail. bike lanes. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Trees are great, but please don't put them too close to intersections. They are hard to see around when you are turning onto the busy, fast roadway. Bushes are great. I am concerned about the "cut-through" traffic on Jay Avenue right now, as well as what can be planned to protect our neighborhood during construction. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Krueger, Wendy 2211 W. Calle Narciso Tucson, AZ 85705 349-3844 Metz, Wayne 4901 W. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 887-0553 Steckman, Laura 5484 N. Bramble Brook Ln. Tucson, AZ 85704 I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. La Cholla Boulevard and Calle Narciso raised median makes it very difficult to turn north. ps341@msn.com I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. More lanes. The County plans to take away parking in front of my home, subjects me to increased noise as no wall will be built in front of my home. This also subjects me to increased safety risk due to increased lanes and will lower my property value. laurafree@comcast.net I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Well organized presentations for the community. Can drivers heading south on La Cholla Boulevard make U-turns? If not, please allow for them. The current plans will bring the road Please approve Alternative D. within 12 to 15 feet of my home. This will subject me to increased noise and air pollution and the County plans do not really provide for landscaping unless they opt for alternate plans. Please allow U-turns at double left-turn lanes. I cannot exit out of my house on the northeast corner of River Road to go east onto River Road because there is too much traffic. Comments received after the Open House Bender, Dick Shamrock Dairy 1900 W. Ruthrauff Rd. Tucson, AZ 85705 887-0300 I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. It will help to relieve congestion. Green, Mary 1949 W. Paul Pl. Tucson, AZ 85705 887-2932 I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. It would no longer be necessary to This is a much needed improvement. I hope the median landscaping will be merge to one lane when driving well taken care of - landscaping along south on La Cholla Boulevard - it is both sides of Ruthrauff Road needs dangerous. Also, it would trimming. considerably improve the whole area. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Page 1 I hope it would require a general clean-up of properties around the area. La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Address Phone E-mail 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? 2. Please describe what you like about this project. 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. Horn, Marvin 4961 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 887-1056 I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Everything about this project will in some way affect us negatively. By increasing traffic, smog and decreasing property values. We feel that the design elements will be a problem because of limited space. The traffic and its elements will be too close to our home. We are disappointed about the proposed complicated roadways and lack of access to emergency vehicles and pedestrians. Again, we feel all of these elements are not improvements and will increase noise, pollution, decrease street access and our overall property value will go down. We will no longer have a view. Hoxsie, Dolores 4661 N. Brightside Dr. Tucson, AZ 85705 603-9509 I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. It will move traffic faster and safer. What about the bridge? Noise control? Making the road six lanes is great, along with better lanes for bicycles, etc. - great! We would like something (and maybe We have only been here three years, this is in the plan) put up to hide the but would love to see that area cleaned unsightly trailers and homes that are up. on the other side of Curtis Road. Also, the Quick Mart Family Foods needs to be cleaned up. 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. We were not aware that this area was to become a business area. The quality of our neighborhood has vastly decreased. We will no longer have access for visitors. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Langford, Dave and Patty 2049 W. Brittain Dr. Tucson, AZ 85705 203-6319 pattylangford@yahoo. com I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. We live in Edgebrook 1. Moreno, Rosalino 4971 N. Mathews Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 408-1160 Muhs, Peggy 5513 N. Silver Stream Way Tucson, AZ 85704 408-5235 pjmuhs@aol.com I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. All proposed improvements. I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Everything!!! Much needed project! Sorry we couldn't make the meeting, my husband is out of town and I work until 7:30 or 8 p.m. We would be pleased to support this project! A traffic signal is needed at the Calle Narciso and La Cholla Boulevard intersection. With all the improvements, the problem will be worse. This should be a continuation of La Cholla Boulevard as far as design. I think the art work should be minimal as the area is prone to taggers, and maintenance and clean-up is a real concern to be figured into the project. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Loflin, Isabell 4921 N. River Vista Tucson, AZ 85705 I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Improved bicycle mobility, safety and In the process of redoing the bridge, better bridge crossing for bicycles. the bike and hiking path along the Rillito River should be repaved. I am glad the area will be brightened up with public art and landscaping. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Peterman, Dan and Eleanor 1940 W. Paul Pl. Tucson, AZ 85705 396-8099 nanapeterman7777@ comcast.net I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. There will be no more traffic congestion. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Page 2 As long as there will be turning lanes, Noise is a factor. I will be happy. When will this work begin? La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Logan, Belinda Address 2232 W. Calle Fortunado Tucson, AZ 85705 Phone E-mail 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 2. Please describe what you like about this project. I like the idea of the extra lane for traffic flow. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Page 3 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. Why six lanes? I believe that is too many lanes. Will this affect the road between Wetmore Road and Ruthrauff Road with the schools? 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. Noise would be a concern. 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Ratje, Jeff Address 1938 W. Alder Grove Dr. Tucson, AZ 85704 Phone 408-8269 E-mail jmratje@hotmail.com 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 2. Please describe what you like about this project. 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. The increased traffic around River Road As someone who lives in the area, and La Cholla Boulevard proves a traffic has grown exponentially due problem for the growing number of to the work on I-10. I am concerned residences and new home construction. this area will become so busy it is not nice to live here anymore. Noise Mitigation is necessary. Traffic mitigation needs to be looked at. Enhanced SunTran routes might Also, graffiti is a big problem here. Anti- help with this. graffiti materials and a dedication to remove it quickly need to be factored in. I own property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Finish the major roadway improvements for River Road and La Cholla Boulevard. Don't forget roadside visual barriers where needed. Make sure there is good visual roadside Consider roundabouts at major barriers along ugly post development intersections. See attachment of areas like La Cholla Boulevard - not like Roundabout in Carmel, Indiana. La Cholla Boulevard on the north side of River Road on the west side - ugly missing sections. I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. A left-turn lane at La Cholla Boulevard and Calle Narciso. It is almost impossible to make a left turn onto La Cholla Boulevard. Please give us an attractive wall - not This work needs to be done and it will the ugly multicolored wall north of make getting around much easier. River Road. The wall between Orange Grove Road and Ina Road is very pretty and would add to the neighborhood. Upgrades! Newness! I would prefer a more aesthetic and pleasing view of this area with provisions for safety components. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 5559 N. Silver Stream Rd. Tucson, AZ 85704 293-1153 Stash, Betty Ann 2151 W. Calle Narciso Tucson, AZ 85705 887-3273 cozetts@aol.com I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Thompson, Lori 4783 N. Woodside Dr. Tucson, AZ 85705 thomploe@gmail.com I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I would prefer to see less of the unattractive homes and businesses along the La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road area. I regularly walk or bike through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Wiewel, Martha 1847 W. Waterleaf Dr. Tucson, AZ 85704 887-2957 marthawiewel@msn.com I own property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I would like to bike from La Cholla Boulevard to Ruthrauff Road and I would like to bike on Ruthrauff Road to Sweetwater Drive. Bike lanes - sidewalk and other improvements as you desire. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Zumpano, Leonard 4716 N. Woodside Dr. Tucson, AZ 85705 690-7349 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. I ride SunTran from this area to work It would be nice to have each day. The bus improvements are improvements to the River Walk as a welcome addition. The landscape part of construction. median over the bridge is also a nice design element. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Smith, William 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I feel this would help reduce traffic congestion. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Page 4 This would help with traffic flow. Access and to be able to pull off the road with commuter traffic buses would not slow up the traffic flow, especially during rush hour. I would like to be informed on the progress, I was unable to attend the meeting due to illness. Perhaps have medians with landscaping. Maybe a barrier wall hiding the homes and businesses along La Cholla Boulevard (south of River Road to Ruthrauff Road). Please do not plant trees or bushes. People throw trash under them and we do not have the dollars to keep them trimmed. Plant ocotillos, saguaros or golden barrels. Natural landscape trees, bushes and cactus would bring improvements. This project sounds good to me. I want to thank you for the work you accomplish for the County. I would like to see the debris picked up more often, especially along River Road. The trees need to be trimmed. This should improve traffic flow and hopefully reduce accidents due to impatience in long lines at the light. La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Address Phone E-mail Anonymous 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. 2. Please describe what you like about this project. After widening Ruthrauff Road and all the improvements there, La Cholla Boulevard is woefully lacking in space for cars driving down it. I think this will improve La Cholla Boulevard. 5140 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 797-0603 Molis, Frank 2385 W. Wave Hill Ct. Tucson, AZ 85705 888-2000 Morse, Dwayne and Heather 5150 N. La Cholla Blvd. #2 Tucson, AZ 85705 I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. There is quite a bit of dust around the side of the roads. I would hope that they would tar that area to cut down on the amount of dust that comes from the side of the road. 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. Seasonally they get a lot of water in the wash. I hope diligence is taken to make sure that this area is safe, especially for businesses that are near the wash. I like those multi-colored walls that are Hopefully the area around the wash further down on La Cholla Boulevard. I will be improved for bikers. I hope hope color is used on this project. they put appropriate speed limit signs - that is a real speed zone and I have seen several accidents in that area in the past few months. I worry for those who will be working in the area. I use Ruthrauff Road and La Cholla Boulevard at least once a day. Nita Ruth's, LLC (Nita Freeman) 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. Widening. The islands make it impossible to get This also affects other property owners into my property from the north. We and businesses south of the bridge. need a center lane. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. It is about time. There needs to be two left turns off of Ruthrauff Road to go north on La Cholla Boulevard. There have been as many as 25 cars backed up trying to make that turn. I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. (We have owned our business in this location for 15 years.) The road construction will beautify the area and hopefully move the traffic more efficiently down La Cholla Boulevard. We have major concerns about the We would like to see the improvement access in and out of the narrow drive of the road and neighborhood, but not off of La Cholla Boulevard. We have compromising our access for business. semi tractor trailers with steel loads in and out frequently. The inability to make a left-hand turn in and out of the property will cause time delays and safety concerns. There are four businesses that would be affected by this. Three of which utilize semi tractor trailers. We would like you to consider a southbound turn lane into the property for ease of access and also widening the driveway to facilitate ingress and egress with large/long loads. 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. I would just like to be kept in the loop in terms of progress and suggestions for keeping us safe for those who are working in the area, and realize that this will take some time. Keep law enforcement in the loop to keep everyone safe. But, I approve this project. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. dwayne@stlmfg.com STL Manufacturing Calhoon, Don 4770 W. Benjamen Rd. Tucson, AZ 85743 572-8455 906-2344 I own a rental property in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. (4932 N. La Cholla Boulevard) I am not interested in a high wall in front of property or selling property as I just finished building a duplex. I question property values and relocation expenses if it comes to that. Page 5 We would also like to know about any plans for sewage service for any of the businesses. We (for the most part have septic systems) would like to know if a pump system will be put in place. We need to be able to maintain fulltime access throughout the work week during construction. We have delivery trucks in and out, and also our own service trucks are in and out frequently. I am not happy with a ten-foot high wall on one-way access roads La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Address Shurtz, Bill 4944 N. Jay Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 Van Echo, Jay 6750 W. El Camino del Cerro Tucson, AZ 85745 Kunk, Clem and Donna 5120 N. La Cholla Blvd. #2 Tucson, AZ 85705 Phone 299-8700 888-1923 E-mail jay.vanecho@dmjmharris .com cdgaragedoors@yahoo .com 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? 4911 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 744-0600 clfcpa@qwestoffice.com 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. I like the new look for this area. Lighting. I am looking forward to the new and improved look in this area. I am hoping to get speed bumps on Jay Avenue from La Cholla Boulevard to Ruthrauff Road. This should not be a by-pass. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. (Daily commute to/from work) Intersection improvements to La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road, the new bridge and the capacity improvements to River Road and Ruthrauff Road. 1) If only four lanes are needed, only build four lanes and save dollars. 2) Do not purchase right of way if not needed. 3) Do not build unnecessary walls if applicable. 4) Be frugal with RTA dollars and build what is required per traffic, drainage and structural standards. I appreciate the landscape (native vegetation) and public art on RTA projects within budgetary constraints. Be aware of the east- to- north and south- to- west movements at the intersection and time the signal accordingly. Be aware of the rightin/right-out access to Wal-Mart and police accordingly - the public is not obeying signage. I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. norman@acstone.com Accutax P.C 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Franzen, Norman and Charlene 2. Please describe what you like about this project. 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Control access points close to the intersection. It will bring more traffic by our It is vital that there is a turn lane business and stop the bottle-necking for southbound traffic into our at the bridge. parking lot that contains six businesses. We all have frequent deliveries including semi trucks at our business and the business located at 5050 N. La Cholla Blvd. Those will not affect us. We like the improved traffic flow, We do not like the proposed sound safety features and aesthetic value to barrier. Our property is zoned MU. the area. It was converted to business use many years ago. The value of the property is dependent on clear and convenient access from La Cholla Boulevard. Our ability to use the property for any type of business would be destroyed by the proposed wall. We are not in favor of the proposed sound barriers (see response to question #3). Additionally, the block walls would be hideous without any paint or artwork. The aesthetic value of the project would be lost. It would be difficult for drivers to find the entrance to the west side of the frontage road. The wall would make it difficult for northbound drivers to see the entrance and how to access it. They would have to watch for the entrance between the end of the wall and the bus stop, at the same time as trying to see through three lanes of oncoming traffic and searching for a place to turn around in order to get to the properties on the west side. The bus stop would obscure the entrance for southbound traffic. We do not like the proposed one-way access of the frontage roads. We would prefer two-way access. Page 6 If there is no turn lane incorporated in to the plan, many delivery trucks will not be able to turn around traveling southbound. This entrance is at the south end of other businesses. La Cholla Boulevard: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Public Opinion Survey Sept. 11, 2008 Name Stallings, Doug Address Phone E-mail 1. What is your primary interest in La Cholla Boulevard? 2. Please describe what you like about this project. 3. Please list any comments you have about design elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, median, intersections, utilities, drainage, access, etc. 4. Please list any other comments you have about environmental elements of the proposed roadway improvements, such as landscape, noise, visual impacts, etc. 5. Please provide any other general comments you have about the project. 5150 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 293-4400 dougie4723@aol.com I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. It will help east traffic back-ups and reduce car accidents. It will improve the look of the area. I am concerned that there is no turn lane going south to turn left, as there are may businesses that have large trucks and other vehicles in and out all day. How will anyone going south be able to get to our business? Will I lose my parking? Lafferty, Oakley 5150 N. La Cholla Blvd., #2 Tucson, AZ 85705 408-7647 oakleylafferty@comcast .net I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Road improvements are sorely needed on this very busy section. Extra lanes and the bridge are a plus. The left-turn lane with arrow northbound onto Curtis Road is clearly needed. The proposed bull nose at the Landscaping and other visual We strongly request a southbound entrance to 5150 N. La Cholla impacts, while important, should clearly turn lane into our business from the Boulevard is a restriction to our be secondary to functionality. southbound lane. A widened entrance access. We have many vehicles, large would also be a great help with the trucks included, both from our traffic from the bar at the back of the business and our suppliers who will complex. have difficulty with this plan. (See attached.) Iannarino, Robert 2200 E. River Road, Ste. 115 Tucson, AZ 85718 577-0200 biannarino@diamondven. com I own the property in which I live in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Implementation of RTA Period I roadway improvements. It is expected the roadway will be completed by 2011 and will help traffic improvement. 1) The project needs to meet the voter mandated budget of 14 million dollars. 2) Based on number 1, the project should be designed for four lanes instead of six lanes. 3) The underground storm drainage should be value engineered to take care of the two-year storm event. 4) The bus stop on the northwest corner, adjacent to the Circle K, should accommodate AFNI employees, inclusive of their handicapped employees who have asked for special bus accommodations. Please contact SunTran. 5) It appears the access locations to serve the southeast corner of River Road and La Cholla Boulevard are adequate. The extra travel lanes and medians. A noise wall is needed when you look at future traffic counts. Backwoods RV Diamond Ventures, Inc. I own rental property in the area adjacent to this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Hendricks, Terry 2135 W. Calle Fortunado Tucson, AZ 85705 888-4789 I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. See attached. Visual impact should be conducive to the marketability of our property. Hardscaping and landscaping should be consistent with the architectural theme already established for the southeast corner. 243-1832 My home is 300 feet from La Cholla Boulevard. Lee, Ken 5150 N. La Cholla Blvd. #2 Tucson, AZ 85705 292-1779 I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. It improves the neighborhood and traffic flow. We need access through median for large semi truck deliveries to 5150 #2 N. La Cholla Boulevard. Montgomery Auto 5150 N. La Cholla Blvd. #A Tucson, AZ 85705 407-9456 I own or work in a business on this section of La Cholla Boulevard. The effort being made to keep businesses and residents along La Cholla Boulevard aware of what is being proposed and considering their input. I am concerned about the lack of I think walls and any landscape would an entrance into the business be a huge improvement. center because of a raised median, no parking outside the fenced area or room to stop to open gate. I am fully aware you can not accommodate everyone, but these are our concerns. I regularly drive through this section of La Cholla Boulevard. Page 7 Adhere to the RTA budget and schedule for Period I completion! This includes capping the number of Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings to assure the Period I schedule can be met. Bus shelters are needed. CST. C L & S L Existing R/W 6% 2% Varies 2% Existing R/W 2% 2% Varies CST. C L & S L Existing R/W 4:1 2% 2% 6% Existing R/W 2% 2% 4:1 CST. C L & S L Existing R/W 6% 2% Varies 2% Existing R/W 2% 2% Varies CST. C L & S L Existing R/W 4:1 2% 2% 6% Existing R/W 2% 2% 4:1 TYPICAL SECTION - NEW SB & NB BRIDGE 1 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road (4LCITR) Summary of Public Opinion Questionnaire of September 2008 La Cholla Boulevard is a capital improvement project that impacts many residents of Pima County. Currently 23,000-28,000 vehicles per day drive this segment of La Cholla Boulevard. By 2030 it is anticipated that 41,000-44,000 vehicles per day will drive this segment. This use comes from the local community as well as those coming to or driving through the area. According to the Public Participation and Mitigation Ordinance, section 10.56.130, a public opinion questionnaire was circulated to all property owners within a half mile of the project. Of the approximately 900 people contacted, 37 returned the questionnaire. County residents approved this project with the 2006 RTA vote. The RTA vote along with this low response rate suggests that the project is perceived as needed. The most common comment in the questionnaire responses, mentioned 22 times, was that additional lanes and congestion relief that the proposed plans provides is much needed. Eight responses indicated that the project would bring overall improvement to the area. Example responses to “please describe what you like about the project” include: “All proposed improvements.” and “Everything!!! Much needed project!” However, not everyone is pleased as reflected in this comment, “Everything about this project will in some way affect us negatively, by increasing traffic, smog, and decreasing property values.” Depending on an individual’s situation they may perceive the La Cholla Boulevard improvements as a negative or a positive change. Traffic was one area mentioned by a number of people. Three different people commented, “Making the road six lanes is great.” and “I like the three-lane each way design.” and “It will bring more traffic by our business.” Two other people countered, “Why six lanes? I believe that is too many lanes.” and “The project should be designed for four lanes instead of six lanes.” Safety is another issue drawing differing opinions. Five people specifically mentioned the safety benefits of the project. For example, one person stated, “This should improve traffic flow and hopefully reduce accidents due to impatience in long lines at the light.” On the other hand, one person mentioned reduced safety and two mentioned the nearness of traffic to homes as a safety concern. One person commented on the proximity of the road to his home, noting, “This also subjects me to increased safety risk due to increased lanes…” Sound barrier walls received varying comments as well, with six people commenting on them favorably and two commenting against them. Those in favor of walls explained, “I think walls and any landscape would be a huge improvement.” and “Don’t forget roadside visual barriers where needed.” Those against walls for this project stated, “I am not interested in a high wall in front of property.” and “We do not like the proposed sound barrier. Our property is zoned M.U. … Our ability to use the property for any type of business would be destroyed by the proposed walls.” The property north of Jay Avenue on the east and north of Calle Narciso on the west is zoned MU. These properties vary from primary residences, to residential rentals, to commercial properties. Therefore, it is understandable that this mixed use bring mixed ideas on what the area should look like. While a number of people have asked the County to buy adjacent properties, a number of property owners do not want to sell their property, stating, “I am not interested in …selling property as I just finished building a duplex.” One resident felt like the County should not go over budget by acquiring property, stating, “Do not purchase right of way if not needed.” How properties are used also relates to property value. This issue of value drew differing views as well. Some saw the project as enhancing value, stating, “I like the new look for this area.” Another person believes, “…our overall property value will go down.” The issue of access is important to a number of people as well. Some see the medians as a means of increasing safety. One person in favor of medians stated, “Control access points close to the intersection.” On the other hand, some people saw the medians as detrimental to their businesses. One person stated, “The islands make it impossible to get into my property from the north. We need a center lane.” and another person said, “It is vital that there is a turn lane for southbound traffic into our parking lot…” The comments received from the 37 respondents mentioned a variety of topics. In general, the respondents like the increased roadway capacity, turn lanes, bridge, sidewalk, bike lanes, transit access, park access, landscape, and public art. Opinions varied on issues such as number of lanes needed, level of safety, use of walls, type of landscape and art, impact to property values, whether property should be acquired, and whether medians should control access. This diversity of opinion is normal for a Capital Improvement Project since County residents have differing perspectives depending whether they own property adjacent to the right of way, or within a nearby neighborhood, or if they commute to or through the area. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix B Environmental Screening Memorandum Memo To: Ted Buell From: René Tanner CC: Scott Stapp Date: October 31, 2007 Project: La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Job No: 59914 RE: Results Memorandum for Environmental Screening Multiple sources were consulted to complete the environmental screening inventory for the La Cholla Boulevard project. They include the scope of work, team discussions, a field review, the Pima County Geographic Information System (MapGuide), the Initial Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, River Road to Ruthrauff Road, the Sun Tran bus route map, aerial photography, the Arizona Department of Transportation Environmental Planning Group Web site, the Regional Transportation Authority Web site, and information provided at the Citizen Advisory Committee meeting and monthly progress meetings. The project will require: • agency scoping, • public involvement, • cultural resources compliance, • a biology review, • western burrowing owl surveys, • removal of unoccupied mud swallow nests on the bridge prior to construction, • a noise analysis, • Phase I and Phase II hazardous materials investigations and testing, • Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting, and Clean Water Act Section 402 permitting (if disturbances are greater than 1 acre), • asbestos testing of the bridge’s concrete, and possible National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) notification through the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PCDEQ) for bridge demolition, • possible Pima County Asbestos Removal/Demolition Activity Permit, and • an Air Quality Activity Permit from PCDEQ, obtained by the contractor, for particulate matter control during construction. Phase II hazardous materials testing at the intersection of Ruthrauff Road and La Cholla Boulevard was included in the original scope; however, Phase II testing in the area of two closed landfills within the project area was not, but is recommended. Likewise, asbestos testing of the bridge’s concrete structure and lead testing of any painted surfaces are also recommended. These items were not included in the original scope, but can be included in the Phase II testing work. La Cholla Boulevard is a designated scenic route because of its proximity to the Rillito River and, therefore, environmentally sensitive roadway design guidelines would normally apply to this project. However, because the project area is visually characterized by mostly urban development and lacks areas of native vegetation, the Pima County Project Manager requested that the designation be waived. The design team was informed at the partnering workshop on July 24, 2007 that the requirement to use the environmentally sensitive roadway design guidelines had been waived. Agency Scoping and Public Involvement The agency scoping meeting will be scheduled prior to the 60% design phase. The first Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was held on August 7, 2007. The second CAC meeting was held on October 2, 2007. Members of the public have identified concerns regarding the traffic on La Cholla Boulevard. In particular, they noted that traffic backs up on La Cholla Boulevard and it is difficult to make left-hand turns during morning and evening rush-hour traffic. Residents have expressed concern regarding noise and safety as they relate to the close proximity of the new travel lanes to their property. They have also expressed concern regarding parking areas adjacent to their properties, which will be eliminated as a result of the roadway widening. Cultural Resources During the field visit, the consultant archaeologist and Pima County archaeologist reviewed the project area. Following the cultural resources Class III survey, archaeological subsurface backhoe testing will be conducted in areas with no surface indications of archaeological sites but with a likelihood of containing subsurface archaeological deposits. Based on the results of the survey and testing, data recovery, if necessary, will be implemented based on Pima County and State Historic Preservation Office review and concurrence. Biological Resources The Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be contacted for input during the preparation of the biological report. Based on a review of the USFWS list of threatened and endangered species for Pima County by a qualified biologist, there are no endangered or threatened species issues for the project. In addition, Pima County received confirmation from the USFWS that there is no suitable habitat for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in the project area; therefore, surveys by others will discontinue. However, the project area has potential Western burrowing owl habitat near the Rillito River, and a survey for the species will be needed prior to construction. The existing bridge does not have expansion joints; therefore, bat habitat is not present and will not be a concern during construction. However, remnants 2 of mud swallow nests are present. Prior to construction and the nesting season, any intact, unoccupied mud nests must be removed from the bridge to prevent nesting. The Rillito River is a potential wildlife corridor. However, the completed project will not affect this function. Noise Levels The project is locally funded and falls under the Pima County noise policy, which considers noise mitigation when noise levels reach 66 dBA or greater. A 3 dBA noise reduction credit is given for the use of rubberized asphalt as a roadway surface treatment. While it is likely that future noise levels (2030) will exceed 66 dBA for residences closest to the road, feasibility issues, such as the need for adequate sight distance and driveway openings, may limit the ability to provide noise barriers. Hazardous Materials Phase II testing for hazardous materials is anticipated at the intersection of Ruthrauff Road and La Cholla Boulevard, where two gasoline stations and one former gasoline station site are located. Two closed landfills south of the Rillito River, one on the east side and one on the west side of La Cholla Boulevard, are also anticipated to require testing. Clean Water Act The project will occur within the Rillito River, which is assumed to be a water of the United States as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Rillito River is also identified by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District as an important riparian resource. A mitigation plan will be developed to address any impacts to this resource. Work within waters of the United States is anticipated to affect less than 0.5 acre and, therefore, covered by a nationwide Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit. The Initial Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, River Road to Ruthrauff Road was completed during the environmental screening process. The following technical documents will be completed for the project: design concept report, noise analysis, biological report, hazardous materials report, and cultural resources report. No additional issues were identified during the environmental screening process. Attachments: Attachment A – Environmental Screening: Questionnaire for Establishing Potential Areas of Impact Attachment B – Environmental Screening Summary Impact Matrix 3 Attachment A Environmental Screening: Questionnaire for Establishing Potential Areas of Impact Environmental Screening: Questionnaire for Establishing Potential Areas of Impact Revised: October 31, 2007 INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION Project Identification • Project Name: La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road • Pima County Project Manager: Dean Papajohn Project Location and Limits • Location of project within Pima County: La Cholla Boulevard between Ruthrauff Road and River Road • Limits of project: From end to end: Ruthrauff Road to River Road From side to side: typical right-of-way width is 150 feet Funding Source • Funding source anticipated for use in construction project? County funding: Y__x__ N ____ Federal funding: Y____ N __x__ Other: Regional Transportation Authority Source: Team discussions Primary Project Purpose • Primary purpose of project: Modernize roadway (e.g., resurface, restore, rehabilitate, reconstruct, add shoulders, or add auxiliary lanes): Y__x__ N ____ Increase capacity: Y__x__ N ____ Add bicycle lanes: Y____ N __x__ (Paved shoulders will be included for bicycle use, but this is not a primary purpose for the project.) Improve safety: Y__x__ N ____ Other: Source: Team discussions, scope of work, and Pima County Department of Transportation Web site Existing Conditions within Project Limits • Roadway specifications? Right-of-way: _150_feet Pavement width: __24__feet Number of through lanes in each direction: 1 • Number of turning lanes? Right-turn lanes: __7__ Left-turn lanes: __11__ 1 • Existing intersections? Number of signalized intersections: __3__ Number of unsignalized intersections: __12__ • Existing parking (e.g., on-street)? Y__x__ N ____ (Parking occurs haphazardly within the right-of-way and in front of many residences along La Cholla Boulevard.) • Existing bicycle lanes: Y__x__ N ____ • Existing sidewalk: Y____ N __x__ • Existing transit stops: Y__x__ N ____ • Other: Source: Pima County MapGuide; SunTran Bus Route Project Components • Anticipated specifications of the project? Amount of additional right-of-way to be acquired: Under 1 acre __x__ 1-5 acres ____ 5-10 acres ____ Over 10 acres ____ Change in the vertical or horizontal alignment: Y__x__ N ____ (The vertical alignment may need to be raised at the bridge.) New alignment: Y____ N __x__ Pavement width to be added: __48 feet__ Number of through lanes to be added: __4__ Number of turn lanes to be added: __5__ Right-turn lanes __2__ Left-turn lanes __3__ Any associated parking (e.g., on-street): Y____ N __x__ Bicycle lanes to be added: Y__x__ N ____ Sidewalk to be added: Y__x__ N ____ Landscaping to be added: Y__x__ N ____ • Number of intersections to be signalized: __0__ • Other: Additional components of the project include replacement of the bridge over the Rillito River and storm drain work to accommodate the roadway widening. Source: Team discussions, Pima County Department of Transportation Web site Phasing • Is the project: A portion or phase of a unified development plan? Y__x__ N ____ One of a series of projects that may result in a cumulative set of environmental impacts on an identifiable area? Y____ N __x__ Source: Scope of work and team discussions 2 Traffic: • Existing average daily traffic (ADT) in the project area (2007)? Street: _La Cholla Blvd. SB (btwn Wetmore Rd. & Ruthrauff Rd.) ADT: __3,977__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. NB (btwn Wetmore Rd. & Ruthrauff Rd.) ADT: __3,216__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. NB/SB (btwn Ruthrauff Rd. & Curtis Rd.) ADT: __23,149__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. SB (btwn Curtis Rd. & River Rd.) ADT: __13,384__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. NB (btwn Curtis Rd. & River Rd.) ADT: __15,025__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. SB (btwn River Rd. & Sunset Rd.) ADT: __14,101__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. NB (btwn River Rd. & Sunset Rd.) ADT: __15,743__ Street: _Ruthrauff Rd. EB/WB (btwn La Cholla Blvd. & Romero Rd.) ADT: __18,926__ • Street: _Ruthrauff Rd. WB (btwn Highway & La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: __14,911__ Street: _Ruthrauff Rd. EB (btwn Highway & La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: __13,256__ Street: _Curtis Rd. EB/WB (btwn Davis Ave. & La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: ___6,105__ Street: _River Rd. EB/WB (btwn La Cholla Blvd. & La Cañada Dr.) ADT: __36,732__ Projected ADT in the project area for the build year (2030)? Street: _La Cholla Blvd. NB/SB (btwn Ruthrauff Rd. & Curtis Rd.) ADT: __41,000__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. NB/SB (btwn Curtis Rd. & River Rd.) ADT: __44,000__ Street: _Curtis Rd. EB/WB_(W. of La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: ___7,000__ Street: _Ruthrauff Rd. EB/WB (W. of La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: __37,000__ Street: _Ruthrauff Rd. EB/WB (E. of La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: ___6,105__ Street: _River Rd. EB/WB (E. of La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: __57,000__ Street: _River Rd. EB/WB (W. of La Cholla Blvd.) ADT: __39,000__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. EB/WB (N. of River Rd.) ADT: __53,000__ Street: _La Cholla Blvd. EB/WB (S. of Ruthrauff Rd.) ADT: __11,000__ Source: Initial Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Blvd., River Rd. to Ruthrauff Rd. (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; September 2007) Land Uses • Existing adjacent land uses? Check all that apply and bold primary uses. Commercial (e.g., retail businesses, service businesses): Y__x__ N ____ Institutional (e.g., schools, hospitals, social services agencies): Y____ N __x__ Residential (e.g., single family houses, apartments, townhouses): Y__x__ N ____ Vacant lots: Y__x__ N ____ Industrial (e.g., light industry, heavy industry): Y__x__ N ____ 3 Recreational (e.g., parks, sports fields): Y____ N __x__ Other: Source: Pima County MapGuide Property Ownership • Existing land ownership: Majority public: Y____ N __x__ Majority private: Y__x__ N ____ About evenly divided between public and private: Y____ N __x__ Other: Source: Pima County MapGuide ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES Drainage • Will any storm water drain from the project discharge into detention or retentions basins on site? Y____ N __x__ Source: Team discussions Section 401/404 • Are any culverts likely to be installed, replace, or extended? Y__x__ N ____ • Are there any bridges being upgraded, extended, or replaced? Y__x__ N ____ • Is there any bank protection required in the construction of this project? Y__x__ N____ (No additional bank protection is anticipated; however, portions may need to be reconstructed.) • Are there any wetlands within the project area? Y____ N __x__ • Are there any riparian areas within the project vicinity? Y__x__ N ____ • Is it anticipated that there will be any discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States”? Y__x__ N ____ Source: Team discussions, Pima County MapGuide Floodplain • Is the project area within a 100-year floodplain delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” will the project substantially modify the topography of the floodplain either by placement or removal of materials within the floodplain? Y____ N __x__ Source: FEMA Floodplain Map Panel 1617 of 4700 Biological Resources • Are there listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and/or candidate species likely to be found in the project vicinity? Y____ N __x__ • Are listed special status species likely to be found in the project vicinity? Y__x__ N ____ • Are protected native plants likely to be found in the project vicinity? Y__x__ N ____ 4 • Are construction activities anticipated to remove/disturb any vegetation? Y__x__ N ____ • Is the project within the Conservation Land System? Y__x__ N ____ • Is the project along a designated Scenic Route? Y__x__ N ____ (River Road is a designated scenic route.) Other: The Western burrowing owl is a special-status species in Pima County. In addition, mud swallows are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both may be present within the project area. A survey for the Western burrowing owl will be completed prior to construction. It is recommended that any mud swallow nests be removed from the bridge prior to construction. A native plant inventory will be prepared by McGann and Associates. While there are native plants in the right-of-way, most have been removed over the years. Air Quality • Is the project in an: Attainment area? Y__x__ N ____ Nonattainment area? Y____ N __x__ If “yes,” what are the pollutants of concern? Maintenance area? Y__x__ N ___ If “yes,” what are the pollutants of concern? Carbon monoxide Source: ADOT Environmental Planning Group – Air Quality Maps Noise • Are there sensitive noise receptors in the area? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” identify type of noise receptors and briefly describe: Residences: __x__ (Residences are located along La Cholla Boulevard within the project area.) Schools: ____ Hospitals: ____ Churches: ____ Parks: __x__ (The Rillito River Park crosses under the Rillito River bridge.) • When the project is completed and used as anticipated, is it likely to contribute to any exceedances of noise quality standards? Y__x__ N ____ Source: Aerial photographs and project scope Utilities • Will the construction include any utility involvement? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” what kind of work is anticipated? Utility relocation: _Comcast, Pima County Wastewater, Southwest Gas, Tucson Electric Power, Tucson Water, Qwest, and Xspedius Communications___ Temporary disconnection of service: _Comcast, Southwest Gas, Tucson Electric Power, and Qwest ___ Utility replacement: _ Comcast, Pima County Wastewater, Southwest Gas, Tucson Electric Power, Tucson Water, Qwest, and Xspedius Communications ___ 5 • Are there any scheduled plans for utility upgrades in the vicinity that are related to the project? Y__x__ N ____ Tucson Water wants to extend its 12” line north to Curtis Rd. and then west on Curtis Rd. to the end of the road improvements. Source: HDR project manager and team meetings Hazardous Materials • Is it likely that any hazardous wastes or hazardous substances in the past have been generated, treated, stored, released, discarded or disposed of on site or are any such wastes now accumulated on site? Y__x__ N ____ Don’t know ____ • Have any test borings been performed? Y____ N __x__ If “yes,” were any wastes discovered on the premises in the course of the test borings or excavation work for the project? Y____ N ____ Source: HDR hazardous materials specialist Historic Preservation • Are there any cultural resources (archaeological or historic) in the vicinity of the project area that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? Y__x__ N ____ • Are any of these sites considered “Priority Cultural Resources?” Y__x__ N ____ • If the answer is “yes,” to either or both the questions above, please list the resource(s)/site(s): Hodges Ruin AZ AA:12:18 (ASM) and a prehistoric scatter recorded as AZ AA:12:29 (ASM) • Of those properties listed or eligible, are any located near enough to the project to be affected by the project location, construction, or anticipated future traffic? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” please specify the properties and very briefly the anticipated effect. Hodges Ruin AZ AA:12:18 (ASM) and a prehistoric scatter recorded as AZ AA:12:29 (ASM) will be adversely affected by the proposed construction. • Are there any structures likely to be 50 years old or older within or adjacent to the project area? Y____ N __x__ If “yes,” please list addresses below: Source: HDR and Pima County archaeologists, and Pima County Assessor’s Web site Visual Impact • Is the project likely to affect noticeably the views from adjacent properties? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” briefly describe: If noise walls are constructed, some views from adjacent properties will be affected. • Is the project likely to cause a noticeable change in the foreground, middle-ground, or background view from the road? Y__x__ N ____ (Foreground views will be changed with the addition of four travel lanes.) Source: Project scope Neighborhood/Social Impact • Is there likely to be any commercial or residential displacement due to the construction of this project? Y____ N __x__ • Are there likely to be any temporary changes in: Business access: Y__x__ N ____ 6 Parking: Y__x__ N ____ (No on- or off-street parking will be provided within the right-ofway.) Other: • Are there likely to be any permanent changes in: Traffic service: Y__x__ N ____ Traffic circulation: Y__x__ N ____ Parking: Y__x__ N ____ (The current design will eliminate off-street parking. The project will not replace parking areas.) Other: • Is the project likely to affect continuity in neighborhoods in the vicinity? Y____ N __x__ Source: Project scope and team discussions LOCAL JURISDICTION/AGENCY COORDINATION • Are there local jurisdictions and governmental agencies with whom coordination is anticipated or has begun? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” who are they? City of South Tucson ____ City of Tucson __x__ Oro Valley ____ Pascua Yaqui Tribe __x__ Tohono O’odham Nation __x__ Town of Marana ____ Town of Sahuarita ____ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) __x__ Arizona Department of Transportation ____ Arizona Game and Fish Department __x__ Arizona State Land Department ____ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers __x__ U.S. Bureau of Land Management ____ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ____ U.S. Federal Highway Administration ____ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service __x__ Pima County Parks and Recreation __x__ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality __x__ Regional Transportation Authority __x__ Sun Tran __x__ • Note any issues for coordination that have been identified to date: None. 7 • Briefly describe coordination efforts planned or underway: • Coordination with the tribes will be initiated during the cultural resources consultation. • The Arizona Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be invited to the agency scoping meeting to review the project scope. • The jurisdictional delineation and Nationwide 404 permit will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) was contacted for information regarding leaking underground storage tanks and other hazardous materials. • The project team will work with Sun Tran to plan bus pullout locations • The project team will work with the Pima County Parks and Recreation Department to gain Rillito River Park access • The County will coordinate funding for the project with the Regional Transportation Authority through an Intergovernmental Agreement. • The contractor will need to apply for a Clean Water Act Section 402 permit from ADEQ if soil disturbances are greater than one acre. • The contractor will need to apply for an air quality permit through the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for the bridge demolition work. • The contractor may need to apply for a Pima County Asbestos Removal/Demolition Activity Permit. • The contractor may need to prepare a National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) notification through the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for the bridge demolition work. Source: Scope of work and team discussions PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT • Has a Public Involvement Plan been developed for the project? Y__x__ N ____ • Has a Citizen Advisory Committee been formed, or is one being formed? Y__x__ N ____ • Have any public meetings been scheduled? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” have any meetings been held to date? Y__x__ N ____ CAC meetings were held on August 7, 2007 and October 2, 2007. • Has any information useful to project development been identified through any public interaction to date? Y__x__ N ____ If “yes,” briefly describe: Traffic backs up on La Cholla Boulevard and it is difficult to make left-hand turns during morning and evening rush-hour traffic. In addition, pedestrians are having difficultly crossing Ruthrauff Road at La Cholla Boulevard with the current timing of the light. Traffic backs up on La Cholla Boulevard at Curtis Road due to the presence of long trucks making left- and right-hand turns onto Curtis Road. Residents have expressed concern regarding the proximity of traffic to their homes as a result of the widening and the loss of their current parking. 8 Attachment B Environmental Screening Summary Impact Matrix Environmental Impact Screening Summary Impact Matrix Project Name: La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Project Limits: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Revised: October 31, 2007 Potentially Affected Environmental Categories Î Applicable to project (3) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Project Construction and Operation Activities Ð Change in the vertical or horizontal alignment New alignment Added capacity (i.e., through lanes) Milling/grading Change in access (e.g., driveways, intersections) Clearing and grubbing Excavation Cut slope Demolition Demolition debris disposal Acquisition of additional right-of-way Temporary Construction Easements Discharge of dredge or fill material Channeling and dredging Hauling New signals Storm water drainage Construction equipment Detour route Matrix Key: 0 = no involvement X = potential involvement, but no or minimal impact M = potential moderate impact H = potential high impact Water Quality 100-year Floodplain Protected Waterways Visual Quality / Viewsheds Protected Plants / Vegetation Protected Animals / Wildlife Cultural Res. (archaeological and historic) Air Quality X X X X 0 0 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X X X X 0 0 X X X X 0 0 X X X X 0 X 0 0 X X 0 X X X X X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X X Noise Hazardous Materials Land Uses / Community Character 0 M 0 X H H H H X X 0 X H 0 0 X M 0 0 X M 0 M X X 0 X X X X H 0 X H H H X 0 0 0 M X X 0 0 0 0 0 M M M X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix C Biological Resources La Cholla Boulevard Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review July 2008 Pima County Department of Transportation Work Order No. 4LCITR July 29, 2008 Mr. Dean Papajohn, PE Civil Engineering Manager Pima County Department of Transportation Public Works Building 201 N. Stone Avenue, 4th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: Biological Review La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road Work Order No. 4LCITR HDR Job No. 59914 Dear Mr. Papajohn: We are pleased to submit this Biological Review for the above-referenced project. This report was prepared by René Tanner, Senior Environmental Planner, and was reviewed by Christine Jacobs-Donoghue, Senior Environmental Planner. If you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 584-3632. Sincerely, HDR Engineering, Inc. Ted Buell, PE Project Manager Reviewed by: Christine Jacobs-Donoghue Senior Environmental Planner La Cholla Boulevard Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review July 2008 Prepared for: Pima County Department of Transportation 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 Work Order No. 4LCITR Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 5210 E. Williams Circle, Suite 530 Tucson, AZ 85711-4459 HDR Project No. 59914 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Table of Contents 1.0 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Project Description.............................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Location Description........................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Species Identification.......................................................................................................... 6 5.0 Species Evaluation and Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 12 6.0 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 13 7.0 Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 13 8.0 Project Area Photographs ................................................................................................. 14 9.0 Signature ........................................................................................................................... 14 10.0 References......................................................................................................................... 15 11.0 Abbreviation and Acronyms ............................................................................................. 16 List of Figures Figure 1. Project location in state .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Project vicinity................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables Table 1. Threatened and endangered species listed by USFWS for Pima County that do not occur in the project area................................................................................. 7 Table 2. Special status species occurring within 3 miles of the project vicinity as documented in the AGFD Heritage Data Management System.................................. 9 Table 3. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan species with the potential to occur in the project area........................................................................................................... 10 List of Appendices Appendix A – Protected Native Plants Appendix B – USFWS List of Federally Listed Species Appendix C – AGFD Online Environmental Review Tool Appendix D – Letter from USFWS Regarding Technical Assistance Appendix E – Articles Regarding Methods to Deter Swallow Nesting Appendix F – Project Area Photographs ii La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 1.0 Project Location The Pima County Department of Transportation’s (PCDOT’s) La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, road widening project is located in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The project is approximately 1 mile long and begins approximately 0.3 mile south of Ruthrauff Road and ends at River Road (see Figures 1 and 2). The Tucson city limits are located to the south, approximately 0.9 miles south of the intersection of La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road. The project is within Sections 15, 16, 22, and 23 of Township 13 South, Range 13 East (Gila and Salt River Meridian from the United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute “Tucson North, AZ” Quadrangle). Throughout this Biological Review, the term “project limits” describes the construction footprint (area of disturbance), while the term “project area” includes surrounding land outside of but adjacent to the project limits. The term “project vicinity” is used to denote a more expansive landscape context. 2.0 Project Description La Cholla Boulevard was widened to six lanes from approximately River Road north to Omar Drive in 2006. PCDOT proposes to continue the widening of La Cholla Boulevard south from River Road to Ruthrauff Road, transforming it from a two-lane, undivided roadway to an urban, six-lane divided roadway. This project is funded by the citizen-approved Regional Transportation Plan. Construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2010 and last 18 to 24 months. The project involves the complete reconstruction of the road. The new roadway will have six travel lanes, a multiuse lane in each direction, a raised and landscaped median, sidewalks, and pedestrian trail improvements from La Cholla Boulevard to the north bank of the Rillito River. The project will also include replacing the existing two-lane bridge over the Rillito River with a six-lane bridge. The intersections of La Cholla Boulevard with Curtis Road and Ruthrauff Road will include additional right- and left-turn lanes. The total length of the project is approximately 1 mile. The Rillito River (conservation land) is located at the north end of the project and a cultural site (Hodges Ruins) at the south end of the project site. Due to these environmental and cultural conditions, this segment of La Cholla Boulevard corridor could be designated as an environmentally sensitive roadway and applicable design guidelines could be applied to the project. However, because the project area is predominantly urban and for the most part lacks native vegetation, environmentally sensitive roadway design guidelines were not applied to the project. Traffic volumes on the roadway are expected to increase because of regional growth and expanded roadway capacity associated with the improvements. The increase in traffic volume will result in an increase in noise levels along the roadway. A separate noise report was prepared to evaluate noise and potential mitigation measures (HDR, Inc. 2008). 1 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Figure 1. Project location in state 2 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Figure 2. Project vicinity 3 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Currently, the two-lane road has little to no access control and vehicles originating from residences and businesses can access La Cholla Boulevard from existing local streets. During construction, the project will create dust, noise, and traffic delays; however, access to businesses and residences will be maintained throughout the construction period and signs will be provided to identify business access points. No major detours or temporary roads would be constructed. Standard measures will be employed to reduce dust and noise during construction. Project construction will require the acquisition of 0.43 acre of new right-of-way (R/W) from 3 parcels. Temporary construction easements will involve 1.63 acres of land from 49 parcels along the alignment. Staging areas will be determined by the contractor; however, any staging areas outside of the project area would need to be evaluated, by the contractor, prior to use, through a separate environmental analysis in accordance with Pima County, and state and federal requirements, unless the facility has already received prior clearance under local, state, and federal laws. The project area has very limited vegetation, but does contain plant species subject to the County’s Native Plant Preservation Ordinance and Arizona Native Plant Law, including mesquite, acacia, and palo verde. Applicable plants will be preserved in place, salvaged and relocated, or replaced, consistent with the Ordinance and the project landscape plan. The Arizona Department of Agriculture will be notified regarding plant removal. Bridge construction over the Rillito River is expected to affect less than 0.5 acre of waters of the United States; therefore, if a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is required, authorization under the terms and conditions of a United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permit is anticipated. The Rillito River is the only potential water of the United States within the project area. The project is expected to disturb more than 1 acre of soil; therefore, an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be required. The SWPPP will involve implementing measures during construction that retain soil on site and prevent potential chemical spills that could contaminate soils. The SWPPP’s implementation will not affect any listed species. 3.0 Location Description The project area is located within the Basin and Range Geologic Province. Landforms present within the Basin and Range Province consist of predominantly northwest-to-southwest trending, block-faulted mountain ranges, separated by broad, gently sloping alluvial basins. Terrain in the project vicinity is primarily flat. Elevations range between 2,260 and 2,280 feet above mean sea level within the project limits. The project area is located within the Arizona Upland Subdivision of Sonoran Desertscrub (Turner and Brown 1994); however, the area is largely developed and graded so there is minimal vegetation within the project limits. A mixture of native and nonnative weedy species has recolonized some previously graded areas near the Rillito River bridge. Landscaping improvements are present north of the Rillito River bridge to the intersection of River Road and La Cholla Boulevard, along the Rillito River Park, and east of La Cholla 4 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Boulevard along Ruthrauff Road. A list of native plants found within the project area is listed in Appendix A. The Rillito River, at its crossing with La Cholla Boulevard, is a 300-foot-wide ephemeral stream with lined banks. The streambed is comprised of medium to coarse sand with some gravel and cobbles. The bed is vegetated with a typical assortment of desert vegetation. The other watersheds that affect this roadway are fairly minor, with an aggregate size of about 60 acres. The main offsite watershed is roughly bordered by the Rillito River on the north, Casas Adobes Wash that runs parallel to and 1,300 feet east of La Cholla Boulevard on the east, Wetmore Road on the south, and La Cholla Boulevard on the west. Storm runoff generated within the watershed generally flows to the northwest in streets, roadside swales, and existing storm drains. The watershed is developed with single-family homes, mobile home parks, and light commercial developments. The vegetative cover consists of natural desert scrub, even in most of the residential areas where property owners have generally elected to maintain the desert appearance of their land in lieu of lawns or formal landscaping. North of the Rillito River, a small drainage area is currently being built into a commercial office center on the southeast corner of La Cholla Boulevard and River Road. The development plan shows that the runoff will be collected and conveyed to the south through the soil cement bank protection directly into the Rillito River. The Rillito River has a drainage area of approximately 900 square miles, upstream of La Cholla Boulevard. It drains the southern portion of the Santa Catalina Mountains, the eastern portion of the Rincon Mountains, as well as several hundred square miles of desert. Watershed elevations range from 2,200 to 9,200 feet. Watershed slopes range from less than 1% to almost vertical relief in the mountains. The Tucson Basin is an extensive basin containing alluvium varying up to approximately 12,000 feet in thickness. The alluvium is highly variable and ranges from sand, gravel, and cobble deposits to silts, clays and heavily cemented sandy clay. Characteristics of granular soils include high hydraulic transmissivity. Land uses in the project area include residential (single-family homes and mobile homes), commercial, municipal (fire station), parks, vacant land, and flood control/river. Commercial development is largely concentrated at Ruthrauff Road and River Road. Within the project limits there is a linear park on both sides of the Rillito River bridge, with access to Rillito River Park multi-use use trails, and to Curtis Park, which is located on the northwest corner of Curtis Road and La Cholla Boulevard. Flowing Wells Middle School is located just south of the project limits. 5 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 4.0 Species Identification The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) list of federally listed species (Appendix B) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD’s) list of special-status species (Appendix C) were reviewed by a qualified biologist, René Tanner, to determine if any species listed as endangered or threatened or identified as special-status have the potential to occur within the project area. The project will have no effect on species listed by the USFWS. Table 1 lists the exclusion justification for each species. Because the project will not impact federally listed species, consultation with the USFWS is not necessary. Table 2 contains a list of special-status species within 3 miles of the project area, as identified by the AGFD, and habitat requirements and recommendations for each species based on site specific conditions. Table 3 contains a list of species from Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan along with habitat requirements and a comment section regarding a species potential to occur within the project area based on site specific conditions. 6 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Table 1. Threatened and endangered species listed by USFWS for Pima County that do not occur in the project area Species Common name Scientific name Statusa Habitat requirements Exclusion justification The subspecies is found on the Pacific Coast and associated islands. In Arizona, the species is found on many lakes and rivers. Elevation: varies Require permanent or nearly permanent water sources such as streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds, and stock tanks that are mostly free of nonnative fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs. Elevation: 3,300–8,900 feet Shallow springs, small streams, and marshes. Elevation: < 5,000 feet The subspecies is an uncommon transient in Arizona. In addition, there are no lakes or perennial waters within the project area. California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus PD Chiricahua leopard frog Lithobates (Rana) chiricahuensis T Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius E Gila chub Gila intermedia E Pools, springs, cienegas, and streams. Elevation: 2,000–5,500 feet E Small streams, springs, and cienegas. Elevation: 4,500 feet E Cienegas, perennial low gradient streams, and wetlands. Elevation: 3,500–6,500 feet Jaguar Panthera onca E Found in Sonoran desertscrub up through subalpine conifer forest. Elevation: 1,600–9,000 feet Kearney blue star Amsonia kearneyana E Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae E Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Huachuca water umbel Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva Masked bobwhite Colinus virginianus ridgewayi Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Found on west-facing drainages in the Baboquivari Mountains. Elevation: 3,600–3,800 feet Desert scrub habitat with agave and columnar cacti present as food plants. Elevation: < 6,000 feet There are no permanent or semipermanent water sources in the project limits. There are no permanent or semipermanent water sources in the project limits. There are no permanent or semipermanent water sources in the project limits. There are no permanent or semipermanent water sources in the project limits. There are no permanent or semipermanent water sources in the project limits. Very rare in Arizona. The level of human disturbance within the project area would preclude the species presence. Range is extremely limited and does not extend into the project area. There are few, if any, food plants in the project area. E Desert grasslands with a diversity of dense native grasses, forbs, and brush. Elevation: 1,000–4,000 feet Presently only known from reintroduced populations on Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. T Nests in canyons and dense forests with multilayered foliage structure. Elevation: 4,100–9,000 feet No suitable habitat; no forests or wooded canyons. (continued on next page) 7 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Table 1. Threatened and endangered species listed by USFWS for Pima County that do not occur in the project area (continued) Species Common name Scientific name Statusa Nichol Turk’s head cactus Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii E Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis E Pima pineapple cactus Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina E Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra Americana sonoriensis Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Acuna cactus Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis Sonoyta mud turtle Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus E E C C C Gooddings onion Allium gooddingii CA San Xavier talussnail Sonorella eremita CA Habitat requirements Found in unshaded microsites in Sonoran desertscrub on dissected alluvial fans at the foot of limestone mountains and on inclined terraces and saddles on limestone mountain sides. Elevation: 2,400–4,100 feet Found in humid tropical and subtropical forests, savannahs, and semiarid thornscrub. Elevation: < 8,000 feet Occurs in alluvial valleys or on hillsides in rocky to sandy or silty soils. Found in Sonoran desertscrub or semidesert grassland communities. Elevation: 2,300–5,000 feet Found in broad intermountain alluvial valleys with creosote-bursage and palo verde-mixed cacti associations. Elevation: 500–2,000 feet Cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation communities along rivers and streams. Elevation: < 8,500 feet Found on well-drained knolls and gravel ridges in Sonoran desertscrub Elevation: 1,300–2,000 feet A pond turtle found in Quitobaquito Springs and Rio Sonoyta, Sonora, Mexico. Elevation: 1,100 feet Found in large blocks of riparian woodlands (cottonwood, willow, or tamarisk galleries). Elevation: < 5,500 feet Found in forested drainage bottoms and on moist north-facing slopes of mixed conifer and spruce fir forests. Elevation: > 7,500 feet Found on deep, limestone rockslides with outcrops of limestone and decomposed granite. Elevation: 3,850–3,920 feet Exclusion justification No suitable habitat; no alluvial fans or limestone present in the project area. No suitable habitat; no dense cover in the project area. No suitable habitat; native vegetation has been cleared from the project limits. No suitable habitat; human disturbance within the project area would preclude the species presence. No suitable habitat; the Rillito River does not support suitable riparian habitat in the project area. No suitable habitat; no knolls or gravel ridges in project area. No suitable habitat; no permanent or semipermanent water in the project area. No suitable habitat; the Rillito River does not support suitable riparian habitat in the project area. No suitable habitat; no forest habitat. No suitable habitat; no limestone habitat. Source: USFWS 2008. Listed, protected, and candidate species for Pima County. a E = endangered, T = threatened, PD = proposed delisted, C = candidate, CA = conservation agreement 8 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Table 2. Special status species occurring within 3 miles of the project vicinity as documented in the AGFD Heritage Data Management System Species Common name Scientific name Statusa Bat colony N/A Black-bellied whistling-duck Dendrocygna autumnalis WSC California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus WSC Great Plains narrowmouthed toad Gastrophryne olivacea Thornber fishhook cactus Mammillaria thornberi Tumamoc globeberry Tumamoca macdougalii Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Habitat requirements The existing bridge does not have expansion joints; therefore, bat habitat is not present. Prefers shallow freshwater ponds, lakes, and marshes, especially those that are lined with trees because tree cavities provide nesting sites. The species is known to breed in southeastern Arizona. The species is known to occur in the Coronado National Forest, Organ Pipe National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Tucson Mountain Park, and Colossal Cave Mountain Park. No roost sites are located within project area. WSC Breeds in mesquite grasslands during the summer rains. SR The plant is found in desert and woodland habitats in Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim into Sonora. SR The plant is found along sandy washes in Sonoran desertscrub and Sinaloan thornscrub communities. SC Nests in areas of short, open scrublands. The owl is tolerant of human presence, and will nest in human-modified landscapes. WSC Found in large blocks of riparian woodlands (cottonwood, willow, or tamarisk galleries). Recommendation No suitable habitat; therefore, no additional survey or mitigation measures are recommended. No suitable habitat; therefore, no mitigation measures or survey are recommended. No suitable roosting habitat; therefore, no mitigation measures or survey are recommended. No suitable habitat; therefore, no mitigation measures or survey are recommended. Unlikely to occur because of past soil disturbance. If present, the plant will be salvaged in accordance with local and state guidelines. Unlikely to occur because of existing soil disturbance. Therefore, no mitigation measures or survey are recommended. The banks of the Rillito River were reviewed for potential habitat. Because the banks are soil cemented and without scour sufficient for a burrow, no habitat was identified. However, the vacant lot on the southwest quadrant of the bridge will require a survey if ground disturbance occurs during the species breeding season (March through mid-July). No suitable habitat; therefore, no mitigation measures or survey are recommended. a SC = species of concern (USFWS term), WSC = wildlife species of concern (AGFD term), SR = Salvage Restricted, N/A = not applicable 9 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Table 3. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan species with the potential to occur in the project area Species Common name Scientific name Status Habitat requirements Abert’s towhee Pipilo aberti Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Acuna cactus Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis Protected by Arizona Native Plant Law Arizona shrew Sorex arizonae WSC Bell’s vireo Vireo belli Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum WSC The species is found in dense riparian habitat and urban backyards. Found on well-drained knolls and gravel ridges between major washes in Sonoran desertscrub. No records of the species in Pima County. Species has been recorded in high mountain ranges in southeastern Arizona and western New Mexico. Common summer resident in dense shrubs and trees within Pima County. The species is known to occupy a variety of vegetation communities from riparian habitat to semidesert grasslands. Roosts in inactive mines and caves and occasionally in buildings. California leaf-nosed bat Macrotis californicus Desert box turtle Terrapene ornate luteola Giant spotted whiptail Cnemidophorus burti stictogrammus Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis Merriam’s mouse Peromyscus merriami Mexican garter snake Thamnophis eques megalops WSC Comments Unlikely to occur. There is very little vegetation within the project limits. Unlikely to occur. There is very little vegetation within the project limits. Extremely unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat in the project area. Unlikely to occur because of past vegetation removal. Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat in project area. Unlikely to occur. No potential roost sites in the project area. No federal or state status Primarily a prairie turtle found in rolling grass and shrub lands. Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat. No federal or state status Found in canyons and mesas. Formerly common in Sabino Canyon. Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat. Federally listed as endangered Desert scrub habitat with agave and columnar cacti. Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat and forage plants. WSC Inhabits aquatic systems No federal or state status Known primarily from heavy, forest-like mesquite bosques. Extremely unlikely to occur. No permanent surface water. Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat. WSC Inhabits areas of permanent water with vegetation. Extremely unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat. (continued on next page) 10 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Table 3. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan species with the potential to occur in the project area (continued) Species Common name Scientific name Potential to occur in project area Habitat requirements Roosts in inactive mines and caves and occasionally in buildings. The species is fairly widespread in Pima County in Sonoran Desertscrub vegetation. Cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation communities along rivers and streams. Pale Townsend’s bat Plecotus townsendii No federal or state status Rufous-winged sparrow Aimophila carpalis Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Federally listed as endangered Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species breeds in open grassland habitats. Tucson shovelnose snake Chionactis occipitalis klauberi No federal or state status Found on lowland valley floors in areas with sand and loose soil. Tumamoc globeberry Tumamoca macdougalii SR The plant is found along sandy washes in Sonoran desertscrub and Sinaloan thornscrub communities. The species nests in areas of short, open scrublands. The owl is tolerant of human presence, and will nest in humanmodified landscapes. Comments Unlikely to occur because there are no roost sites in the project area. Unlikely to occur because there is minimal vegetation in the project area. No suitable habitat; the Rillito River does not support suitable riparian habitat in the project area. Unlikely to occur because there is minimal vegetation in the project area. Unlikely to occur because of the existing soil disturbances and urban development. Unlikely to occur because of the existing soil disturbances and urban development. A vacant lot is located southwest of the bridge. A survey for the SC species is recommended if soil disturbance or equipment staging is expected at this location. Western red bat Unlikely to occur because WSC Occurs along riparian corridors. suitable vegetation is lacking. Lasiurus blossevillii Western yellow bat Unlikely to occur because WSC Occurs along riparian corridors. Lasiurus xanthinus suitable vegetation is lacking. Found in large blocks of High potential area is mapped in Western yellow-billed riparian woodlands the northeast quadrant of River cuckoo WSC (cottonwood, willow, or Road and La Cholla Boulevard, Coccyzus americanus tamarisk galleries). which has been developed. occidentalis WSC = wildlife of special concern, SR = salvage restricted, SC = species of concern Source: Pima County Geographic Information System database Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea 11 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 5.0 Species Evaluation and Cumulative Impacts None of the federally listed species require further evaluation (see Table 1). Surveys for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (pygmy-owl) were conducted with negative results in 2005 and 2006 by SWCA. Due to the lack of habitat in the project area, Pima County sought technical assistance from the USFWS regarding the need for pygmy-owl surveys. The USFWS concurred with Pima County that no suitable pygmy-owl habitat occurred in proximity to the project (Appendix D). Therefore, no additional surveys for the species will be conducted in the project area. In addition, the only species from Table 2 or 3 that requires further consideration is the western burrowing owl, which is addressed in Section 6.0 of this report. No cumulative impacts on listed species are anticipated as a result of the project. While adjacent residential homes may eventually convert to businesses within the project limits, as a result of this project, this action would not create additional disturbances to viable habitat and therefore, would not contribute to a trend toward listing any species. While this project will not affect endangered species, two species protected under the International Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the swallow and burrowing owl, will require consideration prior to construction. Remnants of mud swallow nests were observed on the underside of the bridge over the Rillito River on July 24, 2007. Prior to the swallow breeding season (approximately March through July), it is recommended that any nest remnants be removed from the bridge. In addition, it may be necessary to coat the underside of the bridge deck with plastic (Salmon and Gorenzel 2005) or some other material such as netting to prevent the birds from rebuilding their nests (Arizona Wings-N-Stings LLC). The project area was reviewed for potential burrowing owl habitat and the AGFD was contacted for technical assistance regarding burrowing owl habitat and survey requirements (personal communication on 6/16/08 with Tim Snow of AGFD). AGFD indicated that burrowing owls use burrows excavated by other animals, such as ground squirrels. They generally nest in areas with low and open vegetation, which may increase their ability to detect predators. In addition, they can be found nesting in the banks of washes, even those with soil cement, if there has been sufficient scour to produce a nesting cavity. In addition to accommodating migrating burrowing owls, southern Arizona also has a resident population, and burrows may be use used all year. The banks of Rillito River are soil cemented and areas of scour sufficient for a burrow were not identified; therefore, no habitat for burrowing owls was identified along the banks of the Rillito River. Potential burrowing owl habitat was identified on a vacant lot at the northwest corner of Curtis Road and La Cholla Boulevard. The vacant lot has low and open native vegetation. Ground disturbance will occur at this location during the construction of a new path. The construction will require the acquisition of 50 feet of new R/W west of La Cholla Boulevard between Curtis Road and the Rillito River. Based on technical assistance from AGFD, preconstruction surveys for this area will be needed. 12 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 6.0 Recommendations To avoid affects to swallows during construction it is recommended that: • • Bridge demolition be conducted outside of the swallow breeding season (after June and prior to March). Alternatively, if it is necessary to conduct bridge demolition during the breeding season (March through June), exclusion measures are needed. These measures include removing swallow nest remnants prior to the swallow breeding season, and preventing swallows from rebuilding their nests. More detail regarding exclusion measures is included in Appendix E. The swallow exclusion measures are ranked below based on their safety for birds: o The placement of plastic tarp across the bottom of the bridge to prevent nest attachment. o The placement of ¾ inch netting across the bottom of the bridge to prevent nest attachment. To avoid affects to burrowing owls during construction it is recommended that: • Ground disturbance at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road, be scheduled outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl (after mid-July and prior to March). • A burrowing owl survey be completed at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road at least 90 days before construction or equipment staging is expected at this location (AGFD 2008). If owls are absent during the 90 day survey, conduct a follow-up survey 30 days prior to planned activity to confirm continued absence of the owl. 7.0 Coordination Pima County contacted the USFWS on September 25, 2007 to request technical assistance regarding the need to conduct cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl surveys for the project. The USFWS concurred with Pima County that no suitable pygmy-owl habitat occurred in proximity to the project (Appendix D). The AGFD’s Online Environmental Review Tool was accessed on September 27, 2007, to evaluate the potential effects of the project on species (Appendix C). No species listed by the USFWS required further analysis as a result of the data from the AGFD Heritage Data Management System. In addition, Tim Snow, non-game specialist with the AGFD, was contacted on June 16, 2008 for technical assistance regarding burrowing owl habitat. The results of his assessment are included in Section 5 of this document. 13 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 8.0 Project Area Photographs Appendix F includes representative ground photographs of the project area and an aerial photograph of the vacant lot on the northwest corner of Curtis Road and La Cholla Boulevard. 9.0 Signature Prepared by: Date: July 23, 2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 14 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 10.0 References Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2007. Arizona Shrew. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2001. California leaf-nosed bat. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2001. Giant spotted whiptail. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2001. Merriam’s mouse. < http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/documents/ Peromerr.d.pdf> (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2001. Mexican gartersnake. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2001. Pale Townsend’s bat. (accessed May 6, 2008).Pale Townsend’s bat ______. 2002. Tucson shovelnose snake. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2003. Western red bat. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2003. Western yellow bat. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2002. Western yellow-billed cuckoo. (accessed May 6, 2008). ______. 2008. Burrowing Owl Project Clearance Guidance for Landowners. Arizona Burrowing Owl Working Group. Arizona Wings-N-Stings. (accessed on May 7, 2008). HDR, Inc. 2008. Final Noise Report. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road. Pima County. 2000. Priority Vulnerable Species: Data Compilation and Synthesis. Draft. Prepared for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County, Ariz. (accessed April 30, 2008). Salmon, T. P., and W. P. Gorenzel. 2005. HPDP Handbook: Cliff Swallows, Part II, Section D, Subject Guidance: Fish and Wildlife - Appendix #6. (accessed April 30, 2008). Turner, R. M., and D. E. Brown. 1994. Sonoran Desert Scrub. 181–221. In D. E. Brown (Ed.) Desert Plants, Biotic Communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico. Vol. 4 Nos. 1–4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management. (accessed May 6, 2008). 15 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review 11.0 Abbreviation and Acronyms AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department C candidate CA conservation agreement E endangered N/A not applicable PD proposed delisted SC species of concern SR salvage restricted SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan T threatened USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WSC wildlife species of concern 16 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix A Protected Native Plants La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix A. Results of the native plant inventory for the La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road project area. The inventory was prepared by McGann and Associates in accordance with the Pima County Zoning Code; Chapter 18.72. Protected Native Plants Common Name Botanical Name Quantity Blue Palo Verde Parkinsonia floridum 8 Velvet Mesquite Prosopis velutina 10 Catclaw Acacia Acacia greggii 3 Desert Willow Chilopsis linearis 5 Saguaro Carnegia gigantea 1 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix B USFWS List of Federally Listed Species Pima County COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY California Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Proposed delisted Large dark gray-brown water bird with a pouch underneath long bill and webbed feet. Adults have a white head and neck, brownish black breast, and silver gray upper parts. Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma Chiricahua leopard frog Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis Threatened Cream colored tubercules (spots) on a dark background on the rear of the thigh, dorsolateral folds that are interrupted and deflected medially, and a call given out of water distinguish this spotted frog from other leopard frogs. Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius Endangered Gila chub Gila intermedia Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Tuesday, April 08, 2008 HABITAT COMMENTS Varies Coastal land and islands; species found around many Arizona lakes and rivers. Subspecies is found on Pacific Coast and is endangered due to pesticides. It is an uncommon transient in Arizona on many Arizona lakes and rivers. Individuals wander up from Mexico in summer and fall. No breeding records in Arizona. Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Santa Cruz, Yavapai 3,300-8,900 ft Streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds, and stock tanks that are mostly free from introduced fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs. Require permanent or nearly permanent water sources. Populations north of the Gila River may be a closely-related, but distinct, undescribed species. A special rule allows take of frogs due to operation and maintenance of livestock tanks on State and private lands. Small (2 inches) smoothly rounded body shape with narrow vertical bars on the sides. Breeding males blue on head and sides with yellow on tail. Females and juveniles tan to olive colored back and silvery sides. Cochise, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai < 5,000 ft Shallow springs, small streams, and marshes. Tolerates saline and warm water. Critical habitat includes Quitobaquito Springs, Pima County, portions of San Felipe Creek, Carrizo Wash, and Fish Creek Wash, Imperial County, California. Two subspeices are recognized: Desert Pupfish (C.m.macularis) and Quitobaquito Pupfish (C.m.eremus). Endangered Deep compressed body, flat head. Dark olive-gray color above, silver sides. Endemic to Gila River Basin. Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai Endangered Small (2 inches), guppy-like, live bearing, lacks dark spots on its fins. Breeding males are jet black with yellow fins. Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai Pima County ELEVATION 2,000 - 5,500 ft Pools, springs, cienegas, and streams. < 4,500 ft Small streams, springs, and cienegas vegetated shallows. Found on multiple private lands, including the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and others. Also occurs on Federal and state lands and in Sonora, Mexico. Critical habitat occurs in Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties. Species historically occurred in backwaters of large rivers but is currently isolated to small streams and springs. Page 1 of 5 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION Huachuca water umbel Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva Endangered Herbaceous, semi-aquatic perennial in the parsley family (Umbelliferae) with slender erect, hollow, leaves that grow from the nodes of creeping rhizomes. Flower: 3 to 10 flowered umbels arise from root nodes. Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz 3,500-6,500 ft Cienegas, perennial low gradient streams, wetlands. Species also occurs in adjacent Sonora, Mexico, west of the continental divide. Critical habitat in Cochise and Santa Cruz counties (64 FR 37441, July 12, 1999). Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered Largest species of cat native to Southwest. Muscular, with relatively short, massive limbs, and a deep-chested body. Usually cinnamonbuff in color with many black spots. Weights ranges from 40-135 kg (90-300 lbs). Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima 1,600 - 9,000 ft Found in Sonoran desertscrub up through subalpine conifer forest. Also occurs in New Mexico. A Jaguar conservation team is being formed that is being led by Arizona and New Mexico state entities along with private organizations. Kearney blue star Amsonia kearneyana Endangered A herbaceous perennial about 2 feet tall in the dogbane family (Apocynaceae). Thickened woody root and many pubescent (hairy) stems that rarely branch. Flowers: white terminal inflorescence in April and May. Pima 3,600-3,800 ft West-facing drainages in the Baboquivari Mountains. Plants grow in stable, partially shaded, coarse alluvium along a dry wash in the Baboquivari Mountains. Range is extremely limited. Protected by Arizona Native Plant Law. Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered Elongated muzzle, small leaf nose, and long tongue. Yellowish brown or gray above and cinnamon brown below. Tail minute and appears to be lacking. Easily disturbed. Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, Santa Cruz, Yuma < 6,000 ft Desert scrub habitat with agave and columnar cacti present as food plants. Day roosts in caves and abandoned tunnels. Forages at night on nectar, pollen, and fruit of paniculate agaves and columnar cacti. This species is migratory and is present in Arizona usually from April to September and south of the border the remainder of the year. Masked bobwhite Colinus virginianus ridgewayi Endangered Males brick-red breast and black head and throat. Females are generally nondescript but resemble other races such as the Texas bobwhite. Pima 1,000-4,000 ft Desert grasslands with diversity of dense native grasses, forbs, and brush. Species is closely associated with Prairie acacia (Acacia angustissima). Formerly occurred in Altar and Santa Cruz valleys, as well as Sonora, Mexico. Presently only known from reintroduced populations on Buenos Aires NWR. Tuesday, April 08, 2008 COUNTY Pima County ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS Page 2 of 5 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Medium sized with dark eyes and no ear tufts. Brownish and heavily spotted with white or beige. Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai Nichol Turk's head cactus Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Endangered Blue-green to yellowishgreen, columnar, 18 inches tall, 8 inches in diameter. Spine clusters have 5 radial and 3 central spines; one downward short; 2 spines upward and red or vasally gray. Flower: pink fruit: woolly white. Pima, Pinal Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Endangered Medium-sized spotted cat whose tail is about 1/2 the length of head and body. Yellowish with black streaks and stripes running from front to back. Tail is spotted and face is less heavily streaked than the back and sides. Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz Pima pineapple cactus Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina Endangered Hemispherical stems 4-7 inches tall 3-4 inches diameter. Central spine 1 inch long straw colored hooked surrounded by 6-15 radial spines. Flower: yellow, salmon, or rarely white narrow floral tube. Pima, Santa Cruz Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana sonoriensis Endangered Buff on back and white below, hoofed with slightly curved black horns having a single prong. Smallest and palest of the pronghorn subspecies Pima, Yuma Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Pima County ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS 4,100-9,000 ft Nests in canyons and dense forests with multilayered foliage structure. Generally nest in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine/gambel oak type, in canyons, and use variety of habitats for foraging. Sites with cool microclimates appear to be of importance or are preferred. Critical habitat was finalized on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53182) in Arizona in Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai counties. 2,400-4,100 ft Sonoran desertscrub. Found in unshaded microsites in Sonoran desertscrub on dissected alluvial fans at the foot of limestone mountains and on inclined terraces and saddles on limestone mountain sides. Humid tropical and subtropical forests, savannahs, and semi-arid thornscrub. May persist in partly-cleared forests, second-growth woodland, and abandoned cultivated areas reverted to brush. Universal component is presence of dense cover. Unconfirmed reports of individuals in the southern part of the State continue to be received. 2,300-5,000 ft Sonoran desertscrub or semi-desert grassland communities. Occurs in alluvial valleys or on hillsides in rocky to sandy or silty soils. This species can be confused with juvenile barrel cactus (Ferocactus). However, the spines of the later are flattened, in contrast with the round cross-section of the Coryphanta spines. 80-90% of individuals on state or private land. 500 - 2,000 ft Broad intermountain alluvial valleys with creosote-bursage and palo verde-mixed cacti associations. Typically, bajadas are used as fawning areas and sandy dune areas provide food seasonally. Historical range was probably larger than exists today. This subspecies also occurs in Mexico. < 8,000 ft Page 3 of 5 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Small passerine (about 6 inches) grayish-green back and wings, whitish throat, light olive-gray breast and pale yellowish belly. Two wingbars visible. Eye-ring faint or absent. Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma Acuna cactus Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis Candidate <12 inches high; spine clusters borne on tubercles, each with a groove on the upper surface. 2-3 central spines and 12 radial spines. Flowers pink to purple. Pima, Pinal Sonoyta mud turtle Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale Candidate Primarily a pond turtle, prefers mud or sandy bottoms. Body 3 1/2 to 6 1/2 inches. Head and neck mottled with contrasting light and dark markings. Found in Quitobaquito Springs. Pima Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Pima County ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS <8,500 ft Cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation communities along rivers and streams. Migratory riparian-obligate species that occupies breeding habitat from late April to September. Distribution within its range is restricted to riparian corridors. Difficult to distinguish from other members of the Empidonax complex by sight alone. Training seminar required for those conducting flycatcher surveys. Critical habitat was finalized on October 19, 2005 (50 CFR 60886). In Arizona there are critical habitat segments in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai counties. 1,300-2,000 ft Well drained knolls and gravel ridges in Sonoran desertscrub. Immature plants distinctly different from mature plants. They are disc-shaped or spherical and have no central spines until they are about 1.5 inches. Radial spines are dirty white with maroon tips. Ponds and streams. Species also found in Rio Sonoyta, Sonora, Mexico. 1,100 ft Page 4 of 5 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY Candidate Medium-sized bird with a slender, long-tailed profile, slightly down-curved bill, which is blue-black with yellow on the lower half of the bill. Plumage is grayishbrown above and white below, with rufous primary flight feathers. Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma < 6,500 ft Large blocks of riparain woodlands (cottonwood, willow, or tamarisk galleries). Yellow-billed cuckoos are a neotropical migrant, wintering in primarily South America and breeding primarily in the United States (but also in southern Canada and northern Mexico). As a migrant it is rarely detected, but can occur outside of riparian areas. Cuckoos are found nesting statewide in Arizona below 7000 feet in elevation, but are mostly found below 5000 feet in central, western, and southeastern Arizona. Concern for cuckoos are primarily focused upon alterations to its nesting and foraging habitat. Nesting cuckoos are associated with relatively dense wooded streamside riparian habitat, with varying combinations of Fremont cotttonwood, willow, velvet ash, Arizona walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk. Some cuckoos have also been detected nesting in velvet mesquite, netleaf hackberry, Arizona sycamore, Arizona alder, and some exotic neighborhood shade trees. > 7,500 ft Forested drainage bottoms and on moist north facing slopes of mixed conifer and spruce fir forests. Conservation agreement between the Service and the Forest Service signed in February 1998. In New Mexico on the Lincoln and Gila National Forests. 3,850-3,920 ft Deep, limestone rockslide with outcrops of limestone and decomposed granite. Conservation agreement signed by the Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, El Paso Natural Gas Company, and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in September 1998. Gooddings onion Allium gooddingii Conservation Agreement Herbaceous perenial plant; broad, flat, rather blunt leaves; flowering stalk 14-17 inches tall, flattened, and narrowly winged toward apex; fruit is broader than long; seeds are short and thick. Apache, Greenlee, Pima San Xavier talussnail Sonorella eremita Conservation Agreement Land snail, less than one inch in diameter (about .75 inches), 4.5 whorls, round shell, white to pinkish tint. Pima Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Pima County ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS Page 5 of 5 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix C AGFD Online Environmental Review Tool Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20070927004021 Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:25 PM The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide in-depth comments and project review when additional information or environmental documentation becomes available. Project Location Special Status Species Occurrences/Critical Habitat/Tribal Lands within 3 miles of Project Vicinity: Name Athene cunicularia hypugaea Common Name ESA USFS BLM Western Burrowing Owl SC Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo C Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Gastrophryne olivacea Great Plains Narrow-mouthed Toad Macrotus californicus California Leaf-nosed Bat Mammillaria thornberi Thornber Fishhook Cactus Tumamoca macdougalii Tumamoc Globeberry State S Bat Colony Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Submitted By: Rene Tanner On behalf of: PCDOT Project Search ID: 20070927004021 Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:10 PM Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Road widening (shoulders or additional or new lanes) Project Coordinates (UTM Zone 12-NAD 83): 498846.083, 3573484.604 meter Project Length: 1229.328 meter County: PIMA USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle ID: 1727 Quadrangle Name: JAYNES Project locality is not anticipated to change Location Accuracy Disclaimer Project locations are assumed to be both precise and accurate for the purposes of environmental review. The creator/owner of the Project Review Receipt is solely responsible for the project location and thus the correctness of the Project Review Receipt content. Page 1 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ S WSC WSC WSC SC WSC SR S S SR Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20070927004021 Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:25 PM Please review the entire receipt for project type recommendations and/or species or location information and retain a copy for future reference. If any of the information you provided did not accurately reflect this project, or if project plans change, another review should be conducted, as this determination may not be valid. Tucson Sub-Office 201 North Bonita, Suite 141 Tucson, AZ 85745 Phone 520-670-6144 Fax 520-670-6154 Arizona’s On-line Environmental Review Tool: 1. This On-line Environmental Review Tool inquiry has generated recommendations regarding the potential impacts of your project on Special Status Species (SSS) and other wildlife of Arizona. SSS include all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federally listed, U.S. Bureau of Land Management sensitive, U.S. Forest Service sensitive, and Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) recognized species of concern. 2. These recommendations have been made by the Department, under authority of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 5 (Amusements and Sports), 17 (Game and Fish), and 28 (Transportation). These recommendations are preliminary in scope, designed to provide early considerations for all species of wildlife, pertinent to the project type you entered. 3. This receipt, generated by the automated On-line Environmental Review Tool does not constitute an official project review by Department biologists and planners. Further coordination may be necessary as appropriate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has regulatory authority over all federally listed species under the ESA. Contact USFWS Ecological Services Offices: http://arizonaes.fws.gov/. Phoenix Main Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Phone 602-242-0210 Fax 602-242-2513 Flagstaff Sub-Office 323 N. Leroux Street, Suite 101 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phone 928-226-0614 Fax 928-226-1099 Disclaimer: 1. This is a preliminary environmental screening tool. It is not a substitute for the potential knowledge gained by having a biologist conduct a field survey of the project area. 2. The Department’s Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) data is not intended to include potential distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there. 3. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Such surveys may reveal previously undocumented population of species of special concern. 4. HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the Department. Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and habitats through aggressive protection and Page 2 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20070927004021 Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:25 PM management programs, and to provide wildlife resources and safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle recreation for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future generations. Project Category: Transportation & Infrastructure,Road construction (including staging areas),Road widening (shoulders or additional or new lanes) Department of Agriculture website for restricted plants http://www.azda.gov/PSD/quarantine5.htm. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has information regarding pest and invasive plant control methods including: pesticide, herbicide, biological control agents, and mechanical control: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. The Department regulates the importation, purchasing, and transportation of wildlife and fish (Restricted Live Wildlife), please refer to the hunting regulations for further information http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting_rules.shtml. Based on the project type entered; coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required (http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/phonedir.html) During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from accessing resources, finding mates, reduces gene flow, prevents wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have occurred, and ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases, streams and washes provide natural movement corridors for wildlife and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a large diversity of species, and should be contained within important wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions can be facilitated through improving designs of structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a variety of wildlife. During planning and construction, minimize potential introduction or spread of exotic invasive species. Invasive species can be plants, animals (exotic snails), and other organisms (e.g. microbes), which may cause alteration to ecological functions or compete with or prey upon native species and can cause social impacts (e.g. livestock forage reduction, increase wildfire risk). The terms noxious weed or invasive plants are often used interchangeably. Precautions should be taken to wash all equipment utilized in the project activities before leaving the site. Arizona has noxious weed regulations (Arizona Revised Statutes, Rules R3-4-244 and R3-4-245). See Arizona Hydrological considerations: design culverts to minimize impacts to channel geometry, or design channel geometry (low flow, overbank, floodplains) and substrates to carry expected discharge using local drainages of appropriate size as templates. Aquatic wildlife considerations: reduce/minimize barriers to migration of amphibians or fish (e.g. eliminate falls). Terrestrial wildlife: washes and stream corridors often provide important corridors for movement. Overall culvert width, height, and length should be optimized for movement of the greatest number and diversity of species expected to utilize the passage. Culvert designs should consider moisture, light, and noise, Project Type Recommendations: Based on the project type entered; coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/shpo/shpo.html#anchor561695 Page 3 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20070927004021 Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:25 PM while providing clear views at both ends to maximize utilization. For many species, fencing is an important design feature that can be utilized with culverts to funnel wildlife into these areas and minimize the potential for roadway collisions. Please contact the Project Evaluation Program for further fencing and culvert design recommendations and specifications. Recommendations will be dependant upon goals of the fence project and the wildlife species expected to be impacted by the project. Please contact the Project Evaluation Program for further fencing recommendations and specifications. The Department recommends that wildlife surveys are conducted to determine if noise-sensitive species occur within the project area. Avoidance or minimization measures could include conducting project activities outside of breeding seasons. The Department requests further coordination to provide project/species specific recommendations, please contact Project Evaluation Program directly. Vegetation restoration projects (including treatments of invasive or exotic species) should have a completed site-evaluation plan (identifying environmental conditions necessary to re-establish native vegetation), a revegetation plan (species, density, method of establishment), a short and long-term monitoring plan, including adaptive management guidelines to address needs for replacement vegetation. Ecological Services Office US Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951 Phone: 602-242-0210 Fax: 602-242-2513 HDMS records indicate that one or more native plants listed on the Arizona Native Plant Law and Antiquities Act have been documented within the vicinity of your project area (refer to page 1 of the receipt). Please contact: Arizona Department of Agriculture 1688 W Adams Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602-542-4373 HDMS records indicate that western burrowing owls have been documented within the vicinity of your project area (refer to the species list on page 1 of the receipt). Please review the relocation procedures recommended for burrowing owls found on the Environmental Review Home Page. http://mirror-pole.com/burr_owl/bur_owl1.htm , Project Location and/or Species recommendations: HDMS records indicate that one or more listed, proposed, or candidate species or Critical Habitat (Designated or Proposed) have been documented in the vicinity of your project (refer to page 1 of the receipt). Please contact: Page 4 of 6 Recommendations Disclaimer: 1. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or avoided by the recommendations generated from information APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20070927004021 Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:25 PM submitted for your proposed project. 2. These recommendations are proposed actions or guidelines to be considered during preliminary project development. 3. Additional site specific recommendations may be proposed during further NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected agencies. 4. Making this information directly available does not substitute for the Department’s review of project proposals, and should not decrease our opportunity to review and evaluate additional project information and/or new project proposals. 5. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and wildlife resources, including those Special Status Species listed on this receipt, and those that may have not been documented within the project vicinity as well as other game and nongame wildlife. 6. Further coordination requires the submittal of this Environmental Review Receipt with a cover letter and project plans or documentation that includes project narrative, acreage to be impacted, how construction or project activity(s) are to be accomplished, and project locality information (including site map). 7. Upon receiving information by AZGFD, please allow 30 days for completion of project reviews. Mail requests to: time you do not wish to accept the Terms, you may choose not to use the website. Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4312 Phone Number: (602) 789-3600 Fax Number: (602) 789-3928 The Environmental Review and project planning web application operates on a complex State computer system. This system is monitored to ensure proper operation, to verify the functioning of applicable security features, and for other like purposes. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to law enforcement officials. Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information; to defeat or circumvent security measures; or to utilize this system for other than its intended purposes are prohibited. Terms of Use By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand the terms of use. Department staff may revise these terms periodically. If you continue to use our website after we post changes to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any Page 5 of 6 1. This Environmental Review and project planning website was developed and intended for the purpose of screening projects for potential impacts on resources of special concern. By indicating your agreement to the terms of use for this website, you warrant that you will not use this website for any other purpose. 2. Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act . 3. The Department reserves the right at any time, without notice, to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website and to terminate or restrict your access to the website. 4. This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that was entered. The review must be redone if the project study area, location, or the type of project changes. If additional information becomes available, this review may need to be reconsidered. Security: This website maintains a record of each environmental review search result as well as all contact information. This information is maintained APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool Search ID: 20070927004021 Project Name: La Cholla: River Road to Ruthrauff Road Date: 9/27/2007 1:28:25 PM for internal tracking purposes. Information collected in this application will not be shared outside of the purposes of the Department. City, State, Zip: _____________________ If the Environmental Review Receipt and supporting material are not mailed to the Department or other appropriate agencies within six (6) months of the Project Review Receipt date, the receipt is considered to be null and void, and a new review must be initiated. Phone: _____________________ E-mail: ___________________________ Print this Environmental Review Receipt using your Internet browser's print function and keep it for your records. Further coordination requires the submittal of this Environmental Review Receipt with a cover letter and project plans or documentation that includes project narrative, acreage to be impacted, how construction or project activity(s) are to be accomplished, and project locality information (including site map). Please provide point of contact information regarding this Environmental Review. Application or organization responsible for project implementation Agency/organization:______________________ Contact Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Page 6 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS: ___________ La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix D Letter from USFWS Regarding Technical Assistance La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix E Articles Regarding Methods to Deter Swallow Nesting La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Appendix F Project Area Photographs La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Photo 1 – Southeast corner of the La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road intersection, view to the north. Photo 2 – Northeast corner of the La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road intersection, view to the south. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Photo 3 – La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road intersection, view to the east. Photo 4 – La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road intersection, view to the southeast. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Photo 5 – Circle K Store at the southwest corner of West River Road and North La Cholla Boulevard, view to the northwest. Photo 6 – Southeast corner of West River Road and La Cholla Boulevard, view to the northeast. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Photo 7 – La Cholla Boulevard, bridge over the Rillito River, view to the southwest. Photo 8 – Rillito River at La Cholla Boulevard, view to the east. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Biological Review Photo 9 –La Cholla Boulevard, view looking north from the south end of the project area. Curtis Road La Cholla Boulevard Photo 10 – The vacant lot at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix D Cultural Resources ABSTRACT DATE: 16 June 2008 AGENCY: Pima County REPORT TITLE: Cultural Resources Assessment of the La Cholla Boulevard—Ruthrauff Road to River Road Project, Pima County, Arizona CLIENT PROJECT NAME: La Cholla Boulevard—Ruthrauff Road to River Road project FUNDING LEVEL: Pima County Regional Transportation Authority, Arizona Highways Users Revenue Fund (HURF), impact fees PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Assessment prior to road expansion PERMIT NUMBERS: Arizona Antiquities Act Project Specific Permit No. 2008-069ps; Arizona State Museum Accession No. 2007-0670 LOCATION: County: Pima Description: Sections 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 13 South, Range 13 East, on USGS 7.5-minute topographic quad Jaynes, Ariz., AZ AA:12 [SE] Land Ownership: Pima County right-of-way NUMBER OF SURVEYED ACRES: 1.5 NUMBER OF SITES: 2 LIST OF REGISTER-ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES: AZ AA:12:18 (ASM) LIST OF OTHER PROPERTIES: AZ AA:12:29 (ASM) (Site not found within project area) RECOMMENDATIONS: Two previously recorded archaeological sites, AZ AA:12:18 (ASM), Hodges Ruin, and AZ AA:12:29 (ASM), are intersected by the proposed project. Their boundaries were not well documented historically, and surface survey associated with this project indicates the sites currently have few visible surface components. Archaeological trenching in accessible portions of the right-of-way, including the area of the two sites, was undertaken to locate site boundaries and identify subsurface features that will be affected by the proposed road-widening project. Four features were identified at the Hodges Ruin and the boundary relocated with greater accuracy in the eastern part of the site. Subsurface features at AA:12:29 were not identified. Desert Archaeology recommends that the roadway improvement project proceed as planned, with archaeological monitoring of any work within 30 m of the Hodges Ruin boundary. A monitoring and discovery plan is included in this report. Should the proposed plans change, or previously undiscovered cultural materials be encountered during the undertaking, work should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the materials. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix E Native Plant Protection Evaluation Native Plant Inventory and Mitigation Summary La Cholla Boulevard – Ruthrauff to River Road Pima County WO # 4LCITR An inventory of native plants per Pima County Zoning Code; Chapter 18.72 was conducted for the La Cholla Boulevard – Ruthrauff Road to River Road Improvement Project. Protected native plants inventoried include: 8 Blue Palo Verde (Parkinsonia floridum), 10 Velvet Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), 3 Catclaw Acacia (Acacia greggii), 5 Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis) and 1 Saguaro (Carnegia gigantea). Inventoried plants located outside of the grading limit will be preserved in place. All inventoried trees disturbed by project construction will be removed. In all cases, the boxing of trees for transplant is not feasible because of sandy soil conditions, inaccessible terrain or conflict with other plants and utilities. The 3’ tall saguaro is located within the grading limit and can be transplanted to an undisturbed location in a single move. The following required mitigation quantities, 7 Blue Palo Verde (Parkinsonia floridum), 9 Velvet Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), 5 Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis) and 1 Saguaro (Carnegia gigantea) will be planted within the project area as part of the landscape improvements. NATIVE PLANT INVENTORY AND MITIGATION SUMMARY Project Name: La Cholla Boulevard - Ruthrauff Road to River Road Job No. PCDOT # 4LCITR CATEGORY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME INVENTORIED QUANTITY OF VIABLE PLANTS (PLANTS RATED LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH VIABILITY) INVENTORIED QUANTITY OF LOW VIABILITY PLANTS INVENTORIED OF MEDIUM AND HIGH VIABILITY PLANTS (SPECIMEN PLANTS) PERCENTAGE OF SPECIMEN PLANTS ON SITE QUANTITY TO BE PRESERVE D-IN-PLACE (PIP) QUANTITY TO BE TRANSSPLA NTED ONSITE (TOS) QUANTITY OF SPECIMIN PLANTS TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE (RFS) PERCENTAGE OF SPECIMEN PLANTS TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE QUANTITY OF LOW VIABILITY PLANTS TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE MITIGATION REQUIREMEN T FOR TOS AND RFS SPECIMEN PLANTS TOTAL PLANTS ON SITE AFTER COMPLETION TREES ACACIA GREGGII CATCLAW ACACIA 3 0 3 100% 3 0 0 0% 0 0 3 CHILOPSIS LINEARIS DESERT WILLOW 5 2 3 60% 1 0 2 67% 2 5 8 PARKINSONIA FLORIDUM BLUE PALO VERDE 8 0 8 100% 4 0 4 50% 0 7 11 PROSOPIS VELUTINA VELVET MESQUITE 10 5 5 50% 3 0 2 40% 2 9 17 CARNEGIEA GIGANTEA SAGUARO 1 0 1 100% 0 1 0 0% 0 1 2 27 7 20 11 1 8 4 22 41 CACTI TOTALS La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix F Noise Study !" #$ % Prepared for: Pima County Department of Transportation 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 Work Order No. 4LCITR Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 5210 E. Williams Circle, Suite 530 Tucson, AZ 85711-4459 HDR Project No. 59914 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report & 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Location and Scope .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Roadway Conditions and Land Use............................................................. 1 1.3 Planned Project Improvements................................................................................... 4 2.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 TNM 2.5 Modeling..................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................................... 5 2.3 Level of Service Traffic and Noise Levels................................................................. 7 2.4 Noise Analysis Overview ........................................................................................... 7 2.5 Potential Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................... 8 2.6 Analysis Limitations................................................................................................... 9 3.0 Existing Noise Environment ............................................................................................. 10 3.1 Description of Sensitive Noise Receiver Areas........................................................ 10 3.2 Roadway Geometry and Topography....................................................................... 10 3.3 Existing Noise Levels............................................................................................... 10 4.0 Future Conditions.............................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Future Noise Levels.................................................................................................. 13 4.2 Noise Analysis Results ............................................................................................. 13 5.0 Traffic Noise Considerations and Mitigation Alternatives............................................... 14 6.0 Construction Noise............................................................................................................ 18 7.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19 8.0 Bibliography and References............................................................................................ 20 9.0 Glossary ............................................................................................................................ 21 List of Figures Figure 1. Project location............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project vicinity................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Common outdoor and indoor noise levels ....................................................................... 6 Monitoring site vehicle counts and mix......................................................................... 11 Ambient noise levels compared with modeled noise levels .......................................... 12 Analysis of potential mitigation strategies..................................................................... 15 Construction equipment noise ....................................................................................... 19 ii La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report List of Appendices Appendix A – Traffic Data Appendix B – Monitoring Sites, Receiver Locations, and Potential Barrier Locations Appendix C – Noise Analysis Summary: Properties Adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard Appendix D – Noise Analysis Summary: Second Row of Properties Appendix E – Evaluation of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete and Noise Barriers as Mitigation Appendix F – Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) Output Files iii La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report '# % ( '# ' ) ( )( Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) and Regional Transportation Authority propose to widen La Cholla Boulevard from Ruthrauff Road to River Road. The project area is located in unincorporated Pima County. The Oro Valley town limits are located approximately 5 miles north of the northern project limit (River Road) and the Tucson city limits are located approximately 1 mile south of the southern project limit (Ruthrauff Road). The project location is displayed in Figure 1 and the project vicinity is displayed in Figure 2. Stage 1 engineering drawings and aerial photographs taken in June of 2007 were used for this noise analysis. Traffic volumes for 2030 were obtained from the Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road (PCDOT 2008). '# *+ , - . La Cholla Boulevard is a major north-south arterial road between Oro Valley and Tucson. Within the Study Area, La Cholla Boulevard is a two-lane roadway with four-lane arterial street intersections. It is intersected by several two-lane collector streets. La Cholla Boulevard crosses the Rillito River as a two-lane bridge. North of the bridge, La Cholla Boulevard widens to a six-lane roadway approaching the River Road intersection. Land use at the River Road and La Cholla Boulevard intersection is primarily commercial. A shopping plaza is located at the northeastern corner and a Circle K gas station is located at the southwestern corner. Commercial development is planned for the northwestern and southeastern corners. The Rillito River passes under La Cholla Boulevard south of the River Road and La Cholla Boulevard intersection. Public use trails run adjacent to the river. A linear park is located on both sides of the Rillito River bridge, with access to the public use trails. South of the river, Curtis Road intersects La Cholla Boulevard. Land use is primarily light commercial and industrial on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard at this intersection. Pima County-owned Curtis Park is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection. A vacant lot at the southwestern corner is the site of a closed landfill. Between Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road and south of the landfill and commercial properties, the adjacent land is zoned for multi-use and is primarily residential. Several medium- to highdensity neighborhoods are located along this segment of La Cholla Boulevard. A Circle K gas station is located at the northeastern corner of the La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road intersection. The Family Food store is located at the northwestern corner and a Valero gas station is at the southeastern corner. The southwestern corner is currently under construction with commercial development. South of Ruthrauff Road, the Flowing Wells Fire Station and Flowing Wells Junior High School are located on the west side of the street. Centennial Elementary School is west of La Cholla Boulevard on Wetmore Road. 1 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Figure 1. Project location 2 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Figure 2. Project vicinity 3 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report '# / 0( % The proposed project would widen La Cholla Boulevard between Ruthrauff Road and River Road from a two-lane undivided roadway to an urban six-lane divided roadway with dedicated turn lanes at the intersections. PCDOT recommends that frontage roads be constructed for the residential lots that directly access La Cholla Boulevard. However, the draft design concept report for this project includes alternatives that would eliminate one or both frontage roads and substitute residential property acquisitions. The potential property acquisitions and subsequent removal of homes along La Cholla Boulevard have been considered in this analysis. # 1 , A new or expanded roadway will increase traffic-generated noise in the surrounding area. For this study, the methods for determining the future noise levels and identifying possible mitigation measures to address those increased noise levels included using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5) and following noise abatement criteria established by the governing agency, PCDOT. To assess the potential change in noise levels, the existing noise environment was evaluated. Representative sites within the Study Area were chosen and the existing noise levels were measured at each site. The resulting measurements are the ambient noise levels. Roadway geometry and topography, traffic volumes, existing barriers, land features, and the representative sites were entered into TNM 2.5 to replicate the conditions under which the noise level measurements were taken. Noise levels were calculated and compared with the ambient levels. This process examines the accuracy of the traffic noise model in performing noise level calculations for this project. Discrepancies in the model’s calculations were addressed prior to using it for predicting future noise levels. Four conditions were modeled using TNM 2.5. The model estimated the peak-hour traffic noise levels for: • • • • existing condition (2007) projected condition without noise mitigation (2030) projected condition with a credit of 3 dBA for the application of rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) (2030) projected condition with noise barriers and a credit of 3 dBA for the application of RAC (2030) The 2030 projected conditions were compared with the Pima County Noise Abatement Procedure to determine whether noise mitigation is warranted. # ' 1 # 21 , The TNM 2.5 model translated the roadways in the Study Area into a series of endpoints on a three-dimensional X, Y, and Z coordinate system. This computer model was developed to comply with FHWA noise regulations and is considered the current standard for roadway noise analyses. 4 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report The TNM model requires input data regarding the geometry of roadways in the Study Area, vehicle mix, traffic volumes, and vehicle speeds. The proposed roadway and the surrounding arterial streets were defined by a series of roadway segment endpoints. Existing barriers, including residential privacy walls, were included in the model. Receivers were identified as single points and assigned an elevation of 5 feet above the ground to simulate the average height of human hearing. The sound levels were modeled using the A-weighted decibel (dBA), which is the measurement of sound that most closely approximates the sensitivity of the human ear. The noise level results—discussed in Section 3.0, Existing Noise Environment—are presented in LAeq1h, the equivalent average sound level measured for 1 hour, approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The vehicles were classified as automobiles (four wheels), medium trucks (six wheels), and heavy trucks (eight or more wheels). Each of these vehicle types generates noise from a different height above the roadway, called the source height. TNM 2.5 uses the above-described information to calculate the noise contribution from each roadway segment to each receiver and then determine the cumulative effect of all roadway noise sources for each receiver. Validation studies conducted at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, a facility of the United States Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, show that the TNM 2.5 model typically predicts noise levels within an acceptable range of accuracy. # 3& The PCDOT Procedure Number 03-5, entitled “Traffic Noise Analysis and Mitigation Guidance for Major Roadway Projects,” dated December 1, 2003, was developed to provide guidance for the development of noise mitigation for Pima County’s major roadway projects. It contains procedures for traffic noise abatement, noise analysis methodology, and requirements for noise reports. The procedure is most commonly called the Pima County Noise Abatement Procedure (PC NAP). Numerous existing state and county transportation agency policies were evaluated during the development of PC NAP and analyzed to determine the appropriate criteria to use in Pima County. Effective April 7, 2008, the Pima County “Revision of Traffic Noise Analysis and Mitigation Guidance for Major Road Projects” was implemented to address changes in the cost of noise mitigation measures. This report reflects the updated mitigation costs per benefited receiver and barrier construction cost per square foot. According to the PC NAP, noise abatement should be considered if noise levels reach 66 dBA or higher at noise-sensitive properties. Additionally, mitigation measures will be considered for noise-sensitive properties if predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed existing levels. “Substantially exceed” is defined as a 15-dBA increase between the existing noise levels and the future noise levels. The area at noise-sensitive properties from which the noise level is used to determine abatement consideration, is at an out-of-doors location assumed to be most frequented by the residents. For example, the noise levels used in consideration for abatement at a residence would be from a location outside of the house, but near the house. Noise abatement is only considered for the first floor of multi-floor units. 5 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Noise-sensitive properties are all residences. Residences include single family or multi-family housing units. Each first floor apartment in an apartment complex or duplex is counted as a separate housing unit. Noise-sensitive properties may also include facilities such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, places of worship, and cemeteries. Commercial properties are not considered for noise abatement unless they include a sensitive receiver, as defined above (for example, a shopping center that includes a preschool). Table 1 presents the noise levels, in A-weighted decibels, produced by several common indoor and outdoor activities and noise sources. Table 1. Common outdoor and indoor noise levels Common outdoor noise levels Noise level (dBAa) 110 jet flyover at 1,200 feet Common indoor noise levels rock band 100 gas lawn mower at 3 feet, diesel truck at 50 feet 90 food blender at 3 feet noisy urban daytime 80 garbage disposal at 3 feet gas lawn mower at 100 feet 70 shouting at 3 feet, vacuum cleaner at 10 feet commercial area 60 normal speech at 3 feet quiet urban daytime 50 large business office, dishwasher next door quiet urban nighttime 40 small theatre, large conference room (background) quiet suburban nighttime 30 library quiet rural nighttime 20 concert hall (background) 10 broadcast and recording studio 0 threshold of hearing Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1993 a A-weighted decibels The PC NAP contains a provision allowing a credit of 3 dBA for the use of RAC. As part of the noise abatement procedure described in the PC NAP, this credit is applied during the mitigation determination process as described below. According to the PC NAP, noise abatement measures must be feasible, reasonable, and desired by the affected individuals. The following discussion covers feasibility, reasonability and desirability of noise abatement. & Feasibility deals with the engineering considerations of noise abatement. It is the ability to provide abatement in a given location with consideration to the physical and acoustical limitations of the site. This takes into account topography, access, drainage, safety considerations, maintenance requirements and whether or not other noise sources are present 6 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report in the area. PCDOT requires a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA for first-row receivers for noise abatement to be considered feasible. & Reasonability means that PCDOT believes mitigation measures are prudent, based on consideration of the following conditions: • • • The noise barrier will provide a minimum 5-dBA noise reduction without being more than 10 feet in height. The noise barrier will benefit more than one sensitive property. The cost of the noise abatement shall not exceed $35,000 per benefited receiver, at $25 per square foot of constructed barrier. Although noise barriers may be reasonable and feasible, a majority of the owners for the benefited properties must approve the barrier in order for it to be constructed. Signatures from 50 percent plus one of the affected property owners indicating a desire for the barrier is considered a majority. # / ) ( ( Traffic engineers describe the flow of traffic with a series of conditions called levels of service (LOS). LOS A describes free-flowing traffic that is able to travel at or above the posted speed limit with little or no difficulty in changing lanes. The conditions become more congested as the LOS progresses through the alphabet to LOS F, which represents stop-andgo traffic. From a noise perspective, the LOS C condition usually represents the worst hourly traffic noise impacts because traffic speeds are at or near the posted speed limit and lane capacity is high. Although more vehicles may be accommodated when LOS D is achieved, the lower speeds drastically reduce tire noise, a major source of traffic noise. Traffic volumes for 2030 were obtained from the Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, February 2008 (Appendix A). Peak-hour traffic data were used for the traffic analysis. These data approximate LOS E as current peak hour conditions and LOS B during the peak hour along the improved La Cholla Boulevard. # $ 3 " - Aerial photographs and field reconnaissance were used to determine the approximate locations and land use activities of potential sensitive receivers near the roadway. Field measurements were used to determine the existing noise levels throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 3.0, Existing Noise Environment. The TNM 2.5 model was used to predict the noise levels that would occur with the proposed improvements to La Cholla Boulevard. Standard English units of measurement were used for this study. As noted earlier, traffic-generated noise levels are affected by traffic volumes, traffic speeds, and traffic mix (the percentage of cars, medium trucks, heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles). These variables were used in the TNM 2.5 model to predict future noise levels at the sensitive 7 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report receiver locations. Traffic volumes and speeds used in the modeling for this project represent “worst case” peak-hour or LOS C traffic conditions. Unmitigated noise levels for the 2030 traffic and roadway conditions were determined and compared with the appropriate noise abatement criterion to determine whether traffic noise mitigation should be considered. Generally, the mitigation considerations consist of noise barriers in the right-of-way (R/W). Although other mitigation considerations are possible, noise barriers are considered the most cost-effective and accepted technique when they are warranted. These barriers may consist of earth berms or concrete/masonry walls, or combinations of the two barrier types. # 2 1 , ) , A number of mitigation strategies are available that may be applied independently or in combination to achieve the desired results. These involve elements of the roadway design, roadway surface, and restrictions on the use of roadway, as well as construction of noise barriers. These mitigation strategies are introduced below and analyzed for reasonability, feasibility, and desirable qualities as they relate to this project in Section 5.0, Traffic Noise Considerations and Mitigation Alternatives. - , Roadway design measures include altering the roadway alignment or depressing roadway sections. Altering the roadway alignment could involve realigning the roadway along a new centerline to move the roadway away from a sensitive receiver. Depressing the roadway lowers the roadway below grade, also moving traffic farther away from affected receivers. && 4 3 ( ) ( Rubberized asphalt pavement has been shown to reduce noise impacts, averaging 4 dBA or better, at adjacent properties when compared with standard concrete pavement (JHK and Associates 1996). Pima County uses RAC on all roadway projects and allows a noise analysis credit of 3 dBA to account for the noise reduction properties of the pavement. RAC will be used on the La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, project and the credit will be reflected in the noise analysis results. (1 , Traffic management measures include restricting truck traffic entirely or during certain hours of the day and reducing the posted speed limit. Both strategies would reduce the noise levels at adjacent properties because trucks produce more noise than automobiles and because higher vehicle speeds generate more noise than lower vehicle speeds (FHWA 1976). Construction of noise barriers between the roadways and the affected receivers reduces noise levels by physically blocking the transmission of traffic-generated noise. Barriers can be constructed as walls or earthen berms. Noise barriers should be high enough to break the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receiver. They must also be long enough to prevent noise from transmitting around the ends of the barrier. Openings in a barrier, for driveways or sidewalks, can significantly reduce the barrier’s effectiveness. Earthen berms 8 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report require more right-of-way than do walls. They are usually constructed at a 3-to-1 slope in each direction. Thus, a berm 8 feet high would slope 24 feet in each direction, for a total width of 48 feet. # 5 3 This noise analysis is based on design and traffic information available at the time of the analysis. The following assumptions were made to reach conclusions during the analysis phase: • • • • The project designs as evaluated in this report will not change. Future traffic volumes, vehicle mix and speed will remain consistent with those predicted in the traffic study for this project. The nature of the land use will remain consistent with current use and planned development (i.e., industrial businesses will not be constructed where retail and professional offices are currently planned) The area where people are most likely to spend time outside of their homes is in their yards, near their homes. While the TNM 2.5 model has been calibrated and tested against actual noise measurements for several years, it should be noted that it is still a noise prediction model. The results of this analysis assume the predicting capabilities of TNM are sufficient. Assumptions have been made to simplify the calculations for TNM. • • • • The receiver (representing human hearing) is 5 feet above ground. The angle of view from the receiver to the road is 180 degrees. The terrain between the roadway and the receiver is flat. The ground type is consistent throughout the project area. The noise levels used in the predictions are measured in LAeq1h. As stated in Section 2.1, this is the A-weighted average that represents the steady level over 1 hour that would produce the same energy as the actual signal. The actual instantaneous noise levels fluctuate above and below the measured Leq during the measurement period (e.g., a police siren, a particularly noisy truck, or unusually high traffic volumes). Therefore, the use of LAeq1h for predicting noise levels and conducting the noise evaluation does not consider the noise levels as they may occur in their full range. The fluctuation of instantaneous noise levels will result in sounds that temporarily exceed the noise levels as they have been presented in the noise evaluation. However, these instantaneous noise levels cannot be predicted. Therefore, they cannot be used in the noise analysis. 9 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report /# *+ /# ' , ( * ) ( 3 Sensitive noise properties within the Study Area are mostly single-family residential properties. The linear park along the Rillito River is also considered a sensitive noise property. Existing walls and fences within the Study Area were examined to determine whether they would reduce sound transmission. None of the existing fences were considered to provide adequate noise level reduction. Therefore, the existing fences were not included during the existing conditions noise model calculations. Many of the residential properties have direct access onto La Cholla Boulevard. Direct-access driveways reduce the effectiveness of noise mitigation with barriers because gaps in noise barriers allow noise to travel beyond the barrier. If frontage roads are constructed or if the properties are acquired, the direct access to La Cholla Boulevard would be eliminated. /# - 6 , The horizontal alignment for La Cholla Boulevard consists of one straight roadway segment. The vertical alignment follows the existing terrain with relatively mild grades. Immediately north of Ruthrauff Road, La Cholla Boulevard is two lanes across, with one lane in each direction. A dedicated northbound left-turn lane is located at the intersection with Curtis Road. North of the Rillito River bridge, La Cholla Boulevard widens from two lanes to six lanes with dedicated turn lanes at the River Road intersection. The terrain within the Study Area is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from 2,280 to 2,260 feet above mean sea level, generally sloping to the northwest. /# / *+ , Field readings were taken at three monitoring sites within the Study Area to determine the existing noise levels (Table 2). These sites were selected to be representative of areas of differing land uses and traffic characteristics. The monitoring sites are described below and are shown in Appendix B, Monitoring Sites, Receiver Locations, and Potential Barrier Locations. Existing noise levels were recorded at the monitoring sites with a Larson Davis Model 820 Type 1 integrating sound-level meter. The sound-level meter was placed approximately 5 feet above the ground at the monitoring sites. Three 10-minute-long sound level recordings were taken at each site. The readings were taken during the peak-hour traffic flow on the following days: • • October 4, 2007, from 7 to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:45 to 6:15 p.m. October 10, 2007, from 7:30 to 8 a.m. and from 4:45 to 5:15 p.m. 10 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Traffic data was also collected during each of the noise measurement readings, including the average speed, traffic volume traveling in both directions and the vehicle mix. Table 2 presents the total number of vehicles and the vehicle mix recorded at each monitoring location. Table 2. Monitoring site vehicle counts and mix Percentage Percentage medium heavy trucks trucks Total vehicles per hour Percentage automobiles 1. 4908 N. La Cholla Blvd. 2,864 97 1 2 2. 4981 N. La Cholla Blvd. 1,857 97 1 2 3. Rillito River Park at La Cholla Blvd. 1,988 97 1 2 Monitoring site The weather conditions during the October 4, 2007, readings were partly cloudy with temperatures at 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the morning and 91 degrees Fahrenheit in the evening. The relative humidity in the morning was 50%, with a breeze coming from the east averaging 3 mph. The evening had 32% relative humidity, with a breeze coming from the west averaging 3 mph and short wind gusts reaching 9 mph. The weather conditions during the October 10, 2007, readings were clear skies with temperatures at 68 degrees Fahrenheit in the morning and 92 degrees Fahrenheit in the evening. The relative humidity in the morning was 36%, with a 1.5 mph breeze coming from the northeast. In the evening, the relative humidity was 15%, with a 1.5 mph breeze coming from the northeast. The monitoring site conditions were modeled in TNM 2.5 to evaluate the accuracy of TNM 2.5 to predict noise levels for the Study Area. Ambient noise levels, as reflected in Table 3, are the average of the three noise level readings taken at each monitoring site during the morning and evening peak traffic hours. These levels were compared with predicted sound levels from the modeled conditions. This comparison was used to make any necessary adjustments to the model input to most accurately reflect site conditions. 11 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Table 3. Ambient noise levels compared with modeled noise levels Ambient noise level (average dBA LAeq1h) Modeled noise level (dBA LAeq1h) 1. 4908 N. La Cholla Blvd. – approximately 53 feet from the edge of pavement. 68 69 2. 4981 N. La Cholla Blvd. – approximately 66 feet from the edge of pavement. 66 66 3. Rillito River Park at La Cholla Blvd. – approximately 42 feet from the edge of pavement. 66 69 Monitoring site The ambient peak-hour noise levels ranged from 66 dBA LAeq1h to 68 dBA LAeq1h at the monitored sites, which ranged between 42 and 66 feet from the edge of pavement of La Cholla Boulevard. Monitoring site number 2 was equidistant from the road as the fenced yards at the adjacent properties. Monitoring sites 1 and 3 were at or near the R/W line for La Cholla Boulevard. Monitoring site 3 was located at Rillito River Park, near the bridge that crosses the Rillito River. The dominant noise source at each of the monitoring sites was traffic on La Cholla Boulevard. Predicted existing peak-hour noise levels along La Cholla Boulevard ranged from 66 dBA LAeq1h to 69 dBA LAeq1h at the receivers. TNM 2.5 calculated noise levels at or slightly higher than levels at the monitored locations, showing that the predictions are conservative. The modeled noise levels at monitoring site 3 shows a 3 dBA increase from the ambient noise levels. Because of the site’s proximity to the bridge, TNM 2.5 makes certain adjustments to address higher noise levels produced by roadways on a structure. These adjustments may result in predicted noise levels that are higher than the ambient noise levels. The predicted noise levels are within 3 dBA of the ambient levels for all three monitoring sites. Based on the results, TNM 2.5 was considered capable of accurately predicting noise levels for this project. In addition to the ambient noise level monitoring at select locations, 56 sensitive receiver locations were identified within the Study Area. Existing noise levels were modeled at each of these receiver locations. The modeled existing peak-hour noise levels along La Cholla Boulevard ranged from 58 dBA LAeq1h to 68 dBA LAeq1h at the residential locations and 62 dBA LAeq1h to 69 dBA LAeq1h at Rillito River Park (see Appendices C and D). The model’s results show that noise levels at 26 of the sensitive receiver locations exceed the PC NAP mitigation criterion for the 2007 existing conditions. Of these 26 locations, 23 were at residences adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard. The remaining three sensitive receiver locations were located in Rillito River Park. 12 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report $# $# ' Noise levels were evaluated for 56 sensitive receiver locations within the Study Area. Thirty-six of the receivers were directly adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard and located within 120 feet of the proposed La Cholla Boulevard centerline (the exception being at Rillito River Park). To represent the second row of homes parallel to but set farther back from La Cholla Boulevard, 20 additional receivers were evaluated. These receivers were located within 260 feet of the proposed La Cholla Boulevard centerline. The information provided by the additional row of receivers is useful in understanding roadway noise impacts at these locations for the proposed design with the future (2030) peak-hour traffic volumes. In addition, the design concept report includes alternatives that would eliminate one or both frontage roads and substitute residential property acquisitions. Thus, the evaluation of second row properties also identifies the likely impact and mitigation needs for design concept report alternatives that would involve these residential property acquisitions. Please see Appendix B for future roadway design information and receiver locations. $# 3 The 56 sensitive receivers were evaluated for traffic noise levels resulting from 2030 peakhour traffic conditions. The results of the noise analyses are included in the Noise Analysis Summary: Properties Adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard (Appendix C) and the Noise Analysis Summary: Second Row Properties (Appendix D). The description of each column for both appendices follows: • • • • • • • • Column one lists an arbitrarily assigned number used to identify the receiver. Second row receivers (Appendix D) are identified by an “s” following the number. Identification numbers begin at the southern end of the project and progress numerically toward the northern end. Column two lists the distance and direction from the future roadway centerline to the sensitive receiver. Column three lists the address of the property the receiver represents. Column four provides the existing condition for the modeled noise level, in dBA LAeq1h (the equivalent average sound level within 1 hour). Column five provides unmitigated noise levels for the future build condition, using the proposed conditions and the 2030 peak-hour traffic volumes. Column six provides the future noise levels with the credit of 3 dBA for using RAC as the pavement surface. Column seven displays the mitigated future noise levels with RAC as the pavement surface, with the noise barriers constructed as presented in this study. The mitigated noise level is only provided for properties whose future noise levels with the credit of 3 dBA for RAC exceed the PC NAP mitigation criterion of 66 dBA or higher. Column eight provides a determination of whether mitigation measures should be considered at each location, based on the PC NAP criteria of noise levels reaching 66 dBA or higher. 13 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report The TNM 2.5 output files, from which the results came, are included in the Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) Output Files (Appendix F). The files are entitled: La Cholla, Existing Condition; La Cholla, Future-no RAC; La Cholla, Future-RAC; and La Cholla, Proposed-PC Criteria RAC. Predicted future peak-hour noise levels at the 36 existing sensitive receivers adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard would range from 59 dBA LAeq to 70 dBA LAeq, with the credit of 3 dBA applied for RAC. Of the 36 sensitive receiver locations, 32 receivers had a predicted future noise level exceeding the PC NAP mitigation criterion of 66 dBA or higher. Based on these noise levels, the 32 receivers are further evaluated for noise mitigation, as discussed in the next section. The 20 second row sensitive receivers had noise levels ranging from 53 dBA LAeq1h to 66 dBA LAeq1h if the first row of homes were removed. Of the 20 sensitive receiver locations, 1 had a predicted future noise level exceeding the PC NAP mitigation criterion of 66 dBA or higher. This receiver is further evaluated for noise mitigation, as discussed in the next section. 2# ( 1 , 3 Several mitigation measures can be considered by Pima County to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion of these measures in this report does not obligate Pima County to implement them. Pima County may choose to modify, delete, or add measures to mitigate impacts. Predicted future noise levels would exceed the PC NAP mitigation criterion for noise-sensitive properties at 32 sensitive receiver locations adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard and at 1 of the second row sensitive receiver locations. Noise mitigation measures were evaluated for these receivers. These measures are introduced in Section 2.5, Potential Mitigation Strategies. They have been individually analyzed for PC NAP defined feasibility and reasonability as they relate to this project.1 The analysis is presented in Table 4. 1 Feasibility deals with the engineering issues associated with the mitigation strategy. For each strategy, the following question was asked: Can engineering plans be developed to provide the abatement with consideration to the physical and acoustical limitations of this project area? Reasonability considers, even if the abatement can be achieved with the mitigation, whether the cost will be reasonable, enough receivers will be benefited, and whether the structural efforts will be unreasonable (a barrier is too high, the design causes access issues, etc.). Feasibility and reasonability are defined, according to the PC NAP, in Section 2.2: Noise Abatement Criteria. 14 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Table 4. Analysis of potential mitigation strategies Mitigation Feasibility Roadway alignment changes Design plans can be developed to shift roadway away from the sensitive receivers on one side. Depressed roadway A depressed roadway along La Cholla Boulevard is not feasible because of the need for driveway access and the location of the sanitary sewers. Rubberized asphalt concrete Feasible in that it is relatively easy to include in the project construction. It can be used effectively in the local climate and terrain. Truck restrictions May be feasible if surrounding arterial streets are designed to handle the additional truck traffic. However, it is not feasible because displacing the truck traffic may conflict with the planned function of the roadway. An arterial road, such as La Cholla Boulevard, generally carries truck traffic. Businesses located along La Cholla Boulevard require trucks. Reasonability May be reasonable where changing the roadway alignment can move traffic far enough away from sensitive receivers to achieve adequate noise reduction. A substantial amount of space would be necessary to move the roadway far enough away from the receivers on one side of the road. Acquisition of properties to create the necessary space, realignment of connecting roadways, and the relocation of utilities would make the cost unreasonable. May be reasonable where an adequate noise reduction can be achieved by constructing the roadway below grade. Widening La Cholla Boulevard will put traffic closer to sensitive receivers. Therefore, the grade necessary to produce an adequate noise reduction would be substantially lower than the existing grade. This would affect alignment with intersecting roads and driveways, and it would be necessary to relocate utilities. Retaining walls would be necessary, affecting driveway access. Resulting construction costs would be more than is reasonable for the expected noise reduction. Is reasonable because it can easily be included in the construction plans. It entails a low level of required maintenance. The high durability equates to a reasonable cost for the life cycle of the pavement. Not reasonable for use on the bridge because of maintenance considerations. May be reasonable if an adequate noise reduction can be achieved. However, it is unlikely that the level of truck traffic on La Cholla Boulevard is high enough for truck restrictions to be effective in reducing noise levels. Displacing truck traffic may shift noise impacts to another area. 15 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Mitigation Noise walls Earthen berms Feasibility Reasonability Not feasible where the walls would limit sight distances for motorists and where crash barriers would limit the length of the walls. May be reasonable where noise reduction is adequate and cost effective. Not feasible to construct berms within the space limitations of the right-ofway of La Cholla Boulevard. May be reasonable where noise reduction is adequate and cost effective. Not reasonable because to construct berms, homes would need to be removed to provide the necessary space and the required costs would be unreasonable. Based on this evaluation, noise walls and RAC are the most reasonable and feasible form of noise mitigation for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road. These two mitigation measures are thoroughly evaluated as they relate to the PC NAP criteria in Appendix E, Evaluation of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete and Noise Barriers as Mitigation. Each column is described below: • • • • • • • Column one of the table lists the receivers potentially receiving sound reduction as a result of the barrier. Column two lists the number of residential units associated with the receivers. Column three provides the future noise levels for each receiver with the credit of 3 dBA for using RAC as the pavement surface. Column four displays the mitigated future noise levels with RAC as the pavement surface, assuming the potential noise barriers were to be constructed. Column five provides the number of units with noise levels reduced in full accordance with PC NAP requirements (5 dBA or more). Column six, Potential barrier dimensions, is divided into three sub-columns. o The first sub-column provides the potential barrier identification number—an arbitrarily assigned number increasing numerically as the barriers occur from south to north. This column also provides the approximate length of the barrier, in feet. o The second sub-column provides the barrier height, in feet, necessary to provide a noise reduction of 5 dBA or greater. o The third sub-column lists the total square footage of the barrier. Column seven, Potential barrier costs, provides the total cost for the barrier and the cost per benefited receiver. o The total barrier cost is calculated at $25 per square foot. This cost per square foot criteria is a baseline number established by PCDOT to provide a countywide guideline for determining the cost reasonability of any noise wall. The actual cost of the wall may be higher or lower depending on aesthetic treatments, structural requirements, and fluctuating labor and material costs. 16 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report o The cost per benefited receiver is the total cost divided by the number of benefited units (from the fifth column). The final column provides the final determination of whether or not the barrier meets all of the PC NAP criteria for reasonability. These criteria state that: o The noise barrier will provide a minimum 5-dBA noise reduction without being more than 10 feet in height. o The noise barrier will benefit more than one sensitive property. o The cost of the noise abatement shall not exceed $35,000 per benefited receiver, at $25 per square foot of constructed barrier. For the proposed improvements, five potential barriers were evaluated. Three of the barriers were evaluated for placement within the R/W, between the residences and La Cholla Boulevard. These are barriers 1, 3, and 5. Barrier 1 was evaluated for placement in front of the residential property south of Noreen Street on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard. Barrier 3 was evaluated for placement in front of the residential property south of Calle Narciso, on the west side of La Cholla Boulevard. Barrier 5 was evaluated for placement in front of the residential properties on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard, north of Jay Avenue. Barriers 2 and 4 were evaluated for placement within the medians separating the proposed frontage roads from La Cholla Boulevard. The sight distance necessary for motorists was considered while determining the lengths and placement of the barriers. They would range in height from 6 feet to 10 feet and would reduce noise levels at the benefited receivers to between 60 dBA and 64 dBA, for an average noise level reduction of 5 dBA. No potential barriers were considered for construction along the Rillito River Park, although 2030 predicted noise levels exceeded PC NAP criteria for noise mitigation. The park runs parallel to Rillito River, with access to the public use trail from La Cholla Boulevard at four points. This park provides minimal seating or other areas for prolonged stays. Other than use for access to the public use trail, the park areas adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard do not provide for fixed recreational use—most park users would be passing through the area on the trail rather than staying in the area near La Cholla Boulevard for prolonged periods of time. Furthermore, the topography of the park and its elevation in relation to the roadway would require walls taller than are permitted. The access trails would create breaks in the walls, minimizing their effectiveness. Wall construction could also present safety hazards for the public. The noise levels at 11 of the residences could not be reduced in full accordance with the PC NAP requirements because the effectiveness of the barrier was limited by the placement of the barriers to provide adequate sight distance for motorists. These receivers would experience noise reductions of 0 dBA to 4 dBA, less than the required noise reduction of 5 dBA. The placement of the evaluated barriers provided the 17 other receivers adjacent to La Cholla Boulevard and the 1 second row receiver with adequate noise reduction to meet PC NAP criteria. Of the five barriers evaluated along La Cholla Boulevard, only three barriers met the PC NAP requirements for noise reduction, cost per benefited receiver (at $25 per square foot), and number of benefited receivers per wall. Barrier 2 is proposed for construction within the median separating the east frontage road from La Cholla Boulevard. This barrier would 17 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report benefit four sensitive receivers, at an approximate cost of $29,902 per receiver. Barrier 4 is proposed for construction within the median separating the west frontage road from La Cholla Boulevard. This barrier would benefit five sensitive receivers at an approximate cost of $22,840 per receiver. Barrier 5 is proposed for construction to provide noise mitigation for the residences north of Jay Avenue, on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard. This barrier would have openings to allow access to the adjacent properties. Seven sensitive receivers would be benefited by this barrier, including the 1 second row receiver. The cost per benefited receiver would be approximately $25,285. The three barriers would amount to approximately 16,431 square feet of wall. Following the standard cost of $25 per square foot, as recommended by the PC NAP, the cost of noise mitigation along La Cholla Boulevard would be approximately $411,000. Should the homes adjacent to the planned frontage roads be removed, none of the second row receivers then exposed to La Cholla Boulevard would experience noise levels exceeding the PC NAP criteria for noise abatement. Therefore, no noise mitigation for these properties would be warranted. 5# ( Construction of any part of the proposed improvements may cause temporary noise impacts. The quantification of such impacts is difficult without data on this project’s construction schedule and equipment use. Therefore, certain assumptions were made to predict the approximate noise level at the R/W line. These predictions are based on the loudest equipment expected to be used during each construction stage of a typical roadway project. Data on construction equipment noise are available from the USDOT’s Highway Construction Noise: Measurement, Prediction and Mitigation (1977). An analysis was conducted during a freeway construction project in Arizona that assessed the collective impact of construction noise. The noise levels were calculated at the R/W line. The distance between the R/W line and the construction activity was estimated based on the type of work being performed. The results of the preliminary estimates, shown in Table 5, indicate that sensitive receivers adjacent to the R/W would be affected by construction noise. The highest noise levels would occur during the grading/earthwork phase. 18 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report Table 5. Construction equipment noise Phase Site clearing Grading/earthwork Foundation Base preparation a Equipment Lmaxa Number of feet to right-of-way Dozer 84 50 Backhoe 85 50 Scraper 92 75 Grader 91 75 Backhoe 85 100 Loader 84 100 Compressor 85 100 Dozer 84 100 Equipment Lmaxa at rightof-way 88 93 85 85 maximum instantaneous sound level in decibels The Pima County Noise Code (Chapter 9.30.070) limits construction activities to between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m. from April 15 to October 15 and between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from October 16 to April 14. Permits will be required if construction will need to occur outside of the allowed times. 7# ( Noise mitigation for the La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, project has been evaluated in this report. Future noise levels were predicted using TNM 2.5 with consideration of conditions with no mitigation, conditions with the application of RAC as the only mitigation, and conditions with the construction of noise walls and the application of RAC. Potential mitigation measures were evaluated for reasonability and feasibility with consideration of the existing conditions of La Cholla Boulevard and the proposed roadway design. The most reasonable and feasible mitigation measures for this project are the use of RAC for the roadway surface and the construction of noise walls where they meet Pima County’s noise abatement criteria. Three noise walls are recommended for construction along La Cholla Boulevard; barriers 2 and 4 would be placed in the proposed frontage road medians, and barrier 5 would be placed north of Jay Avenue on the east side of the road. These walls would benefit 16 individual residences at an approximate cost of $411,000. If one or both of the frontage roads were eliminated and adjacent residential properties at these locations were acquired (based on consideration of one of the design concept report alternatives), no noise walls would be warranted along this portion of La Cholla Boulevard. Barrier 5 would still be recommended. Although the recommended noise walls meet PC NAP criteria for construction, desire for the noise walls must be expressed by a majority of the property owners at the benefited residences for each wall. Walls are not always desired because they block sunlight and views, are 19 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report sometimes considered a vandalism concern, or can be considered unattractive. The affected property owners for each recommended wall are contacted to assess its desirability. Fifty-one percent of the benefited property owners must consent in order for the noise wall to be constructed. Noise abatement for construction-related activities will involve limiting construction activities to between the identified hours as described by the Pima County Noise Code (Chapter 9.30.070). # & , ( American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1993. Guide on Evaluation and Abatement of Traffic Noise. JHK and Associates. 1996. A Comparison of Traffic Noise from Asphalt, Rubber Asphalt, Concrete Friction Courses (ARACFC) and Portland Cement Concrete Pavements (PCCP), FHWA-AZ-96-433. Phoenix. Pima Association of Governments. 2006. 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. (accessed on April 17, 2008). Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT). 2003. Traffic Noise Analysis and Mitigation Guidance for Major Roadway Projects. December 2003. Tucson. ———. 2008. Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road. Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. Tucson. ———. 2008. Revision of Traffic Noise Analysis and Mitigation Guidance for Major Roadway Projects. April 2008. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1976. The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. ———. 1977. Highway Construction Noise: Measurement, Prediction and Mitigation. ———. 1980. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise: Textbook and Training Course. ———. 1994. A Guide to Visual Quality in Noise Barrier Design, FHWA-HI-94-039. ———. 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement, Policy and Guidance. 20 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report 8# 6 ambient noise level: The noise level existing in an area before the introduction of a proposed roadway improvement project. This quantity is measured in dBA and expressed as Leq ambient noise levels. at-grade roadway: A roadway that is level with the immediate surrounding terrain. automobiles: All vehicles with two axles and four wheels, designed primarily for passenger transportation of cargo (light trucks). Generally, the gross vehicle weight is less than 10,000 pounds. barrier: A solid wall or earthen berm that breaks the line-of-sight between the roadway and noise receiver location, reducing the noise level at the receiver. decibel (dB): A logarithmic unit that indicates the amount of sound energy. decibel, A-weighted (dBA): The A-weighted decibel scale approximates the sensitivity of the human ear. The approximate threshold of hearing is 0 dBA, while the approximate threshold of pain is 140 dBA. Most suburban areas have daytime noise levels ranging from 50 to 70 dBA. depressed roadway: A roadway that is constructed below the immediate surrounding terrain. design year: The future year used to determine the probable traffic volume for which a highway is designed. elevated roadway: A roadway that is constructed above the immediate surrounding terrain, either on an embankment or a structure. existing noise levels: The noise resulting from the natural and mechanical sources and human activity usually present in a particular area. heavy trucks: All vehicles having three or more axles and eight or more wheels that are designed for cargo transportation. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is greater than 26,400 pounds. LAeq1h: The Leq for one hour. Leq: The equivalent steady-state, A-weighted sound level that, in a stated period of time, would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound levels during the same period. level of service (LOS): The operating performance of a freeway, roadway, or intersection. Level of service is a qualitative description of operation based on the degree of delay and maneuverability. light trucks: All vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for transportation of passengers and cargo. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is equal to or less than 10,000 pounds. medium trucks: All vehicles having two axles and six wheels designed for the transportation of cargo. Generally, the gross vehicle weight is greater than 10,000 pounds but less than 26,400 pounds. 21 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report noise level reduction: The process of removing noise from an observer by the application of noise mitigation. peak hour: The single morning or evening hour when the maximum traffic volume occurs. receiver: The location at which noise levels are measured, modeled, and analyzed. Receivers of interest are typically residences, schools, parks, or other noise-sensitive properties. right-of-way (R/W): Publicly owned land used or intended to be used for transportation and other purposes. rubberized asphalt: This material consists of regular asphalt paving mixed with ground-up, used tires. Rubberized asphalt is generally smoother and quieter, helping to reduce tire noise. sound level (noise level): Weighted sound level measured with a sound-level meter having metering characteristics and a frequency weighting of A, B, or C, as specified in the soundlevel meter standard. speed: The rate of movement of vehicular traffic, in miles per hour (mph). traffic noise impacts: Impacts that occur when the predicted traffic noise equals or exceeds the noise abatement criteria levels. 22 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report 3 +3 ( La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report ( Existing and projected traffic volumes were obtained from the Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, February 2008. Existing two-way 24-hour traffic volumes were collected in August 2007 at three locations along La Cholla Boulevard within the Study Area: 1. La Cholla Boulevard, between Wetmore Road and Ruthrauff Road 2. La Cholla Boulevard, between Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road 3. La Cholla Boulevard, between Curtis Road and River Road Existing peak-hour traffic volumes are as follows: Table A-1. 2007 existing peak-hour traffic volumes Location Northbound vehicles Southbound vehicles Between Wetmore Road and Ruthrauff Road 290 290 Between Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road 950 950 1,140 1,140 Between Curtis Road and River Road Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, February 2008 The future conditions were calculated based on traffic projections from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) regional model. The PAG model is based on the Adopted 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, which considers conditions resulting from all future roadway projects included in the plan. Table A-2. 2030 forecast peak-hour traffic volumes Location Between Wetmore Road and Ruthrauff Road Northbound vehicles Southbound vehicles 440 440 Between Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road 1,640 1,640 Between Curtis Road and River Road 1,760 1,760 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, February 2008 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report The vehicle mix was measured in April 2007 during a 2-hour period from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Table A-3. Vehicle mix Vehicle class type percentage Location Automobiles Medium trucks Heavy trucks Between Ruthrauff Road and Curtis Road 90 5 5 Between Curtis Road and River Road 90 5 5 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Final Traffic Engineering Study for La Cholla Boulevard, Ruthrauff Road to River Road, February 2008 The existing and future operating speeds for La Cholla Boulevard, between Ruthrauff Road and River Road, are 45 mph. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report 3 1 ,) + 9 ( ( ( 9 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report 3 + 3 ) 3 0( APPENDIX C – NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Property Address Existing Condition (2007) dBA LAeq1h Unmitigated Future Condition (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC, no barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC and barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Mitigation Considerations (For future build condition) 92 East 4631 N. Brightside Drive 58 62 59 -- None—Below PC NAP 2 92 East 4661 N. Brightside Drive 59 63 60 -- None—Below PC NAP 3 90 East 2088 W. Brittain Drive 59 63 60 -- None—Below PC NAP 4 114 East 2091 W. Noreen Street 65 70 67 62 Potential Barrier 1 (See Appendix E) 5 96 East 4830 N. La Cholla Boulevard 65 70 67 65 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 6 102 East 4838 N. La Cholla Boulevard 65 69 66 63 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 7 110 East 4846 N. La Cholla Boulevard 65 70 67 62 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 8 90 West 2101 W. Calle Narciso 68 72 69 64 Potential Barrier 3 (See Appendix E) 9 145 East 4854 N. La Cholla Boulevard 63 68 65 -- None—Below PC NAP 10 112 East 4900 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 70 68 61 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 11 82 West 4901 N. La Cholla Boulevard 68 72 69 69 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 12 98 East 4908 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 70 68 61 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 13 92 West 4911 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 68 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 14 93 West 4921 N. La Cholla Boulevard 68 72 69 66 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 15 99 East 4924 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 71 68 62 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 16 97 West 4931 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 63 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 17 98 East 4941 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 62 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) Receiver ID Distance and Direction from Future Centerline (feet) 1 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Page 1 of 3 APPENDIX C – NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Property Address Existing Condition (2007) dBA LAeq1h Unmitigated Future Condition (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC, no barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC and barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Mitigation Considerations (For future build condition) 98 East 4940 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 71 68 67 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 19 94 East 4950 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 68 Potential Barrier 2 (See Appendix E) 20 83 West 4955 N. La Cholla Boulevard 68 72 69 62 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 21 92 West 4961 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 69 62 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 22 98 West 4967 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 62 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 23 98 West 4973 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 64 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 24 99 West 4981 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 66 Potential Barrier 4 (See Appendix E) 25 107 East 4968 N. Jay Avenue 66 70 67 62 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 26 86 East 5000 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 69 61 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 27 88 East 5000 N. La Cholla Boulevard 67 71 68 63 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 28 106 East 5000 N. La Cholla Boulevard 65 69 66 63 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 29 119 East 5050 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 70 67 62 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 30 97 East 5050 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 70 67 62 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 31 88 East 5050 N. La Cholla Boulevard 68 71 68 63 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 32 115 East 5100 N. La Cholla Boulevard 66 70 67 63 Potential Barrier 5 (See Appendix E) 33 108 West Rillito River Park at La Cholla Boulevard southwest corner 66 70 - - Receiver location is not conducive to barriers 34 102 East Rillito River Park at La Cholla Boulevard southeast corner 69 72 - - Receiver location is not conducive to barriers Receiver ID Distance and Direction from Future Centerline (feet) 18 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Page 2 of 3 APPENDIX C – NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Receiver ID Distance and Direction from Future Centerline (feet) 35 214 East Property Address Existing Condition (2007) dBA LAeq1h Unmitigated Future Condition (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC, no barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC and barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Mitigation Considerations (For future build condition) Rillito River Park at La Cholla Boulevard northeast corner 62 67 - - Receiver location is not conducive to barriers - - Receiver location is not conducive to barriers Rillito River Park at La Cholla Boulevard 68 71 northwest corner Note: Shading indicates the noise level exceeds the Pima County Noise Abatement Procedure criterion for noise abatement. *Results reflect a 3-dBA credit for the application of rubberized asphalt concrete. 36 17 West La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Page 3 of 3 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report )( 3 + 3 ) - APPENDIX D – NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SECOND ROW OF PROPERTIES Property Address Existing Condition (2007) (dBA LAeq1h) Unmitigated Future Condition (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC, no barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC and barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Mitigation Considerations (For future build condition) 202 East 4630 N. Brightside Drive 53 57 54 -- None—Below PC NAP 2S 202 East 4660 N. Brightside Drive 54 58 55 -- None—Below PC NAP 3S 250 East 2073 W. Brittain Drive 53 56 53 -- None—Below PC NAP 4S 175 East 2081 W. Noreen Street 61 66 63 -- None—Below PC NAP 5S 230 East 4837 N. Alicia Avenue 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP 6S 235 East 4853 N. Alicia Avenue 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP 7S 230 East 4909 N. Alicia Avenue 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP 8S 170 West 2111 W. Calle Narciso 63 67 64 -- None—Below PC NAP 9S 220 West 2116 W. Calle Narciso 61 65 62 -- None—Below PC NAP 10S 235 East 4925 N. Alicia Avenue 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP 11S 260 West 2115 W. Calle Cusco 59 63 60 -- None—Below PC NAP 12S 260 West 2116 W. Calle Cusco 59 63 60 -- None—Below PC NAP 13S 240 East 4941 N. Alicia Avenue 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP 14S 175 East 4964 N. Jay Avenue 63 67 65 -- None—Below PC NAP 15S 230 West 2116 W. Calle Fortunado 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP 16S 145 East 5000 N. La Cholla Boulevard 65 69 66 61 Potential Barrier 5 (see Appendix E) 17S 240 East 5000 N. La Cholla Boulevard 60 64 61 -- None—Below PC NAP Receiver ID Distance and Dirction from Future Centerline (feet) 1S La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX D – NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SECOND ROW OF PROPERTIES Property Address Existing Condition (2007) (dBA LAeq1h) Unmitigated Future Condition (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC, no barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Future Condition* with RAC and barrier (2030) dBA LAeq1h Mitigation Considerations (For future build condition) 180 East 5000 N. La Cholla Boulevard 63 67 64 -- None—Below PC NAP 19S 180 East 5050 N. La Cholla Boulevard 63 67 64 -- None—Below PC NAP 20S 140 East 5050 N. La Cholla Boulevard 65 68 65 -- None—Below PC NAP Receiver ID Distance and Direction from Future Centerline (feet) 18S Note: Shading indicates the noise level exceeds the Pima County Noise Abatement Procedure criterion for noise abatement. *Results reflect a 3-dBA credit for the application of rubberized asphalt concrete. La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Page 2 of 2 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report 3 * && +* 4 3 ( 1 , APPENDIX E EVALUATION OF RUBBERIZED ASPHALT CONCRETE AND NOISE BARRIER AS MITIGATION 2030 noise level with RAC, no barrier (LAeq1h) 2030 noise level with RAC, and barrier (LAeq1h) Number of benefited units 1 67 62 5 6 7 10 12 15 18 19 10 67 66 67 68 68 68 68 68 8 1 69 Receiver ID 4 Number of units Potential barrier dimensions Potential barrier costs Height* Potential barrier square footage (SF) Total cost at $25/SF and cost per benefited receiver Comments Potential barrier ID and length 1 Potential Barrier 1 Approximately 106 feet 6 feet 639 $15,.970 $15,970 Does not meet minimum number of benefited receivers 65** 63** 62 61 61 62 67** 68** 4 Potential Barrier 2 Approximately 478 feet 10 feet 4,784 $119,609 $29,902 Potential Barrier 2 Meets PCDOT policy 64 1 Potential Barrier 3 Approximately 100 feet 6 feet 602 $15,040 $15,040 Does not meet minimum number of benefited receivers 10 feet 4,568 $114,202 $22,840 Potential Barrier 4 Meets PCDOT policy 10 feet 7,079 11 69 69** 13 68 68** 14 69 66** 16 68 63 17 68 62 Potential Barrier 4 10 5 20 69 62 Approximately 457 feet 21 69 62 22 68 62 23 68 64** 24 68 66** 25 67 62 26 69 61 27 68 63 28 66 63** Potential Barrier 5 9 7 29 67 62 Approximately 707 feet 30 67 62 31 68 63 32 67 63** 16S 66 61 Note: Gray shading indicates the barrier meets Pima County Department of Transportation criteria. * Potential barrier heights are measured from the ground surface and do not include sub-grades, footings, etc. ** Mitigation could not achieve 5-dBA reduction with maximum 10-foot-high barrier La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road $176,994 $25,285 Potential Barrier 5 Meets PCDOT policy Page 1 of 1 La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Noise Report 3 ( 1 + : 1 # 2;" La Cholla Boulevard: Ruthrauff Road to River Road Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report Appendix G Hazardous Materials Investigations Phase I Environmental Site Assessment North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Tucson, Pima County, Arizona Prepared for: Pima County Department of Transportation Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 5210 East Williams Circle, Suite 530 Tucson, Arizona, 85711 HDR project number 047-059914 October 2, 2007 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Purpose and Involved Parties .................................................................................2 2.2 Scope of Services, Significant Assumptions, and Limitations.................................2 3.0 Site Description............................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Project Area Location..............................................................................................4 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics..............................................................................4 3.3 Area Geology and Hydrogeology............................................................................4 4.0 User-Provided Information .......................................................................................... 5 5.0 Records Review ........................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Environmental Records Review..............................................................................5 5.2 Summary of Listed Records of Concern to the Project...........................................9 5.3 Local Government Information..............................................................................10 5.4 Historical Use Information.....................................................................................10 5.5 Environmental Liens and Additional Information...................................................11 5.6 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations.............................................11 6.0 Site Reconnaissance and Interviews ....................................................................... 13 6.1 Site Reconnaissance ............................................................................................13 6.2 Interviews..............................................................................................................13 6.3 Utilities and PCBs .................................................................................................14 7.0 Data Gap Analysis...................................................................................................... 14 8.0 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 14 9.0 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 15 10.0 Qualifications of Environmental Professionals.................................................. 16 10.1 Signatures and Qualifications ...............................................................................16 11.0 References ............................................................................................................. 17 i List of Tables Table 1 – Summary of Environmental Database Search......................................................... 7 Appendices Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Site Photographs Appendix C – EDR Information Appendix D – Excerpts from Reviewed Regulatory Files Appendix E – Resumes of HDR Personnel ii List of Acronyms AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System AST aboveground storage tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CORRACTS Corrective Action Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FINDS Facility Index System FRDS Federal Reporting Data System FURS Federal Underground Injection Control HWS Permit Active TSD facilities LUST leaking underground storage tank MINES Mines Master Index File NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned NPL National Priority List NWI National Wetlands Inventory RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS LQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Large Quantity Generators RCRIS SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Small Quantity Generators RCRIS TSD Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Treatment, Storage, and Disposal REC Recognized Environmental Condition SI Site Inspection Spills Spills Database SRP Site Remediation Program SWF/LF Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USGS United States Geological Survey UST underground storage tank Note: A more complete acronym list is located in the EDR Report, Appendix C. iii La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona 1.0 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Executive Summary HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) has conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of North La Cholla Boulevard between West Ruthrauff Road (southern terminus of the project) and West River Road (northern terminus of the project) in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The roadway segment, referred to as the “project area” or the “project corridor” in this report, includes a linear corridor approximately 0.75 miles in length. Land use along North La Cholla Boulevard consists of residential and light commercial uses, specifically active service stations, a historic service station, an inactive landfill, and residential properties. According to HDR’s review of historical sources, including historical aerial photographs, city telephone directories, and personal interviews, the project corridor has developed over the past 40 years as a transportation facility that serves north central Tucson. Before development, the area was scrub desert. This Phase I ESA identifies Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) for the project corridor that may adversely affect roadway construction or project corridor right-of-way acquisition (if required). This ESA was conducted in general conformance with the scope and limitations of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-05. This Phase I ESA includes a summary of the site reconnaissance conducted on March 18, 2007, a review of environmental databases, a review of historical data sources, and on-site and telephone interviews. HDR has performed this Phase I ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-05 for the project corridor, defined as North La Cholla Boulevard between West Ruthrauff Road and West River Road, in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. Any exceptions to or deletions from these ASTM practices are described later in this report. This report has revealed evidence of RECs in connection with the project corridor. HDR has concluded that the risk of contamination within the corridor exists due to the presence of operating service stations, former service stations, and inactive landfill facilities. Implementation of Recommendations will depend on proposed construction and property use, and property acquisitions. Because of this conclusion, HDR makes the following recommendation: Recommendation 1 HDR recommends further investigation in the form of a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI). In order to determine whether residual impacts exist at sites A, B, and C. A drilling and sampling program should be implemented to verify or refute the existence of actionable concentrations of released hazardous materials. A specific and targeted analytical program should be implemented to determine the concentration of residual impacts, if present. The analytical program should focus on hazardous compounds that are specifically regulated by ADEQ. Recommendation 2 HDR recommends further investigation in the form of a sub-surface characterization of potential landfill material. Test pits will be advanced and excavated materials will be categorized into waste types. Any potentially hazardous materials will be collected for laboratory analysis for contaminants of concern. The analytical program should focus on hazardous compounds that are specifically regulated by ADEQ. 1 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Purpose and Involved Parties Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 This Phase I ESA documents the evaluation of the project area for indications of “recognized environmental conditions.” A recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined by ASTM Practice E 1527-05 as: “The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a project site under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the project site or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the project site. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions of storage and use in compliance with local and state laws and regulations. The term is not intended to include de minimus conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of regulatory governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimus are not recognized environmental conditions.” HDR received authorization from the Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) to conduct a Phase I ESA of the project corridor, defined as North La Cholla Boulevard from West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road, in unincorporated Pima County. This Phase I ESA has been prepared for PCDOT, and only PCDOT has the right to rely on the contents of this Phase I ESA. 2.2 Scope of Services, Significant Assumptions, and Limitations The services provided for this project consisted of the following: • • • • • • • Provide a description of the project area including current land uses Provide a general description of the topography, soils, geology, and groundwater flow direction Review reasonably ascertainable and reviewable regulatory information published by federal, state, local, tribal, health, and/or environmental agencies pertaining to the project area Review historical data sources for the project area, including aerial photographs, topographic maps, fire insurance maps, city directories, and other readily available development data Conduct an area reconnaissance and an environmental review—including a visual inspection of adjoining properties—with a focus on indications of hazardous substances, petroleum products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), wells, storage tanks, solid waste disposal pits and sumps, and utilities Interview current owners and occupants of businesses located near the project area that are likely to use hazardous materials in their operations and interview other persons with knowledge of the development history of the project area Prepare a written report of methods, findings, and conclusions The goal of this scope of services is to assist the user in identifying conditions in the project area that may indicate risks regarding hazardous materials storage, disposal, or other impacts. The resulting report may qualify the user for relief from liabilities as one of three “defenses” identified in the 2002 Brownfields Amendments to the Comprehensive 2 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 9607 (All Appropriate Inquiry subsections). These three defenses include: 1. The “innocent landowner” defense to potential liabilities under 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 9601 2. The “contiguous project corridor owner” defense pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607q 3. The “bona fide prospective purchaser” defense pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9607r Federal regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Part 312, promulgated by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), require that liability release be based (in part) on completion of All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) prior to purchase of a property. Those inquiries are documented by Phase I reports, or Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). EPA has agreed that the recently developed ASTM guidance (ASTM Practice E 1527-05) specifies and interprets AAI requirements. A user is defined by ASTM Practice E 1527-05 as the party seeking to use Practice E 1527 to complete an ESA of the project area and may include a potential purchaser of land in the project area, a potential tenant of the project area, an owner of land in the project area, a lender, or a project area manager. Investigative areas not included in the standard ASTM ESA scope include: asbestos, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, radon or urea formaldehyde, wetland issues, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, and high voltage power lines. The scope of services for ESA projects also does not include the completion of soil borings, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, or the collection of soil or groundwater samples. Likely sources of vapor intrusion, from potential on-site or off-site sources, are identified. State and national policies and standards relevant to vapor intrusion are in flux and subject to change. HDR has made certain assumptions in preparing the scope of this assessment: • • • • • Data gathered from public information sources (i.e., libraries or public regulatory agencies) are accurate and reliable. Site operations reflect site conditions relative to potential releases and no intentional concealment of environmental conditions or releases has occurred. Interview information is directly reported as gathered by the assessor and is limited by the accuracy of the interviewee’s recollection and experience. Published geologic information and site observations made by the environmental professional are used to estimate likely contaminant migration pathways in the subsurface. These estimates by the environmental professional are limited in accuracy and are generally cross-referenced with existing information about similar sites and environmental releases in the area. Regulatory information is limited to sites discovered after the late 1980s because reliable records were not kept by regulatory agencies prior to that time frame. Where a REC has resulted from historical uses or conditions, but apparently no longer persists at the site, the term “historical REC” is used. The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on the procedures described in ASTM Practice E 1527-05, informal discussions with various agencies, a review of the available literature cited in this report, conditions noted at the time of this Phase I ESA, and 3 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 HDR’s interpretation of the information obtained as part of this Phase I ESA. The findings and conclusions are limited to the specific project and properties described in this report, and by the accuracy and completeness of the information provided by others. An ESA cannot entirely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs. Conducting this assessment is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a project area within reasonable limits of time and cost. In conducting its services, HDR used a degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession practicing in the same locality. No other warranty is made or intended. This Phase I ESA generally conforms to the level of documentation required in ASTM Practice E 1527-05. Deviations from the ASTM standard included deletion of certain records sources deemed to be inapplicable, or of limited value, to the specific needs of this client. 3.0 Site Description 3.1 Project Area Location The study area includes North La Cholla Boulevard from West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road, in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The study area is located in Township 13 South – Range 13 East – Sections 15, 16, 21, and 22. A Project Location Map and a Site Detail Map is included as Appendix A. The Site Detail Map also includes a summary of sites identified in the ISA. Photographic documentation is provided in Appendix B. 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics The 1995 Jaynes, Arizona, United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map indicates that the project area is approximately 2262 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The topography near the site slopes to the north and northwest. The topography and geographic location suggest that shallow groundwater flows north and northwest. 3.3 Area Geology and Hydrogeology The site is located within the Basin and Range Lowland Physiographic Province, which includes an area extending from the northwest corner of the state, southeasterly across the southern half of the state. Landforms present within the Basin and Range Province consist of predominantly northwest-southwest trending, block-faulted mountain ranges, separated by broad, gently sloping alluvial basins. The mountains in this province consist of tilted blocks of Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks. The corridor is located in the Tucson Basin. The Tucson Basin is an extensive basin containing alluvium varying up to approximately 12,000 feet in thickness. The alluvium is highly variable and ranges from sand, gravel, and cobble deposits to silts, clays and heavily cemented sandy clay. Characteristics of granular soils include high hydraulic transmisivity. The project area is bound to the north-northeast by the Santa Catalina Mountains, to the east by the Rincon Mountains, and to the west by the Tucson Mountains. The Santa Cruz River is the principal drainage feature through the Tucson Basin. The Santa Cruz River is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project area. The Rillito River is ephemeral and the principal drainage feature within the project area. The Rillito River is located approximately 0.5 mile north of Ruthrauff Road and ultimately drains northwesterly into the Santa Cruz River. 4 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Groundwater flow in the project area is expected to be to the north-northwest. Local groundwater flow is heavily influenced by municipal wells that induce drawdown cones at the well. This local condition is further complicated by the sporadic nature of pumping from these wells, with variable pumping rates and durations. Depth to groundwater in the project area is approximately 125 feet bgs (USGS online). 4.0 User-Provided Information The user of the report did not provide a property tax map, survey map, property zoning information, title abstract, or abstract report. 5.0 5.1 Records Review Environmental Records Review Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), was contracted by HDR to complete a database search of federal, state, and tribal environmental records for the project site. The federal and state databases searched consisted of the following: Federal ASTM Standard • • • • • • • • • • • NPL – National Priority List Proposed NPL – Proposed National Priority List Delisted NPL – National Priority List Deletions CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS-NFRAP – CERLCIS No Further Remedial Action Planned CORRACTS – Corrective Action Report RCRA TSD – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities RCRA Small Quantity Generators (SQG) RCRA Large Quantity Generators (LQG) Institutional Control/Engineering Controls Registries ERNS – Emergency Response Notification System Federal ASTM Supplemental • • • • • • • • • NPL Recovery – Federal Superfund Liens DOD – Department of Defense Sites FUDS – Formerly Used Defense Sites U.S. Brownfields – Listing of Brownfields Sites CONSENT – Superfund (CERLA) Consent Decrees ROD – Records of Decision UMTRA – Uranium Mill Tailing Sites ODI – Open Dump Inventory SSTS – Section 7 Tracking Systems 5 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona • • • • • • • • • • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 ICIS – Integrated Compliance Information System MINES – Mines Master Index File HMIRS – Hazardous Materials Incident Report System TRIS – Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA – Toxic Substances Control Act FTTS – FIFRA, TSCA, and EPCRA Tracking Systems PADS – PCB Activity Database System MLTS – Material Licensing Tracking System FINDS – Facility Index System RAATS – RCRA Administration Action Tracking System State ASTM Standard • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SPL – State Superfund Program List WQARF – Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Sites ZipAcids – Arizona Hazardous Waste Sites SWF/LF – Directory of Solid Waste/Landfill Facilities SWTIRE – Solid Waste/Tire Facilities AOCONCERN – Superfund GIS Program AST – List of Aboveground Storage Tanks AZ Spills – Hazardous Material Logbook AUL – Deed or Environmental Use Restriction (DUER) Database VCP – Voluntary Cleanup Program DRYCLEANERS – Drycleaner Facility Listing AZ DOD – U.S. Department of Defense Sites BROWNFIELDS – Brownfields Tracking System CDL – Clandestine Drug Labs Listing Aquifer – Wastewater Treatment Facilities AZ AIRS – Arizona Air Quality Database AZURITE – Remediation and DUER/VEMUR Tracking System Tribal ASTM Standard • • • INDIAN RESERV – Indian Reservations INDIAN LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land INDIAN UST – Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land A computerized environmental information database search was performed for the project site by EDR on March 6, 2007. The databases searched included federal, state, local, tribal, and EDR proprietary databases as defined by ASTM E 1527-05. The results of the database search are summarized in the following table (Table 1) and paragraphs. A complete copy of the EDR environmental database report is included in Appendix C. Sites listed in Table 1 may or may not be of concern to the project. Only sites listed in Table 1 that are located adjacent to the corridor are discussed in the descriptive paragraphs. 6 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Table 1 – Summary of Environmental Database Search Facilities listed Sites of concern to the project NPL The National Priorities List (NPL) is the U.S. EPA’s database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste facilities that have been listed for priority remedial actions under the Superfund program. 0 0 Delisted NPL The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) established the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 0 0 CERCLIS/ NFRAP The CERCLIS database is a compilation of facilities that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) refers to facilities that have been removed and archived from its inventory of CERCLA sites. 4 2 RCRA CORRACTS/ TSD The EPA maintains a database of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities associated with treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of hazardous materials that are undergoing “corrective action.” A “corrective action” order is issued when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. 0 0 RCRA NonCORRACTS/ TSD The RCRA Non-CORRACTS/TSD Database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities that report storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. Unlike the RCRA CORRACTS/TSD database, the RCRA Non-CORRACTS/TSD database does not include RCRA facilities where corrective action is required. 0 0 The RCRA INFO database, maintained by the EPA, lists facilities that generate hazardous waste as part of their normal business practices. Generators are listed as large, small, or conditionally exempt. Large quantity generators (LQG) produce at least 1,000 kg/month of nonacutely hazardous waste or 1 kg/month of acutely hazardous waste. Small quantity generators (SQG) produce 100 to 1,000 kg/month of nonacutely hazardous waste. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) are those that generate less than 100 kg/month of nonacutely hazardous waste. 0 0 ERNS Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. 0 0 HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS) contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to USDOT. 0 0 US ENG Controls A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. 0 0 US INST Controls A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. 0 0 PADS PCB Activity Database System (PADS) identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers, and/or brokers and disposers of PCBs who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. 0 0 Database Description Federal RCRA INFO 7 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Facilities listed Sites of concern to the project RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. 0 0 MLTS MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites that possess or use radioactive materials and are subject to NRC licensing requirements. 0 0 TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) identifies facilities that release toxic chemicals to the air, water, and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III, Section 313. 0 0 FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System (FINDS) contains both facility information and ‘pointers’ to other sources that contain further detail. 0 0 TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. 0 0 FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)/Toxic Substances Control Act (SCA). FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA, and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). 0 0 SWF/LF State Landfill/ Historical Landfill The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) maintains a list of Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites (SWF/LF), including active and inactive, permitted and nonpermitted solid waste disposal facilities. 2 2 SHWS State Hazardous Waste List ADEQ’s Superfund Programs List (SPL) is the state version of the federal CERCLIS list. Sites on the SPL list come from three sources: the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) list and potential sites WQARF list, the federal Superfund list (NPL), and Department of Defense sites that require Superfund oversight. 27 2 VCP Site Remediation Program ADEQ’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) list includes all sites currently enrolled in the ADEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program. These sites are listed by site, not by Remediation Applicant (RA), because the RA often is not involved in the cleanup action. 0 0 State LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Site List – ADEQ provides a computer-generated database of the LUSTs within the specified area based on LUST incident reports and cleanup actions underway. 2 2 State UST Underground Storage Tank (UST) Database – ADEQ provides a database of registered Underground Storage Tanks within the specified area. This database may also include registered Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs). 5 3 AZ Spills ADEQ lists chemical spills and incidents referred to the Emergency Response Unit. 0 0 AZ AIRS A listing of air permits and emissions information 0 0 Database Description State and Local 8 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Database Description Facilities listed Brownfields A brownfield site is an industrial or commercial project corridor that is abandoned, inactive, or underutilized, on which expansion or redevelopment is complicated because of the actual or perceived environmental contamination. 0 5.2 Sites of concern to the project 0 Summary of Listed Records of Concern to the Project State and Local Records LUST Sites A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR and dated March 6, 2007, has revealed that two LUST sites are located within the project corridor. The Family Food Store, located at 2100 West Ruthrauff Road, was listed as a former Mustang / Whiting or Giant Station # 922 (Site C). This facility is listed as having two closed LUST cases. The Circle K Store # 2700592 (Site B), located at 2080 West Ruthrauff Road, is listed as reporting a release resulting in an undefined or unknown soil contamination (open LUST). UST Sites A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR and dated March 6, 2007, has revealed that three UST sites are located within the project corridor. The UST sites are located at the southeast corner of West Ruthrauff Road and North La Cholla Boulevard (Site A, Chevron Food Market), the northeast corner of West Ruthrauff Road and North La Cholla Boulevard (Site B, Circle K), and at the southwest corner of West River Road and North La Cholla Boulevard (Site F, Circle K). Site F is a new facility and is located hydrologically downgradient and approximately 300 feet west of La Cholla Boulevard. This site is not listed as a LUST case and is not expected to be impacted by the La Cholla widening project. Solid Waste Facilities/ Landfill Sites A review of the SWF/LF sites list, as provided by EDR and dated March 6, 2007, has revealed that two closed landfills are located within the project corridor. La Cholla #1 (Site D) is located on the west side of North La Cholla Boulevard south of the Rillito River. Site D was in operation from 1968 to 1972. La Cholla #2 (Site E) is located on the east side of North La Cholla Boulevard south of the Rillito River. Site E was in operation from 1968 to 1969. The boundaries of La Cholla #1 and La Cholla #2 are not well defined. Therefore the distance for the river and ROW are unknown. Pima county records do not indicate an estimate of aerial coverage, however they state the landfill were intermittent through the area. State Hazardous Waste Sites A review of SHWS sites list, as provided by EDR and dated March 6, 2007 has revealed that two SHWS are located within the project corridor (Sites A and C). This database repeats the sites listed in the UST and LUST databases. 9 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona 5.3 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Local Government Information One interview was performed with a representative of ADEQ, Leonor Najera of ADEQ’s Tank Programs Division. The results of this interview are included in Section 6.2. 5.4 Historical Use Information The objective of reviewing historical use information is to develop a history of previous land uses in the vicinity of the project area and to assess these uses for potential hazardous materials impacts that may affect the project. HDR reviewed those historical sources that were readily available and reviewable and likely to provide useful information, given the time and cost constraints inherent in ESA projects. Fire Insurance Maps Fire insurance maps are produced by private fire insurance companies to indicate uses of the project area on specified dates. HDR requested fire insurance maps from EDR, the copyright holder for the Sanborn map collection; however, no Sanborn fire insurance map coverage exists for the project corridor. City Directory Information HDR obtained city telephone directory information for addresses located along the project corridor (4800 to 5400 North La Cholla Boulevard and 2000 to 2200 West Ruthrauff Road). City directories were researched by HDR at the Phoenix Public Library, Arizona Room, Special Collections. Thirteen directories were reviewed for the years between 1962 and 2006 (intervals of approximately five years). The following information was gathered for the three listed risk sites. • • • • • Site A – La Cholla Chevron Food Market, 2075 West Ruthrauff Road – This site was first listed in 1992 and has been consistently listed from that date until the present. Site B – The Circle K Store # 2700592, 2080 North Ruthrauff Road – This site was first listed in 1972 and has been consistently listed from that date until the present. Site C – The Family Food Store, 2100 West Ruthruaff Road – This site is first listed as a Pasco Petro in 1982. Then the site is listed as a Whitting service station from 1987 to 2001. Next the site was listed as a Giant Express service station from 2002 to 2004. The Family Food Store is listed from 2005 to the present. Site D – Closed West La Cholla #1– This site was not listed in the directory search. It is possible that the site did not have a phone number listed. Site E– Closed East La Cholla #2– This site was not listed in the directory search. It is possible that the site did not have a phone number listed. Historical Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs are valuable for the environmental assessor to review features of properties along the project corridor over a long period of time. HDR reviewed historical aerial photographs at Landiscor in Phoenix, Arizona (a private collection of aerial images for sites throughout Arizona). Historical aerial photographs were reviewed from 1963 through 2006. Coverage was available for 29 years of that 43-year span, with the longest gap in 10 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 coverage being 8 years (between 1963 and 1975). Information relating to observed features or the five listed risk sites is presented below. 1963 – Residential development was minimal, present only north of West Ruthrauff Road on the east and west sides of North La Cholla Boulevard. No commercial development was present within the project corridor. None of the identified risk sites were present. 1975 – Residential development had expanded east and west of North La Cholla Boulevard. Site B was present. Ground disturbance was present in the vicinity of Sites D and E. No site operations appeared to be active. No other commercial development had taken place. None of the other listed risk sites were present. 1982 – Residential development had begun to fill in undeveloped parcels. Site C was present. Site B was active. None of the other listed risk sites were present. 1989 – Commercial development was present on the east side of North La Cholla Boulevard south of the Rillito River. Sites A, B and C were present. 1992 – Sites A, B and C were present. Multi-family structures were present along West Ruthrauff Road, east of North La Cholla Boulevard. 1998 – Site A was paved, but no building was present. Sites B and C were present. This aerial photograph is similar to the 1992 photograph. 2002 – Sites B and C were present, Site A is similar to the 1998 photograph. Residential properties have begun to be built on the west side of North La Cholla Boulevard. 2006 – Sites A, B and C were present in their current configuration. Historical Topographic Maps Historical topographic maps provide an overview of the area relative to potential previous land uses. HDR reviewed historical topographic maps of the project corridor and adjoining properties for the years 1974 and 1975 (photo-revised 1995 and 1997, respectively). These maps served to verify the information gathered in the historic aerial photograph review. 5.5 Environmental Liens and Additional Information No information regarding the chain-of-title ownership history or environmental liens recorded against the project corridor was provided by the user. Environmental lien searches were not conducted as part of the scope of work for this project. 5.6 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations Site B- A previous report entitled Site Characterization Report was prepared for the site by ATC Associates Inc. (ATC) in 2005. The report was in response to a possible release of petroleum from a UST. Borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 50 feet bgs in the vicinity of the tanks. Groundwater was not encountered. Concentrations of benzene were detected at concentration greater than the ADEQ established residential soil remediation levels (rSRL) at a depth of 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 feet bgs in soil sample SB-1/VE-1, located approximately 50’ east of La Cholla Boulevard. Site C- A previous report entitled Site Characterization Report, Former Mustang Station No. 6922 was prepared for the site by Allen, Stephenson and Associates (ASA) in 2003. The 11 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 report was in response to a possible release of petroleum from an UST during the tank removal. Borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 50 feet bgs in the vicinity of the tanks. Groundwater was not encountered. No concentrations of any regulated contaminant of concern above rSRL were encountered. ADEQ has closed this case. 12 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona 6.0 Site Reconnaissance and Interviews 6.1 Site Reconnaissance Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 On May 18, 2007, HDR conducted a reconnaissance of the project area. Land use along North La Cholla Boulevard consists of residential and light commercial uses, and includes active service stations, a historic service station, an inactive landfill, and municipal properties. During the site reconnaissance, the assessor searched for several indicators of potential environmental impacts to the project site. Some of these indicators include the presence of distressed vegetation, illegal disposal of household or construction waste, and the presence of pits, ponds, or lagoons. HDR did not observe any of these indicators. Various areas of de minimus (as defined in ASTM E1527-05) staining on paved surfaces within the project area were present, primarily in vehicle parking lots and roadways. The topography of the project area is relatively flat. No discerning features of Sites D and E were visible. 6.2 Interviews Site Interviews HDR personnel met with representatives of Site A, B and C on May 18, 2007. These representatives provided HDR with limited information, and the results of those interviews are summarized below. Site A - Mr. Christopher Nolen, Store Manager, Chevron (Valero) service station indicated that the facility operates five 12,000 gallon USTs. The site has been in operation for approximately one year. Mr. Nolen was unaware of any releases. Site B – Mr. Bill Bunch, Corporate Environmental Manager, Circle K Corporation, Tempe, Arizona reported that the Circle K store is listed in the company database as an active UST site. He reported that the site is currently listed as a LUST case (undefined extent of release). He reported that the site is located at 2080 West Ruthrauff Road and was built in 1972. Site C- Mr. Sam Zumot, Store Owner, Family Food Store (former Mustang Service Station) indicated that the building was constructed in 2005. Mr. Zumot was aware that the site was a former service station. He was unaware of any releases from the former tanks. Off-Site Interviews After the site reconnaissance was completed, HDR personnel contacted a representative of ADEQ’s Tank Programs Division and requested a review of pertinent files for the UST and LUST cases identified. Ms. Leonor Najera of ADEQ’s Tank Programs Division provided files and an interview opportunity. Leonor Najera, Data Specialist for ADEQ, provided files for the listed risk sites. Site A and B were listed as active UST sites, with current tank fees paid. Site B is listed as having a documented release. Site C is listed as a closed UST. 13 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona 6.3 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Utilities and PCBs HDR did not observe signs indicating subsurface utilities other than typical municipal utilities such as water, sewer, electrical, telecommunications cable, and residential gas. Polemounted transformers were noted in a few locations, but no large power substations or stepdown transformers were noted. Tucson Electric Power (the power provider for the area) maintains a test-and-replace policy for PCB-containing transformers. Given the age of the development of the area, it is unlikely that PCB-containing transformers would be present. Additionally, no spills or hazardous materials response events were noted in the EDR report. 7.0 Data Gap Analysis The ASTM E 1527-05 standard requires a listing of “data gaps” encountered during the investigative process that may affect the validity of the conclusions drawn by the environmental professional. The ASTM E 1527-05 standard also requires that the environmental professional estimate the relative importance of the data gaps. Generally, gaps in available data are related to the availability of historical data sources for specific sites of concern. The environmental professional uses multiple historical data sources as a method to provide coverage for data gaps. Historical information is collected on a recurring basis, and the passage of time between data sets may or may not constitute a significant gap in data coverage. For this project, the following items may constitute a data gap as defined by ASTM: • • Absence of Sanborn fire insurance maps Absence of aerial photography prior to 1963 The inability to obtain and review the Sanborn fire insurance maps, and the lack of aerial photography prior to 1963, do not appear to present significant data gaps because of the presence of other supporting historical information and the lack of development in the area prior to 1963. 8.0 Findings and Conclusions HDR has conducted a Phase I ESA of the project corridor, identified as North La Cholla Boulevard between West Ruthrauff Road and West River Road, in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The ESA was performed in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-05. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described previously in this report. HDR personnel observed recognized environmental conditions (RECs), as defined in ASTM Practice E 1527-05, in connection with the project corridor. The Site Detail Map indicates the location of sites that HDR considers to be moderate to high risk. HDR offers the following description of these sites and issues as follows: • Site A – La Cholla Chevron Food Market, 2075 West Ruthrauff Road. This facility is an operating service station/convenience store with USTs. Although this facility is not currently listed as a LUST site, this type of facility is often the source of unreported/undiscovered subsurface impacts. Given the location of the UST system near the North La Cholla Boulevard right-of-way, and the relative location of the site (adjacent to North La Cholla Boulevard), HDR has ranked this site as a Moderate to High Risk site. 14 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona • • • • 9.0 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Site B – The Circle K Store # 2700592, 2080 West Ruthrauff Road. This facility is an operating service station/convenience store with USTs. The site is currently listed as a LUST site with an undefined release. This facility is located adjacent to North La Cholla Boulevard. It is possible that the site may be acquired. HDR has ranked this site as a High Risk site. Site C – The Family Food Store (former Mustang / Whiting and Giant service station) 2100 West Ruthrauff Road. This facility is a historic service station with a known release of petroleum fuels to the subsurface from USTs. This site has been redeveloped as a grocery store. Although this facility is a closed LUST site, this type of facility is often the source of unreported/undiscovered subsurface impacts. This facility is located adjacent to North La Cholla Boulevard. HDR has ranked this site as a High Risk site. Site D – Closed West La Cholla #1 landfill, located west of North La Cholla Boulevard, south of the Rillito River. This site was in operation from 1968 to 1972. It is possible the eastern boundary of the closed landfill may encroach on current rightof-way, HDR has ranked this site as a Moderate to High Risk site. Site E – Closed East La Cholla #2 landfill, located east of North La Cholla Boulevard, south of the Rillito River. This site was in operation from 1968 to 1969. It is possible the western boundary of the closed landfill may encroach on current right-of-way, HDR has ranked this site as a Moderate to High Risk site. Recommendations Recommendations included in this report have been developed through the investigative procedures described in the Scope of Services, Significant Assumptions, and Limitations section of this report. These findings should be reviewed within the context of the limitations provided in the Limitations section. Based on the location and specific details of the identified risk sites, HDR has “recognized environmental conditions” (RECs) on the project corridor. This conclusion has led to the inclusion of the following statement as required by ASTM E 1527-05: HDR has performed this Phase I ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-05 for the project corridor, defined as North La Cholla Boulevard between West Ruthrauff Road and West River Road, in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. Any exceptions to or deletions from these ASTM practices are described later in this report. This report has revealed evidence of RECs in connection with the project corridor. HDR has concluded that the risk of contamination within the corridor exists due to the presence of operating service stations, former service stations, and inactive landfill facilities. Implementation of Recommendations will depend on proposed construction and property use, and property acquisitions. Because of this conclusion, HDR makes the following recommendations: Recommendation 1 HDR recommends further investigation in the form of a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI). In order to determine whether residual impacts exist at sites A, B, and C. A drilling and sampling program should be implemented to verify or refute the existence of actionable concentrations of released hazardous materials. A specific and targeted analytical program should be implemented to determine the concentration of residual impacts, if present. The 15 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Qualifications of Environmental Professionals This Phase I ESA was performed by the following HDR personnel. Mr. Joel P. Hennings, HDR’s qualified environmental professional, as defined by ASTM Practice E 1527-05, has more than six years of experience in assessment and remediation of impacted properties and compliance with environmental regulations. He has a B.S. in Environmental Sciences from the University of Nebraska. He specializes in forensic investigation of hazardous materials impacted properties for federal, state, and municipal agencies, as well as commercial clients. His experience covers assessment of more than 150 properties ranging from agricultural land to federal nuclear testing sites. He is knowledgeable of federal, state, and local environmental regulations and standards. Qualifications of QA/QC Review Professionals Reviews for quality assurance and quality control were performed by the following HDR personnel: Scott Stapp, René Tanner and Kelly Kading. Kelly Kading provided technical peer review for the report. Mr. Kelly W. Kading, CPG CHMM, HDR’s qualified environmental professional, as defined by ASTM Practice E 1527-05, has more than 19 years of experience in the assessment and remediation of impacted properties and compliance with environmental regulations. He has a B.S. in Geology from Colorado State University and is a Certified Professional Geologist (#9173), and a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (#1995). Mr. Kading specializes in the forensic investigation of hazardous materials-impacted properties for municipal and state agencies, as well as for commercial clients. His experience covers the assessment of more than 2,500 properties, ranging from agricultural land to multigenerational industrial properties in 32 states and 2 foreign countries. He is highly knowledgeable of federal, state, and local environmental regulations and standards and has served on the National Board of Directors of the Academy of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers. 11.0 References Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2007. Tank Programs Division, Department Web site, . ASTM Practice E 1527-05, 2005. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Report, 2007. North La Cholla Blvd, River Rd. to Ruthrauff ISA, Tucson, AZ 85705. The EDR DataMap Corridor Study, Inquiry Number 1871325.1s. March 6, 2007. Interview, May 2007. Bill Bunch, Circle K Corporate Environmental Manager. Interview, May 2007. Leonor Najera, ADEQ Tank Programs Division. Site Characterization Report, August 2003. Allen, Stephenson and Associates. Former Mustang Station No. 6922, 2100 West Ruthrauff Road. Site Characterization Report, June 2005. ATC and Associates. Circle K Store No. 00592, 2080 West Ruthrauff Road. 16 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Appendix A Figures Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Proje Project ojectt Area USGS WICKENBURG (AZ) QUADRANGLE Source: Topozone, Wickenburg, AZ. 1964. Project Name Initial Site Asssessment North La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road, Tucson, AZ. Figure Name Project Location Map Figure 1 F D E C B A Project Name Initial Site Asssessment North La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road, Tucson, AZ. Figure Name Site Detail Map Figure 2 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Appendix B Site Photographs Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 1 –La Cholla Chevron Food Market (Site A), view to the south. Photo 2 –Circle K Store # 2700592 (Site B), view to the north. Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 3 –The Family Food Store (Site C), view to the west. Photo 4 –Closed West La Cholla #1 (Site D), view to the west. Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 5 – Vicinity of the Closed East La Cholla #2 (Site E), view to the south. Photo 6 – Overview of topography, view to the southeast. Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 7 – Circle K Store at the southwest corner of West River Road and North La Cholla Boulevard, view to the northwest. Photo 8 – Southeast corner of West River Road and La Cholla Boulevard, view to the northeast. Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 9 – La Cholla Boulevard, bridge over the Rillito River, view to the southwest. Photo 10 – Rillito River at La Cholla Boulevard, view to the east. Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 11 – La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road intersection, view to the east. Photo 12 – La Cholla Boulevard and Curtis Road intersection, view to the southeast. Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard Photo 13 – La Cholla Boulevard, view to the north. Photo 14 – La Cholla Boulevard, view to the south. October 2007 Initial Site Assessment La Cholla Boulevard October 2007 Photo 15 – Southeast corner of the La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road intersection, view to the north. Photo 16 – Northeast corner of the La Cholla Boulevard and Ruthrauff Road intersection, view to the south. La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Appendix C EDR Information Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 The EDR Radius Map™ Report N. La Cholla Blvd. River Road/N. La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85705 Inquiry Number: 1871325.1s The Standard in Environmental Risk Management Information March 06, 2007 440 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, Connecticut 06461 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 Internet: www.edrnet.com FORM-NULL-MER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ES1 Overview Map 2 Detail Map 3 Map Findings Summary 4 Map Findings 6 Orphan Summary 24 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM GeoCheck - Not Requested Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2007 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC1871325.1s Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS RIVER ROAD/N. LA CHOLLA BLVD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation: 32.299800 - 32˚ 17’ 59.3’’ 111.012000 - 111˚ 0’ 43.2’’ Zone 12 498870.2 3573478.5 2262 ft. above sea level USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property Map: Most Recent Revision: 32111-C1 JAYNES, AZ 1995 East Map: Most Recent Revision: 32110-C8 TUCSON NORTH, AZ 1995 TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the following databases: FEDERAL RECORDS NPL Proposed NPL Delisted NPL NPL RECOVERY CORRACTS RCRA-TSDF RCRA-LQG National Priority List Proposed National Priority List Sites National Priority List Deletions Federal Superfund Liens Corrective Action Report Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information TC1871325.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RCRA-SQG ERNS HMIRS US ENG CONTROLS US INST CONTROL DOD FUDS US BROWNFIELDS CONSENT ROD UMTRA ODI TRIS TSCA FTTS SSTS ICIS RADINFO US CDL LUCIS PADS MLTS MINES FINDS RAATS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information Emergency Response Notification System Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Engineering Controls Sites List Sites with Institutional Controls Department of Defense Sites Formerly Used Defense Sites A Listing of Brownfields Sites Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Records Of Decision Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Open Dump Inventory Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Toxic Substances Control Act FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Section 7 Tracking Systems Integrated Compliance Information System Radiation Information Database Clandestine Drug Labs Land Use Control Information System PCB Activity Database System Material Licensing Tracking System Mines Master Index File Facility Index System/Facility Registry System RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS SPL AZ WQARF SWTIRE AOCONCERN UST AST AZ MANIFEST AZ Spills AUL VCP DRYCLEANERS AZ DOD BROWNFIELDS CDL Aquifer WWFAC Dry Wells AZ AIRS AZURITE Superfund Program List Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Sites Solid Waste Tire Facilities Superfund GIS Information Underground Storage Tank Listing List of Aboveground Storage Tanks Facility and Manifest Data Hazardous Material Logbook DEUR Database Voluntary Remediation Program Sites Drycleaner Facility Listing Department of Defense Sites Brownfields Tracking System Clandestine Drug Labs Waste Water Treatment Facilities Waste Water Treatment Facilities Drywell Registration Arizona Airs Database Remediation and DEUR/VEMUR Tracking System TRIBAL RECORDS INDIAN RESERV INDIAN LUST INDIAN UST Indian Reservations Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants TC1871325.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases. Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. FEDERAL RECORDS CERCLIS: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. A review of the CERCLIS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 11/28/2006 has revealed that there is 1 CERCLIS site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________ AERO RENTAL, INC. Address ________ 2425 W. CURTIS RD. Dist / Dir __________ Map ID _____ 1/4 - 1/2 WNW 5 Page _____ 8 CERCLIS-NFRAP: Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. A review of the CERC-NFRAP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/20/2006 has revealed that there are 3 CERC-NFRAP sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ PIMA PAVING, INC. WHITING STATION LA CHOLLA CHEVRON FOOD MARKET Address ________ 5180 N. LA CHOLLA BLVD. 2100 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. 2075 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. Dist / Dir __________ Map ID _____ Page _____ 0 - 1/8 N 1/4 - 1/2 S 1/4 - 1/2 S A1 B9 B10 6 11 12 TC1871325.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS SHWS: The State Hazardous Waste Sites records are the states’ equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. The data come from the Department of Environmental Quality’s ZipAcids database. A review of the SHWS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 01/03/2000 has revealed that there are 27 SHWS sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ PIMA PAVING, INC. WHITING STATION #138 LA CHOLLA CHEVRON FOOD MART AGM VALPAR INTERNATIONAL CORP. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL CO. ANDERSON METAL FABRICATING THERMAL ENGINEERING PREMDOR WEST BOB’S MATERIAL SUPPLY AZ PIPELINE Lower Elevation ____________________ AERO RENTAL, INC. RAY KIDD TOWING SVC. PRECISION PLATING INC. BUMPER-TO-BUMPER BOB’S CUSTOM ROOFING AZ DRY MIXED MATERIALS QUALITY PAVING & UTILITY CO. RACE CAR CO. VROMAN’S AUTO BODY FOAM EXPERT ROOFING RALPH HAYS ROOFING CO INC PARSONS STEEL CO. BONITA STEEL A.A. MCDANIEL WELL & MACHINE C AMERICAN BODY & PAINT GILBERT PUMP OF TUCSON Address ________ 5180 N. LA CHOLLA BLVD 2100 W. RUTHRAUFF 2075 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. 4620 SULLINGER RD. 2450 W. RUTHRAUFF #180 1717 W. RILLITO ST. 2107 WEST WETMORE ROAD 2250 W. WETMORE 2300 W. WETMORE #200 2341 W. WETMORE 2402 W. WETMORE Address ________ 2425 W. CURTIS RD. 2530 W. CURTIS RD. 2557 W. VIOLET AVE. 2545 W. ZINNIA ST. 2560 W ZINNIA AVE 2565 W. ZINNIA ST. 2450 W. POPPY RD. 2450 W. POPPY AVE. 2729 W. RUTHRAUFF 2534 W. POPPY 2550 W POPPY AVE 4580 N. HIGHWAY DR. 2439 W. WETMORE 2838 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. 4419 N. HIGHWAY DR. 2840 W RUTHRAUFF RD Dist / Dir __________ Map ID _____ Page _____ 0 - 1/8 N 1/4 - 1/2 S 1/4 - 1/2 S 1/4 - 1/2 SSW 1/2 - 1 SW 1/2 - 1 SE 1/2 - 1 S 1/2 - 1 SSW 1/2 - 1 SSW 1/2 - 1 SSW 1/2 - 1 SSW A2 B7 B11 12 13 16 23 25 27 28 30 6 10 12 13 13 15 18 18 19 20 20 Dist / Dir __________ Map ID _____ Page _____ 1/4 - 1/2 WNW 5 1/2 - 1 W 14 1/2 - 1 SW 15 1/2 - 1 SW C17 1/2 - 1 SW C18 1/2 - 1 SW C19 1/2 - 1 SW D20 1/2 - 1 SW D21 1/2 - 1 WSW 22 1/2 - 1 SW E24 1/2 - 1 SW E26 1/2 - 1 SW 29 1/2 - 1 SSW 31 1/2 - 1 WSW F32 1/2 - 1 SW 33 1/2 - 1 WSW F34 8 13 14 15 15 16 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 21 21 22 SWF/LF: The Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. The data come from the Department of Environmental Quality’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.../Closed Solid Waste Landfills...database. A review of the SWF/LF list, as provided by EDR, and dated 08/26/2004 has revealed that there are 2 SWF/LF sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________ PIMA COUNTY - LA CHOLLA #2 LA CHOLLA #1 Address ________ WEST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA EAST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA Dist / Dir __________ Map ID _____ 1/8 - 1/4 NNE 3 1/8 - 1/4 WNW 4 Page _____ 7 7 TC1871325.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environmental Quality’s LUST File Listing by Zip Code. A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/01/2005 has revealed that there are 2 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ CIRCLE K STORE #2700592 Address ________ Dist / Dir __________ Map ID _____ Page _____ 2080 N RUTHRAUFF 1/4 - 1/2 S B6 9 2100 W RUTHRAUFF RD 1/4 - 1/2 S B8 10 Date Closed: / / GIANT #922 Date Closed: 09/14/98 Date Closed: 11/07/03 TC1871325.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name ____________ Database(s) ____________ SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD AZ Spills, BROWNFIELDS, VCP SHWS SHWS SHWS SHWS SHWS CERCLIS, FINDS CERC-NFRAP SWF/LF SWF/LF SWF/LF SWF/LF UST AST FINDS, RCRA-LQG ERNS ERNS ERNS US CDL US CDL WQ-FAGAN LAKE JAIL ANNEX LANDFILL ARTFUL DUSTERS PIMA COUNTY - ROGER RD. WWTP INA RD LANDFILL EL CAMINO DEL CERRO LDFL D & D ENTERPRISES RYLAND SAHUARO MONUMENT LINDA LANDFILL SASABE CIRCLE K STORE #2706470 CABALLO LOCO RANCH ADEQ EL CAMINO DEL CERRO WQARF IN A WASH 1/4 MI SE OF THE 2600 BLK N SILVERBELL EXXON STATION, 501 N PARK EXXON STATION, 501 N PARK 2123 N EDISON TERRANCE 4842 N SHANNON APT 7 TC1871325.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 EDR Inc. EDR Inc. MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Database Target Property Search Distance (Miles) >1 Total Plotted < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 TP 0.500 0.500 1.000 0.500 0.250 0.250 TP TP 0.500 0.500 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 TP TP TP TP TP TP TP 0.500 TP TP 0.250 TP TP 0 0 0 NR 0 1 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR 1 2 0 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 TP 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0 22 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 27 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 FEDERAL RECORDS NPL Proposed NPL Delisted NPL NPL RECOVERY CERCLIS CERC-NFRAP CORRACTS RCRA TSD RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. ERNS HMIRS US ENG CONTROLS US INST CONTROL DOD FUDS US BROWNFIELDS CONSENT ROD UMTRA ODI TRIS TSCA FTTS SSTS ICIS RADINFO CDL LUCIS PADS MLTS MINES FINDS RAATS STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS SPL AZ WQARF State Haz. Waste State Landfill SWTIRE LUST AOCONCERN UST AST MANIFEST AZ Spills TC1871325.1s Page 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Database Target Property AUL VCP DRYCLEANERS AZ DOD BROWNFIELDS CDL Aquifer WWFAC Dry Wells AZ AIRS AZURITE Search Distance (Miles) >1 Total Plotted < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.500 0.500 TP TP 0.500 TP TP 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 0.500 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TRIBAL RECORDS INDIAN RESERV INDIAN LUST INDIAN UST EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS Manufactured Gas Plants NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC1871325.1s Page 5 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site A1 North < 1/8 415 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) PIMA PAVING, INC. 5180 N. LA CHOLLA BLVD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 CERC-NFRAP EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 1003879805 AZD983480534 Site 1 of 2 in cluster A Relative: Equal Actual: 2262 ft. CERC-NFRAP: Site ID: Federal Facility: NPL Status: Non NPL Status: 0904725 Not a Federal Facility Not on the NPL NFRAP CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Contact Name(s): Contact Name: Matt Mitguard Contact Tel: (415) 972-3096 Contact Title: Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Contact Name: Contact Tel: Contact Title: Dawn Richmond (415) 972-3097 Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Site Description: Not reported CERCLIS-NFRAP Assessment History: Action: DISCOVERY Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 12/07/1992 Priority Level: Not reported A2 North < 1/8 415 ft. Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Not reported 09/28/1995 NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action Planned Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: SITE INSPECTION 09/01/1993 09/28/1995 NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action Planned Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: ARCHIVE SITE Not reported 01/23/1996 Not reported PIMA PAVING, INC. 5180 N. LA CHOLLA BLVD TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS 1000709242 N/A Site 2 of 2 in cluster A Relative: Equal Actual: 2262 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: AZD983480534 PA/SI 100135 1188 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 6 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) PIMA PAVING, INC. (Continued) EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 1000709242 Long: Not reported Lat/Long Method: 80 Comments: Not reported 3 NNE 1/8-1/4 672 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2257 ft. 4 WNW 1/8-1/4 761 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2253 ft. PIMA COUNTY - LA CHOLLA #2 WEST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA RD. SOUTH RILLITO RIVER PIMA (County), AZ SWF/LF: Facility Status: FACILITY TYPE: Operator: Operator Address: Operator City,St,Zip: Operator Phone: Directions: Contact: Mail Address: Mail City: Mail State: Mail Zip: Mail City,St,Zip: Area Code: Telephone: Facility Addr 2: Owner: Owner Address: Owner City,St,Zip: Owner Phone: S103895167 N/A SWF/LF S103895161 N/A Closed CSWLF Pima County 131 W. Congress Rd. Tucson, Az 85701 Not reported West side of La Cholla Rd. south Rillito River Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported LA CHOLLA #1 EAST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA RD. SOUTH OF RILLITO RIVER PIMA (County), AZ SWF/LF: Facility Status: FACILITY TYPE: Operator: Operator Address: Operator City,St,Zip: Operator Phone: Directions: Contact: Mail Address: Mail City: Mail State: Mail Zip: Mail City,St,Zip: Area Code: Telephone: Facility Addr 2: Owner: Owner Address: Owner City,St,Zip: SWF/LF Closed CSWLF Pima County 131 W. Congress Rd. Tucson, Az 85701 Not reported East side of La Cholla Rd. south of Rillito River Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 7 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) LA CHOLLA #1 (Continued) Owner Phone: 5 WNW 1/4-1/2 1751 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2254 ft. EDR ID Number EPA ID Number S103895161 Not reported AERO RENTAL, INC. 2425 W. CURTIS RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 CERCLIS SHWS FINDS CERCLIS: Site ID: Federal Facility: NPL Status: Non NPL Status: 1000709203 AZD983480120 0904681 Not a Federal Facility Not on the NPL NFRAP CERCLIS Site Contact Name(s): Contact Name: Matt Mitguard Contact Tel: (415) 972-3096 Contact Title: Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Contact Name: Contact Tel: Contact Title: Dawn Richmond (415) 972-3097 Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Site Description: Not reported CERCLIS Assessment History: Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: DISCOVERY Not reported 12/07/1992 Not reported Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Not reported 10/01/1993 High Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: SITE REASSESSMENT Not reported 06/21/2000 NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action Planned SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480120 PA/SI 100025 1146 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site TC1871325.1s Page 8 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) AERO RENTAL, INC. (Continued) EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 1000709203 CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System) is the Superfund database that is used to support management in all phases of the Superfund program. The system contains information on all aspects of hazardous waste sites, including an inventory of sites, planned and actual site activities, and financial information. B6 South 1/4-1/2 1907 ft. CIRCLE K STORE #2700592 2080 N RUTHRAUFF TUCSON, AZ 85705 LUST UST U003153624 N/A Site 1 of 6 in cluster B Relative: Higher Actual: 2268 ft. LUST: Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-001264 UNDEFINED OR UNKNOWN SOIL CONTAMINATION 07/02/04 / / 5406.01 UST: Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-001264 CIRCLE K STORES INC 1 YES / / / / / / Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-001264 CIRCLE K STORES INC 2 YES / / / / / / Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-001264 CIRCLE K STORES INC 3 YES / / / / / / TC1871325.1s Page 9 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site B7 South 1/4-1/2 1985 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) WHITING STATION #138 2100 W. RUTHRAUFF TUCSON, AZ 85705 EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS S101570970 N/A LUST UST U001626133 N/A Site 2 of 6 in cluster B Relative: Higher Actual: 2268 ft. B8 South 1/4-1/2 1985 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480641 PA/SI 100009 1205 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported GIANT #922 2100 W RUTHRAUFF RD TUCSON, AZ 85705 Site 3 of 6 in cluster B Relative: Higher Actual: 2268 ft. LUST: Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-002780 CLOSED SOIL LVL MEETS TIER1 05/15/97 09/14/98 4697.01 Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-002780 CLOSED SOIL LVL MEETS TIER1 06/13/03 11/07/03 4697.02 UST: Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-002780 GIANT INDUSTRIES ARIZONA INC 1 NO / / / / 06/05/03 Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-002780 GIANT INDUSTRIES ARIZONA INC 2 NO / / / / 06/05/03 Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: 0-002780 GIANT INDUSTRIES ARIZONA INC 3 TC1871325.1s Page 10 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) GIANT #922 (Continued) B9 South 1/4-1/2 1985 ft. EDR ID Number EPA ID Number U001626133 In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: NO / / / / 06/05/03 Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-002780 GIANT INDUSTRIES ARIZONA INC 4 NO / / / / 06/05/03 WHITING STATION 2100 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 CERC-NFRAP 1003879815 AZD983480641 Site 4 of 6 in cluster B Relative: Higher Actual: 2268 ft. CERC-NFRAP: Site ID: Federal Facility: NPL Status: Non NPL Status: 0904740 Not a Federal Facility Not on the NPL NFRAP CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Contact Name(s): Contact Name: Matt Mitguard Contact Tel: (415) 972-3096 Contact Title: Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Contact Name: Contact Tel: Contact Title: Dawn Richmond (415) 972-3097 Site Assessment Manager (SAM) CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Alias Name(s): Alias Name: WHITING BROS. STATION Alias Address: Not reported AZ Site Description: Not reported CERCLIS-NFRAP Assessment History: Action: DISCOVERY Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 12/07/1992 Priority Level: Not reported Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Not reported 09/22/1993 NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action Planned Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: ARCHIVE SITE Not reported 09/22/1993 Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 11 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site B10 South 1/4-1/2 1995 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) LA CHOLLA CHEVRON FOOD MARKET 2075 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 CERC-NFRAP EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 1003879771 AZD983480153 Site 5 of 6 in cluster B Relative: Higher Actual: 2269 ft. CERC-NFRAP: Site ID: Federal Facility: NPL Status: Non NPL Status: 0904684 Not a Federal Facility Not on the NPL NFRAP CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Contact Name(s): Contact Name: Matt Mitguard Contact Tel: (415) 972-3096 Contact Title: Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Contact Name: Contact Tel: Contact Title: Dawn Richmond (415) 972-3097 Site Assessment Manager (SAM) CERCLIS-NFRAP Site Alias Name(s): Alias Name: APSI CHEVRON Alias Address: Not reported AZ Site Description: Not reported CERCLIS-NFRAP Assessment History: Action: DISCOVERY Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 12/07/1992 Priority Level: Not reported B11 South 1/4-1/2 1995 ft. Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Not reported 09/15/1994 NFRAP (No Futher Remedial Action Planned Action: Date Started: Date Completed: Priority Level: ARCHIVE SITE Not reported 09/15/1994 Not reported LA CHOLLA CHEVRON FOOD MART 2075 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS S101570935 N/A Site 6 of 6 in cluster B Relative: Higher Actual: 2269 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: AZD983480153 PA/SI 100128 1181 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 12 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) LA CHOLLA CHEVRON FOOD MART (Continued) EDR ID Number EPA ID Number S101570935 Long: Not reported Lat/Long Method: 80 Comments: Not reported 12 SSW 1/4-1/2 2107 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2268 ft. 13 SW 1/2-1 3010 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2263 ft. 14 West 1/2-1 3146 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2253 ft. AGM 4620 SULLINGER RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: SHWS S101570966 N/A SHWS S101570953 N/A AZD982039000 PA/SI 100143 1201 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported RAY KIDD TOWING SVC. 2530 W. CURTIS RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: S101570898 N/A AZD980881429 PA/SI Not reported 460 19000101 Not reported 0 MM Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported VALPAR INTERNATIONAL CORP. 2450 W. RUTHRAUFF #180 TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: SHWS AZD983480575 PA/SI 110032 1193 19921210 Not reported 0 TC1871325.1s Page 13 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) RAY KIDD TOWING SVC. (Continued) QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: 15 SW 1/2-1 4013 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2251 ft. S101570953 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported PRECISION PLATING INC. 2557 W. VIOLET AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD982489668 PA/SI Not reported 1059 19000101 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported AZ Spills: Incident Date: Facility ID: Property Mngmt: Chemicals: Response Date: Report / Assist: Type: Referred to: Fund Amount: Quantity: Incident Number: Referral Date: Strucure: 06/05/1989 100584214 Private Sulfuric Acid (16%) N/A 06/13/1989 Release HWIU Pvt/Unk 60 gallons 89-167 06/13/1989 Piping Incident Date: Facility ID: Property Mngmt: Chemicals: Response Date: Report / Assist: Type: Referred to: Fund Amount: Quantity: Incident Number: Referral Date: Strucure: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS AZ Spills S101570945 N/A 06/26/1992 100584214 Private ALDET N/A 06/29/1992 Fire N/A Pvt/Unk 300 gals. 92-087-C / / Tank TC1871325.1s Page 14 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 16 SE 1/2-1 4414 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2282 ft. C17 SW 1/2-1 4500 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) RYDER TRUCK RENTAL CO. 1717 W. RILLITO ST. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS S101570954 N/A SHWS 1000709217 N/A SHWS LUST UST 1000709213 N/A AZD982485039 PA/SI 110031 1194 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 99 Not reported BUMPER-TO-BUMPER 2545 W. ZINNIA ST. TUCSON, AZ 85705 Site 1 of 3 in cluster C Relative: Lower Actual: 2255 ft. C18 SW 1/2-1 4523 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480278 PA/SI 100116 1159 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported BOB’S CUSTOM ROOFING 2560 W ZINNIA AVE TUCSON, AZ 85705 Site 2 of 3 in cluster C Relative: Lower Actual: 2255 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480237 PA/SI 100035 1155 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 15 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) BOB’S CUSTOM ROOFING (Continued) LUST: Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: C19 SW 1/2-1 4563 ft. 1000709213 0-000734 LUST CASE COMBINED - CLOSED OUT 12/16/93 04/20/98 3111.033111.02 Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-000734 CLOSED SOIL LVL MEETS TIER1 09/17/93 04/30/96 3111.01 Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-000734 CLOSED SOIL LVL MEETS TIER1 12/16/93 04/30/96 3111.02 UST: Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 0-000734 BOB’S CUSTOM ROOFING 1 NO / / / / 12/15/93 AZ DRY MIXED MATERIALS 2565 W. ZINNIA ST. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS S101570903 N/A Site 3 of 3 in cluster C Relative: Lower Actual: 2255 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480161 PA/SI 110054 1149 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 FULL PA TC1871325.1s Page 16 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site D20 SW 1/2-1 4573 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) QUALITY PAVING & UTILITY CO. 2450 W. POPPY RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS S101570948 N/A SHWS S101570951 N/A SHWS S100412197 N/A Site 1 of 2 in cluster D Relative: Lower Actual: 2258 ft. D21 SW 1/2-1 4573 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480559 PA/SI 100137 1190 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported RACE CAR CO. 2450 W. POPPY AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85705 Site 2 of 2 in cluster D Relative: Lower Actual: 2258 ft. 22 WSW 1/2-1 4579 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480567 PA/SI 100138 1191 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported VROMAN’S AUTO BODY 2729 W. RUTHRAUFF TUCSON, AZ 85705 Relative: Lower Actual: 2247 ft. TC1871325.1s Page 17 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 23 South 1/2-1 4624 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2284 ft. E24 SW 1/2-1 4739 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) ANDERSON METAL FABRICATING 2107 WEST WETMORE ROAD TUCSON, AZ 85749 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS 1000486428 N/A SHWS 1000709229 N/A SHWS 1000709250 N/A AZD983474792 PA/SI Not reported 962 19000101 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported FOAM EXPERT ROOFING 2534 W. POPPY TUCSON, AZ 85705 Site 1 of 2 in cluster E Relative: Lower Actual: 2257 ft. 25 SSW 1/2-1 4763 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2272 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480393 PA/SI 110044 1172 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 WILL BE SITE INSPECTION THERMAL ENGINEERING 2250 W. WETMORE TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480617 PA/SI 110028 1198 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 18 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site E26 SW 1/2-1 4773 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) RALPH HAYS ROOFING CO INC 2550 W POPPY AVE TUCSON, AZ 85705 EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS LUST UST U003050837 N/A SHWS S101570946 N/A Site 2 of 2 in cluster E Relative: Lower Actual: 2257 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD982505877 PA/SI 100139 1192 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported LUST: Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-008073 CLOSED SOIL LVL MEETS TIER1 01/25/93 05/25/00 2657.01 UST: Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 27 SSW 1/2-1 4853 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2267 ft. 0-008073 RALPH HAYS 1 NO / / / / 03/04/93 PREMDOR WEST 2300 W. WETMORE #200 TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480542 PA/SI 100136 1189 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 19 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 28 SSW 1/2-1 4967 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2263 ft. 29 SW 1/2-1 5037 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2254 ft. 30 SSW 1/2-1 5056 ft. Relative: Equal Actual: 2262 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) BOB’S MATERIAL SUPPLY 2341 W. WETMORE TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: 1000709214 N/A SHWS 1000709241 N/A SHWS S103932019 N/A AZD983480518 PA/SI 100134 1186 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported AZ PIPELINE 2402 W. WETMORE TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: SHWS AZD983480245 PA/SI 110051 1156 19921210 Not reported 0 MM Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported PARSONS STEEL CO. 4580 N. HIGHWAY DR. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number AZD983480187 PA/SI 110056 1150 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 20 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 31 SSW 1/2-1 5115 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2261 ft. F32 WSW 1/2-1 5190 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) BONITA STEEL 2439 W. WETMORE TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number SHWS 1000709215 N/A SHWS 1000709202 N/A SHWS 1000709205 N/A AZD983480252 PA/SI 100113 1157 19921210 Not reported 0 MM Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported A.A. MCDANIEL WELL & MACHINE CO. 2838 W. RUTHRAUFF RD. TUCSON, AZ 85705 Site 1 of 2 in cluster F Relative: Lower Actual: 2242 ft. 33 SW 1/2-1 5260 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 2258 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480112 PA/SI 110040 1145 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported AMERICAN BODY & PAINT 4419 N. HIGHWAY DR. TUCSON, AZ 85705 SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480146 PA/SI 110058 1148 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported TC1871325.1s Page 21 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site F34 WSW 1/2-1 5266 ft. MAP FINDINGS Database(s) GILBERT PUMP OF TUCSON 2840 W RUTHRAUFF RD TUCSON, AZ 85703 SHWS LUST UST WWFAC EDR ID Number EPA ID Number U001625882 N/A Site 2 of 2 in cluster F Relative: Lower Actual: 2241 ft. SHWS: EPA ID: Program: Site Code: Facility Id: Discovery Date: Source: Operable Unit: QWARF Area: Lat: Long: Lat/Long Method: Comments: AZD983480401 PA/SI 100096 1175 19921210 Not reported 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 80 Not reported LUST: Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-002297 SOIL CONTAMINATION DEFINED BUT > SSCLS IN GROUND 12/14/89 / / 1573.01 Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-002297 SOIL CONTAMINATION DEFINED BUT > SSCLS IN GROUND 09/26/91 / / 1573.02 Facility ID: Leak Priority: Notification: Date Closed: Lust Number: 0-002297 SOIL CONTAMINATION DEFINED BUT > SSCLS IN GROUND 01/06/93 / / 1573.03 UST: Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-002297 GILBERT PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO 1 NO / / / / 03/19/93 Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-002297 GILBERT PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO 2 NO / / / / 02/08/91 Facility ID: Owner: 0-002297 GILBERT PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO TC1871325.1s Page 22 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS Database(s) GILBERT PUMP OF TUCSON (Continued) Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 3 NO / / / / 09/26/91 Facility ID: Owner: Tank ID: In Use: Closed In Ground: Date Closed: Removed: 0-002297 GILBERT PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO 4 NO / / / / 09/26/91 WWFAC: Place ID: Inventory ID: Facility Code: Facility Type: EDR ID Number EPA ID Number U001625882 1405 101382 COMM COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TC1871325.1s Page 23 ORPHAN SUMMARY City EDR ID PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY TUCSON S103895169 S103895170 S103895162 S102286938 S101570019 94369129 TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON Site Name RYLAND SAHUARO MONUMENT LINDA LANDFILL SASABE WQ-FAGAN LAKE IN A WASH 1/4 MI SE OF THE 2600 BLK N SILVERBELL A100170444 CABALLO LOCO RANCH S106197422 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD 1004675127 ADEQ EL CAMINO DEL CERRO WQARF 1009618703 2123 N EDISON TERRANCE 93354262 EXXON STATION, 501 N PARK 93353452 EXXON STATION, 501 N PARK 1003879788 D & D ENTERPRISES U003936074 CIRCLE K STORE #2706470 1009618709 4842 N SHANNON APT 7 S101570892 JAIL ANNEX LANDFILL 1000486421 ARTFUL DUSTERS 1000588273 PIMA COUNTY - ROGER RD. WWTP 1003878112 EL CAMINO DEL CERRO LDFL S103932017 INA RD LANDFILL Site Address Zip Database(s) WEST END OF 40TH ST. AND SANTA CRUZ RIVER 1 MILE SOUTHEAST OF VISTORS CENTER NORTH OF ALAMEDA AND EAST OF SANTA CRUZ PRESUMIDO PEAK QUADRANT .5 MILES NORTH OF US-MEXIC T17S R16E SEC 34 SE 1/4 IN A WASH 1/4 MI SE OF THE 2600 BLK N SILVERBELL SWF/LF SWF/LF SWF/LF SWF/LF SHWS ERNS 17500 W. BANNER RANCH RT.8 1255 S. CAMPBELL AVE TRACK 470 CASA GRANDE HWY AND CURTIS RD 2123 N EDISON TERRANCE EXXON STATION, 501 N PARK EXXON STATION, 501 N PARK 5266 N. HWY DR. 5365 N LA CHOLLA 4842 N SHANNON APT 7 SILVER BELL RD/POLICE ACADEMY 3450 N STONE AVE/205 SWEETWATER RD. 1/4 MI W OF I10/EL CAMINO BLVD 1/2 MI W OF I10 E OF INA RD AST AZ Spills, BROWNFIELDS, VCP FINDS, RCRA-LQG US CDL ERNS ERNS CERC-NFRAP UST US CDL SHWS SHWS SHWS CERCLIS, FINDS SHWS TC1871325.1s Page 24 85741 85705 85705 85704 85705 85705 85704 85704 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days from the date the government agency made the information available to the public. FEDERAL RECORDS NPL: National Priority List National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 09/27/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 01/31/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly NPL Site Boundaries Sources: EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone: 202-564-7333 EPA Region 1 Telephone 617-918-1143 EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-655-6659 EPA Region 3 Telephone 215-814-5418 EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7247 EPA Region 4 Telephone 404-562-8033 EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6774 EPA Region 5 Telephone 312-886-6686 EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-947-4246 EPA Region 10 Telephone 206-553-8665 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing. Date of Government Version: 09/27/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 02/23/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 09/27/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 01/31/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC1871325.1s Page GR-1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING NPL RECOVERY: Federal Superfund Liens Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994 Number of Days to Update: 56 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4267 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 11/28/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/19/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-603-8960 Last EDR Contact: 12/19/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. Date of Government Version: 12/20/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/29/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 29 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-603-8960 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version: 01/04/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/18/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 03/05/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/04/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information TC1871325.1s Page GR-2 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator off-site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. Date of Government Version: 06/13/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/28/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/23/2006 Number of Days to Update: 56 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 02/27/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/21/2006 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202-260-2342 Last EDR Contact: 01/24/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 11/28/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/17/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 Last EDR Contact: 01/17/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. Date of Government Version: 10/18/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/14/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-8905 Last EDR Contact: 01/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. Date of Government Version: 01/24/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/31/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-8905 Last EDR Contact: 01/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC1871325.1s Page GR-3 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING DOD: Department of Defense Sites This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: USGS Telephone: 703-692-8801 Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/20/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 63 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Telephone: 202-528-4285 Last EDR Contact: 01/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA’s Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA’s Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 10/17/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/20/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/13/2006 Number of Days to Update: 54 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-2777 Last EDR Contact: 12/11/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: 12/14/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/25/2005 Number of Days to Update: 69 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library Telephone: Varies Last EDR Contact: 02/06/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies ROD: Records Of Decision Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 01/10/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-416-0223 Last EDR Contact: 01/22/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually TC1871325.1s Page GR-4 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/08/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 82 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 505-845-0011 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies ODI: Open Dump Inventory An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D Criteria. Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/22/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/23/2006 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0250 Last EDR Contact: 12/19/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2002 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-5521 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements. Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC1871325.1s Page GR-5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006 Number of Days to Update: 11 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4203 Last EDR Contact: 01/29/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Date of Government Version: 02/13/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2006 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-5088 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure properties. Date of Government Version: 12/09/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 31 Source: Department of the Navy Telephone: 843-820-7326 Last EDR Contact: 12/11/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies RADINFO: Radiation Information Database The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity. Date of Government Version: 01/30/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/31/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-343-9775 Last EDR Contact: 01/31/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. Date of Government Version: 12/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 3 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Telephone: 202-307-1000 Last EDR Contact: 01/08/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly PADS: PCB Activity Database System PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB’s who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. TC1871325.1s Page GR-6 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/17/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/29/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0500 Last EDR Contact: 03/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 01/11/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 32 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 Last EDR Contact: 01/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly MINES: Mines Master Index File Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes violation information. Date of Government Version: 11/15/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 32 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303-231-5959 Last EDR Contact: 12/28/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and ’pointers’ to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 01/18/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/23/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2007 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 01/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 Last EDR Contact: 03/05/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/04/2007 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned BRS: Biennial Reporting System The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. TC1871325.1s Page GR-7 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 12/31/2003 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/17/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/04/2005 Number of Days to Update: 48 Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/11/2007 Data Release Frequency: Biennially STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS SPL: Superfund Program List The list is representative of the sites and potential sites within the jurisdiction of the Superfund Program Section. It is comprised of the following elements: 1) Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Registry Sites; 2) Potential WQARF Registry sites; 3) NPL sites; and 4) Department of Defense sites requiring SPS oversight. Date of Government Version: 08/25/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/25/2005 Number of Days to Update: 53 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4360 Last EDR Contact: 03/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/28/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually WQARF: Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Sites Sites which may have an actual or potential impact upon the waters of the state, cause by hazardous substances. The WQARF program provides matching funds to political subdivisions and other state agencies for clean-up activities. Date of Government Version: 07/17/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/31/2006 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4360 Last EDR Contact: 12/20/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually SHWS: ZipAcids List The ACIDS list consists of more than 750 locations subject to investigation under the State Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) and Federal CERCLA programs. The list is no longer updated by the state. Date of Government Version: 01/03/2000 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/11/2000 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/16/2000 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4360 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SWF/LF: Directory of Solid Waste Facilities Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 08/26/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/29/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-2300 Last EDR Contact: 12/29/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually SWTIRE: Solid Waste Tire Facilities A waste tire "facility" means a solid waste facility at which waste tires are stored outdoors on any day. Date of Government Version: 11/01/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2006 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4132 Last EDR Contact: 12/29/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC1871325.1s Page GR-8 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Listing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version: 05/01/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/19/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/09/2005 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4345 Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually AOCONCERN: Superfund GIS Information A gis coverage for Department of Environmental Quality superfund sites, included WAQRF, DOD and NPL. Date of Government Version: 02/10/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/10/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/30/2006 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-6517 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST’s are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Government Version: 05/01/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/19/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/09/2005 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4345 Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually AST: List of Aboveground Storage Tanks Aboveground storage tanks that the Dept. of Building & Fire Safety have permitted. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2000 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/22/2001 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/16/2001 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: Department of Building & Fire Safety Telephone: 602-364-1003 Last EDR Contact: 01/08/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/09/2007 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/20/2006 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 02/05/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually SPILLS: Hazardous Material Logbook Chemical spills and incidents referred to the Emergency Response Unit. Date of Government Version: 06/30/2001 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/29/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/16/2004 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4153 Last EDR Contact: 12/29/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies AUL: DEUR Database Activity and use limitations include both engineering controls and institutional controls. DEUR and VEMUR sites. DEUR: Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction. A restrictive land use covenant that is required when a property owner elects to use an institutional (i.e., administrative) control or engineering (i.e., physical) control as a means to meet remediation goals. The DEUR runs with and burdens the land, and requires maintenance of any institutional or engineering controls. VEMUR: Voluntary Environmental Mitigation Use Restriction. A restrictive land use covenant that, prior to July 18, 2000, was required when a property owner elected to remediate the property to non-residential uses. Effective July 18, 2000, the DEUR replaced the VEMUR as a restrictive use covenant. TC1871325.1s Page GR-9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 01/16/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 16 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4398 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies VCP: Voluntary Remediation Program Sites Sites involved in the Voluntary Remediation Program. Date of Government Version: 07/11/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/13/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/02/2006 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4411 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner Facility Listing A listing of drycleaner facilities in Arizona. Date of Government Version: 01/20/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/25/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/15/2006 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4335 Last EDR Contact: 01/29/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies DOD: Department of Defense Sites These sites are federal facilities that are either being assessed for potential contamination, or have active remediation taking place on them. Date of Government Version: 07/17/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/31/2006 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4360 Last EDR Contact: 12/20/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Tracking System Information relating to Brownfields sites in Arizona. Date of Government Version: 07/11/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/13/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/02/2006 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4401 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs A listing of drug lab seizures in Arizona. Date of Government Version: 01/24/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/24/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: Board of Technical Registration Telephone: 602-364-4931 Last EDR Contact: 01/22/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies AQUIFER: Waste Water Treatment Facilities Waste Water Treatment Facilities with APP (Aquifer Protection Permits.) Date of Government Version: 12/13/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/19/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 44 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4623 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually TC1871325.1s Page GR-10 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING DRY WELLS: Drywell Registration A drywell is a bored, drilled, or driven shaft or hole whose depth is greater than its width and is designed and constructed specifically for the disposal of storm water. Date of Government Version: 12/18/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/18/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 45 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4686 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually WWFAC: Waste Water Treatment Facilities Statewide list of waste water treatment facilities. Date of Government Version: 08/09/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/02/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-4623 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies AZ AIRS: Arizona Airs Database Arizona major (has the potential to emit over 100 tons of criteria pollutant) and minor (below 100 tons) sources. Date of Government Version: 08/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/17/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/26/2006 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 602-771-2344 Last EDR Contact: 01/29/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually AZURITE: Remediation and DEUR/VEMUR Tracking System ADEQ maintains a repository listing sites remediated under programs administered by the department. Date of Government Version: 01/16/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/01/2007 Number of Days to Update: 16 Source: Department of Environmental Quality Telephone: 601-771-4396 Last EDR Contact: 01/15/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/16/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RADON: State Radon Data Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/15/2002 Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 04/02/2004 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: N/A TRIBAL RECORDS INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 339 Source: USGS Telephone: 202-208-3710 Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. Date of Government Version: 12/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 59 Source: EPA Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC1871325.1s Page GR-11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada Date of Government Version: 12/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/19/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 415-972-3372 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Date of Government Version: 11/21/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Date of Government Version: 11/30/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6271 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and North Carolina. Date of Government Version: 08/24/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/08/2006 Number of Days to Update: 58 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-8677 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska Date of Government Version: 09/06/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/04/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/08/2006 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma. Date of Government Version: 01/04/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/21/2005 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/28/2005 Number of Days to Update: 38 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-6597 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 08/24/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/08/2006 Number of Days to Update: 58 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-9424 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually TC1871325.1s Page GR-12 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 12/02/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/29/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/04/2005 Number of Days to Update: 37 Source: EPA Region 5 Telephone: 312-886-6136 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 11/30/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6137 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 11/21/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land A listing of underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. Date of Government Version: 12/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 59 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 12/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/19/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3368 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 01/11/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2007 Number of Days to Update: 17 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-7591 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Date of Government Version: 09/06/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/04/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/08/2006 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2007 Data Release Frequency: Varies EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS Manufactured Gas Plants: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants) compiled by EDR’s researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800’s to 1950’s to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production, such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil and groundwater contamination. TC1871325.1s Page GR-13 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned COUNTY RECORDS APACHE COUNTY: Apache County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies COCHISE COUNTY: Cochise County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies COCONINO COUNTY: Coconino County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies GILA COUNTY: Gila County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: 11/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/20/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/29/2006 Number of Days to Update: 9 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies GRAHAM COUNTY: Graham County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies GREENLEE COUNTY: TC1871325.1s Page GR-14 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Greenlee County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies LA PAZ COUNTY: La Paz County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies MARICOPA COUNTY: Maricopa County Noise Contour Areas Date of Government Version: 10/28/2003 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/19/2006 Number of Days to Update: 19 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 07/26/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies Maricopa County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies MOHAVE COUNTY: Mohave County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: 11/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/06/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/29/2006 Number of Days to Update: 23 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 10/13/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies NAVAJO COUNTY: Navajo County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: 10/17/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/29/2006 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 10/12/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies PIMA COUNTY: TC1871325.1s Page GR-15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Pima County Noise Contour Areas Date of Government Version: 08/17/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/19/2006 Number of Days to Update: 19 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 08/17/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies Pima County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies PINAL COUNTY: Pinal County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: 10/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/30/2006 Number of Days to Update: 50 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 09/22/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: Santa Cruz County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies YAVAPAI COUNTY: Yavapai County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies YUMA COUNTY: Yuma County Noise Contour Areas Date of Government Version: 08/01/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/19/2006 Number of Days to Update: 19 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 08/02/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies TC1871325.1s Page GR-16 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Yuma County Special Tax Assessments Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: 0 Source: N/A Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies OTHER DATABASE(S) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a tsd facility. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2006 Number of Days to Update: 49 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 860-424-3375 Last EDR Contact: 12/11/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD facility. Date of Government Version: 10/26/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/29/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/05/2007 Number of Days to Update: 37 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation Telephone: 518-402-8651 Last EDR Contact: 03/02/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/28/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually RI MANIFEST: Manifest information Hazardous waste manifest information Date of Government Version: 04/11/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/18/2006 Number of Days to Update: 48 Source: Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 401-222-2797 Last EDR Contact: 12/18/2006 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/2006 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: Department of Natural Resources Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 02/06/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/09/2007 Data Release Frequency: Annually Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines. Electric Power Transmission Line Data Source: PennWell Corporation Telephone: (800) 823-6277 This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. TC1871325.1s Page GR-17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. AHA Hospitals: Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 312-280-5991 The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association’s annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 410-786-3000 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of Health Telephone: 301-594-6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states. Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Child Care Facilities & Group Homes Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 602-674-4220 Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State Wetlands Data: Riparian Vegetation Associated with Perennial Waters Source: State Land Department Telephone: 602-542-4094 STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION © 2007 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC1871325.1s Page GR-18 La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Appendix D Excerpts from Reviewed Regulatory Files La Cholla Boulevard, West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 2007 Appendix E Resumes of HDR Personnel PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION NORTH LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD WEST RUTHRAUFF ROAD TO WEST RIVER ROAD PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA PROJECT NO. 4LCITR PREPARED FOR: Pima County Department of Transportation Environmental Compliance Division 201 North Stone Avenue, 3rd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 PREPARED BY: HDR Engineering, Inc. 5210 East Williams Circle, Suite 530 Tucson, Arizona 85711 HDR project number 047-059914 November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Preliminary Site Investigation Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. ii FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................. iii CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... iii 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Limitations ................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................... 2 2.1 Description of Study Area.......................................................................... 2 2.2 Geology ..................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Investigation Methodology......................................................................... 4 2.4 Soil Analytical Program ............................................................................. 7 INVESTIGATION RESULTS................................................................................. 7 3.1 Analytical Results ...................................................................................... 7 3.2 Geologic Analysis Results ......................................................................... 7 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 7 4.1 Findings ..................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 8 SIGNATURES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ......................................................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Project Location ................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 - Soil Boring and Test Pit Locations.................................................................... 6 APPENDICES Appendix A – Photographic Documentation Appendix B – Soil Boring Logs Appendix C – Test Pit Logs Appendix D – Summary Tables Appendix E – Laboratory Report Appendix F – Asbestos and Lead Paint Assessment Reports i November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Preliminary Site Investigation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), was contracted by the Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) to perform a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) of a proposed roadway widening project. The project area includes approximately 1 mile of North La Cholla Boulevard between West Ruthrauff Road and West River Road, in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The purpose of the PSI is to investigate potential subsurface conditions related to potential and known releases from three sites: the current Chevron Food Market (Site A) service station; the current Circle K (Site B) service station; and the Family Food Store (Site C, a former Mustang / Whiting service station). The sites are located near the intersection of West Ruthrauff Road and North La Cholla Boulevard (located within the rightof-way). A secondary purpose of the PSI is to assess the right-of-way for the presence of landfill materials from a series of historical landfills located adjacent to the corridor, south of West Curtis Road. The PSI was performed in order to provide PCDOT with information regarding the current extent and concentration of contaminants in shallow soils (if present), at depths most likely to be disturbed by roadway improvement activities. The PSI field effort (drilling and sampling) was performed on April 24, 2008. The PSI scope included the advancement of seven soil borings, at depths of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the right-of-way. The borings were advanced using a hollow-stem auger drill rig operated by a subcontracted drilling firm (Yellow Jacket Drilling). Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals, with samples collected by driven, decontaminated stainless steel split spoon samplers. Soil samples were collected to assess the geological conditions and to evaluate the vertical distribution of contaminants, using field instrumentation verified by a laboratory analytical program. To achieve the secondary objective of the PSI (location of potential landfill materials within the right-of-way), test pits were excavated on April 24, 2008. HDR excavated four shallow test pits on PCDOT right-of-way on the east and west sides of La Cholla Boulevard, south of West Curtis Road. The test pits were excavated to an approximate depth of 4 feet below grade, with a decreasing opening from approximately 6 feet at the top to about 4 feet at the bottom of each pit. Waste percentages were estimated using a series of predetermined waste type categories. Excavation was accomplished by advancing test pits using a backhoe with a 0.5-cubic yard bucket. Excavations were advanced in lifts of approximately 1 foot at a time, and the waste was characterized at each 1-foot horizon using a 3-foot by 3foot wooden “windowframe” to assist with assignment of percentages. After each lift was excavated, the windowframe was lowered by rope into the pit and two HDR geoscientists estimated percentages of the observed wastes types in the frame. By using two assessors, a means of cross-referencing estimated percentages was maintained throughout the process. Following completion of the test pit excavations, the pits were backfilled with the excavated material. The excavator backfilled the test pits in the order that each lift was removed, and compacted the fill with the excavator bucket. An HDR field technician performed density tests at every 1-foot lift to verify adequate compaction. No waste was removed from the site as part of this investigation. A third aspect of the investigation was to assess asbestos in concrete features along the project area, and lead in paint on the Rillito Bridge and railings. Results and methodology are included in Appendix F. ii November 5 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Preliminary Site Investigation FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS The corridor is located in the Tucson Basin. The Tucson Basin is an extensive basin containing alluvium varying up to approximately 12,000 feet in thickness. The alluvium is highly variable and ranges from dense sand, gravel, and cobble deposits to silts, clays, and heavily cemented sandy clay. The project area is bound to the north-northeast by the Santa Catalina Mountains, to the east by the Rincon Mountains, and to the west by the Tucson Mountains. Soils encountered generally included reddish brown, fine-to medium-grained sand with minor gravel and cobble constituents. Soil sampling results found no actionable concentrations (as defined by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s Residential soil Screening Levels) of petroleum constituents and no soil vapor impacts near the identified sites of concern. The test pit contents consisted of sandy soil with gravel and rocks in small percentages. Minor debris was noted in test pit 4-E at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet. Native soil, displaying sedimentary features that indicate that it had not been disturbed either in a landfill or as part of a road-building process, was encountered at approximately 2 to 4 feet at the base of each pit. The interval from 0 to 2 feet appeared to be compacted fill, likely from the construction of the roadway. As indicated by the report included as Appendix F, no asbestos was detected in any of the samples collected. The paint results indicated that the gray and brown paint is lead containing. The levels measured in the gray and brown paint are below the HUD action level for lead in paint. CONCLUSIONS HDR has completed the scope of work described in Section 1.1 and has developed the following conclusions regarding the presence of residual impacts at the project site. The summary of findings presented in this section is a synopsis, and the reader should not infer that the information presented is complete or as detailed as provided in other sections. Within the scope of this PSI, soil sampling results found no actionable (above regulatory action levels) concentrations of petroleum constituents and no soil vapor impacts near the identified sites of concern (former and active gas stations). No petroleum or soil vapor impacts were identified in the right-of-way near the gas stations. The test pits indicated that no landfill debris was present within the North La Cholla Boulevard right-of-way. The minor debris noted in test pit 4-E appeared to have been deposited during roadway construction, and was not part of a larger debris array (indicating landfill operations). None of the concrete materials sampled contains asbestos. Paint from the bridge and walkway railing is lead containing and will require disposal in accordance with hazardous waste regulations. iii November 5 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope Preliminary Site Investigation The purpose of the Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) is to investigate potential subsurface conditions related to gasoline releases from three sites: the current Chevron Food Market (Site A) service station, Circle K (Site B) service station, and the Family Food Store (Site C, a former Mustang/Whiting service station). The sites are located near the intersection of West Ruthrauff Road and North La Cholla Boulevard. A secondary objective of the PSI was to determine the location and extent of debris from reported historical landfills located adjacent to the North La Cholla Boulevard right-of-way in the central portion of the project area (south of West Curtis Road). A third objective was to sample concrete from the bridge to assess the presence or absence of asbestos, and to sample paint from the bridge and railings to assess if the paint is lead containing. The PSI was performed in order to provide the Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) with information regarding the current extent and concentration of contaminants in shallow soils at depths most likely to be disturbed by roadway improvement activities. The scope of this PSI included the advancement of seven borings within the current right-ofway (R/W), to depths of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals to assess vertical distribution of contamination, using field instrumentation and confirmatory analysis by an analytical laboratory. To achieve the secondary objective, four shallow test pits were excavated on the east and west sides of North La Cholla Boulevard, south of West Curtis Road. Pits were excavated to an approximate depth of 4 feet below grade, with a decreasing opening from approximately 6 feet at the top to about 4 feet at the bottom of each pit. The test pits were evaluated by HDR geoscientists to determine whether landfill materials were present. 1.2 Limitations This report has been prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), for use by PCDOT. The information presented in this report includes analysis of geologic conditions through data collection, review of published information, direct observation of geologic features in the project area, advancement of soil borings, excavation, and collection of soil samples for field and laboratory evaluation of the presence of gasoline constituents and landfill debris. As well as the presence or absence of asbestos in concrete, and lead containing paint associated with the bridge. HDR makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or compiled by others. As with any investigation that uses sampling points to characterize an impacted area, it is possible that the sampling locations did not intersect all potentially impacted areas. HDR determined that the selected sampling locations would be sufficient to characterize the distribution of impacts if present near the proposed roadway improvement activities. In addition, some substances may be present at the site or in the vicinity in quantities below those categorized as actionable by current environmental regulations. HDR cannot be held responsible if regulatory standards are changed in the future to a regulatory level that renders the current site conditions actionable. 1 November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Description of Study Area Preliminary Site Investigation The project area consists of North La Cholla Boulevard and its associated R/W from West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road in unincorporated Pima County, Arizona. The project is approximately 1 mile in length. A project location map is included as Figure 1 and a map of soil boring and test pit locations is included as Figure 2. Photographic documentation is provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Geology The site is located within the Basin and Range Lowland Physiographic Province, which includes an area extending from the northwest corner of the state, southeasterly across the southern half of the state. Landforms present within the Basin and Range Province consist of predominantly northwest-southwest trending, block-faulted mountain ranges, separated by broad, gently sloping alluvial basins. The mountains in this province consist of tilted blocks of Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks. The Santa Cruz River is the principal drainage feature through the Tucson Basin. The Santa Cruz River is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project area. The Rillito River is the principal drainage feature within the project area. The Rillito River ultimately drains into the Santa Cruz River. 2 November 5, 2008 La Cholla Blvd. River Rd. Project Area Ruthrauth Rd. Project Name Figure Name Preliminary Site Investigation North La Cholla Blvd. West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Project Location Figure 1 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road 2.3 Preliminary Site Investigation Investigation Methodology An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) prepared by HDR in 2008 determined that several potential risk sites exist along the project corridor. Based upon the results of the ISA, HDR developed the following investigation methodology for the PSI that was subsequently approved by PCDOT. The PSI scope of work included the advancement of seven soil borings, excavation of four shallow test pits, interpretation of geologic and field instrument data, collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis, interpretation of results, and preparation of a final report. Drilling and Sampling Near Current or Former Gas Station Sites Seven soil borings were completed at the locations identified on Figure 2. Soil boring locations were selected in an attempt to delineate the extent of potential impacts from the identified sites of concern near the planned roadway improvements, within the right-of-way. Constraints to the placement of the soil borings included physical barriers to rig location, such as overhead power lines. Drilling was performed by Yellow Jacket Drilling Company (at the direction of HDR) using a Boart Longyear BK-66 Hollow Stem Auger drill rig. The borings were advanced using an 8 and 3/8-inch outside diameter hollow stem auger. Borings were sampled at selected depth intervals using a decontaminated split-spoon sampler. All boring were advanced to a depth of 20-feet bgs. Downhole drilling and sampling tools were decontaminated prior to use with a non-phosphate detergent wash and deionized water rinse by onsite HDR field personnel. Soil samples were collected from undisturbed soils by advancing a decontaminated stainless steel split-spoon type sampler ahead of the lowest point of the auger at the selected sampling interval. Samples were selected for laboratory analysis based on the highest photoionization detector (PID) reading. If no elevated PID readings in a boring were detected, the 5-foot sample from a boring was submitted. The specific laboratory sample collection procedure included collection of soil from the lowest section of the brass sleeve in the sampler, capping the ends of the sleeve with Teflon and plastic caps, labeling the sample, and immediately placing it on ice for transport. Samples were collected, preserved, and transported to the laboratory under chain-of-custody protocols and within quality control (QC) standards established by HDR in compliance with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) data quality objectives. Each sample interval was field screened using a soil sample from the middle section of the sampler (directly above the laboratory-submitted sample) for field headspace analysis using a Perkin-Elmer Photovac 20/20 PID. The PID was calibrated with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene reference gas at the beginning of each field day. Records of PID calibrations were recorded in the site field book. The field headspace analysis was performed by placing a sample of the soil from the split-spoon sampler immediately into 1-pint dedicated zipperseal plastic bags and allowing volatile organic vapors to equilibrate for several minutes and stabilize near 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The bags were agitated for up to 1 minute to facilitate liberation of soil vapor into the bag headspace. The inlet probe of the PID was then placed through the bag’s zipper seal, the highest vapor concentration reading was recorded as the PID reading for that sample, and the result was recorded on the soil boring log. The action level for petroleum constituents using this method is 100 ppm, as specified by ADEQ’s Tank Programs Division. The remaining soil from each sampling interval was used for geologic analysis of the depth interval. Soil boring logs were completed for each boring, and are included in Appendix B. All borings were backfilled with clean cuttings. 4 November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Preliminary Site Investigation Test Pits Near Historic Landfill Locations Test pits were excavated on April 24, 2008, according to the approved scope of work. Test pit locations were based upon a review of historic aerial photographs and information provided by Pima County. HDR excavated four shallow test pits on PCDOT right-of-way on the east and west sides of La Cholla Boulevard. Three test pits were located on the west side of La Cholla Boulevard and 1 test pit on the east side. The test pits were excavated to an approximate depth of 4 feet below grade, with a decreasing opening from approximately 6 feet at the top to about 4 feet at the bottom of each pit. Waste percentages were estimated using a series of predetermined waste type categories. Excavation was accomplished by advancing test pits using a backhoe with a 0.5-cubic yard bucket. Excavations were advanced in lifts of approximately 1-foot at a time, and the waste was characterized at each 1-foot horizon using a 3-foot by 3-foot wooden “windowframe” to assist with assignment of percentages. After each lift was excavated, the windowframe was lowered by rope into the pit and two HDR geoscientists estimated percentages of the observed wastes types in the frame. By using two assessors, a means of cross-referencing estimated percentages was maintained throughout the process. Following completion of the test pit excavations, the pits were backfilled with the excavated material. The excavator backfilled the test pits in the order that each lift was removed, and compacted the fill with the excavator bucket. An HDR field technician performed density tests at every 1-foot lift to verify adequate compaction. No waste was removed from the site as part of this investigation. Asbestos and Lead sampling methodology is discussed in Appendix F. 5 November 5, 2008 Legend SB = Soil Boring TP = Test Pit TP-1W TP-4E TP-2W TP-3W SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-4 SB-3 SB-2 SB-1 Project Name Figure Name Preliminary Site Investigation North La Cholla Blvd. West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Pima County, Arizona Soil Boring and Test Pit Locations Figure 2 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road 2.4 Preliminary Site Investigation Soil Analytical Program One soil sample from each boring was selected for laboratory analysis for volatile organic compounds by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) test method 8260B and for semi-volatiles by USEPA test method 8270C. Orange Coast Analytical, Inc. (OCA), of Tustin, California, was the ADEQ-approved analytical laboratory for this project. The soil sample exhibiting the highest PID reading was submitted to the laboratory. If no vapors were detected in any of the samples, then the sample located at the 5-foot sample collection depth was selected for submittal. 3.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3.1 Analytical Results HDR received the soil analytical results from OCA on April 30, 2008. The results are presented in the summary tables, along with the ADEQ Residential Soil Remediation Levels (ADEQ’s most restrictive levels). The summary tables are included as Appendix D. The full report from the analytical laboratory is included as Appendix E. As indicated by the report included as Appendix F, no asbestos was detected in any of the samples collected. The paint results indicated that the gray and brown paint is lead containing. The lead levels measured in the gray and brown paint are below the HUD action level for lead in paint. 3.2 Geologic Analysis Results The following geologic findings are noted: The corridor is located in the Tucson Basin. The Tucson Basin is an extensive basin containing alluvium varying up to approximately 12,000 feet in thickness. The alluvium is highly variable and ranges from dense sand, gravel, and cobble deposits to silts, clays, and heavily cemented sandy clay. The project area is bound to the north-northeast by the Santa Catalina Mountains, to the east by the Rincon Mountains, and to the west by the Tucson Mountains. Soils encountered generally included reddish brown, fine-to medium-grained sand. Soil boring logs are included as Appendix B. 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Findings The site investigation resulted in the following findings: The corridor is located in the Tucson Basin. The Tucson Basin is an extensive basin containing alluvium varying up to approximately 12,000 feet in thickness. The alluvium is highly variable and ranges from dense sand, gravel, and cobble deposits to silts, clays, and heavily cemented sandy clay. The project area is bound to the north-northeast by the Santa Catalina Mountains, to the east by the Rincon Mountains, and to the west by the Tucson Mountains. Soils generally encountered included reddish brown, fine-to medium-grained sand with minor gravel and cobble constituents. 7 November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road Preliminary Site Investigation Soil sampling results found no actionable concentrations of petroleum constituents and no soil vapor impacts near the identified sites of concern. The test pit contents consisted of sandy soil with gravel and rocks in small percentages. Minor debris was noted in test pit 4-E at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet. Native soil, displaying sedimentary features that indicate that it had not been disturbed either in a landfill or as part of a road-building process, was encountered at approximately 2 to 4 feet at the base of each pit. The interval from 0 to 2 feet appeared to be compacted fill, likely from the construction of the roadway. 4.2 Conclusions HDR has completed the scope of work described in Section 1.1 and has developed the following conclusions regarding the presence of residual impacts at the project site. The summary of findings presented in this section is a synopsis, and the reader should not infer that the information presented is complete or as detailed as provided in other sections. Gas Station Sites Within the limits of this PSI, laboratory results indicated no actionable concentrations of petroleum constituents and no soil vapor impacts near the identified sites of concern within PCDOT R/W. Former Landfill Sites None of the four test pits indicated the presence of landfill debris or ground disturbance indicative of landfill-type deposition of waste. One pit (4E) contained a minor amount of trash, but the location, distribution, and type of debris indicated that it was probably deposited at the time of roadway construction. HDR concludes that no landfill debris was present on PCDOT R/W, within the limitations of this PSI. Asbestos and Lead Paint No asbestos was detected in any of the concrete samples collected from the bridge, as indicated by the report included as Appendix F. The paint samples collected from the bridge and railings indicated that the gray and brown paint is lead containing. The lead levels measured in the gray and brown paint are below the HUD action level for lead in paint, with respect to paint in place concentrations 1 . However, aggregated disposal concentrations may be higher, and therefore, disposal of lead containing paint will require compliance with hazardous waste regulations. 1 While not strictly applicable for a roadway project, HUD levels are referenced because they are available regulatory references that apply to screening level paint concentrations. 8 November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road 5.0 Preliminary Site Investigation SIGNATURES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS The preceding report has been prepared in general conformance with standard industry practice for performance of environmental investigations. The end user of this report may rely on the contents, findings, and conclusions to be accurate within the limitations stated herein and in PCDOT guidance. Joel P. Hennings Hazardous Materials Specialist Kelly W. Kading CPG CHMM Quality Assurance Senior Professional Associate Qualifications Mr. Kelly W. Kading, CPG CHMM, HDR’s Environmental Professional as defined by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), has more than 20 years of experience in assessment and remediation of impacted properties and compliance with environmental regulations. He has a BS in Geology from Colorado State University and is a Certified Professional Geologist (#9173) and a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (#1995). He is also a Senior Professional Associate as defined by HDR’s rigorous qualifications process for senior technical practitioners. He specializes in forensic investigation of hazardous materialsimpacted properties for municipal and state agencies, as well as commercial clients. His experience covers assessment of more than 1,000 properties ranging from agricultural land to multigenerational industrial properties in 32 states and 2 foreign countries. He is highly knowledgeable of federal, state, and local environmental regulations and standards and has served on the National Board of Directors of the Academy of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers. Qualifications Mr. Joel P. Hennings, HDR’s Environmental Professional as defined by ADOT, has more than 8 years of experience in assessment and remediation of impacted properties and compliance with environmental regulations. He has a BS in Environmental Sciences from the University of Nebraska. He specializes in forensic investigation of hazardous materialsimpacted properties for federal, state, and municipal agencies, as well as commercial clients. His experience covers assessment of more than 150 properties ranging from agricultural land to federal nuclear testing sites. He is knowledgeable of federal, state, and local environmental regulations and standards. 9 November 5, 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road APPENDIX A Photographic Documentation Preliminary Site Investigation Preliminary Site Investigation North La Cholla Boulevard May 2008 Photo 1 – Location of SB-1, view to the north. Photo 2 – Overview of traffic control at SB-2 and SB-3, view to the southeast. Preliminary Site Investigation North La Cholla Boulevard Photo 3 – Location of SB-5, view to the south. Photo 4 – Location of SB-7, view to the south. May 2008 Preliminary Site Investigation North La Cholla Boulevard Photo 5 – Location of Test pit #4E, view to the southwest. Photo 6 – Location of Test pit #3, view to the south. May 2008 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road APPENDIX B Soil Boring Logs Preliminary Site Investigation Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-1 Project No: 047-59914-007 1 Page: of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Asphalt Asphalt Fill Fill 100 À 5 10 100 15 20 100 25 5 30 32 10 18 13 32 50 6" 50 6" SC 0.0 SAND, clay, coarse grained, reddish brown, dry SC 0.0 SAND, clay, some gravel, coarse grained, reddish brown, dry, SC 0.0 SAND, clay, fine grained, reddish brown, dry SC 0.0 SAND, clay, fine grained, reddish brown, dry Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-2 Project No: 047-59914-007 1 Page: of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Gravel, Fill 100 À 5 10 100 3 5 6 5 7 6 0.0 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, brown to reddish brown, dry 0.0 SAND, clay, medium to coarse grained, brown to reddish brown, dry, some gravel SC SC SC 100 15 20 25 11 11 12 50 6" 0.0 SAND, clay, medium to coarse grained, brown to reddish brown, damp SAND, clay, fine grained, reddish brown, very dense, moist 0.0 SC Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-3 Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 1 of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Asphalt Fill 100 À 5 10 100 100 15 20 100 12 15 17 15 22 20 10 11 11 15 15 15 SC 0.0 SAND, clay, medium to coarse grained, reddish brown, dry 0.0 Gravel GP 0.0 CLAY, sand, fine to medium coarse grained, brown, moist CL CLAY, sand, fine to medium coarse grained, brown, moist CL 0.0 Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N Project Name:North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-4 Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 1 of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Gravel Fill 100 À 5 10 100 3 4 4 14 8 8 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, brown, moist 0.0 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, moist SC SC 0.0 SC 100 15 20 25 12 16 20 50 5" SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, moist 0.0 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, moist 0.0 SC Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-5 Project No: 047-59914-007 1 Page: of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Gravel Fill 100 À 5 10 0 100 15 5 16 18 SC 0.0 SAND, clay, fine to coarse grained, brown, dry NA 0.0 Cobbles GP 28 32 32 0.0 CLAY, sand, fine to medium coarse grained, light brown, dry CL CLAY, sand, fine to medium coarse grained, light brown, dry CL 15 15 15 20 0.0 Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-6 Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 1 of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Gravel Fill 100 À 5 10 100 100 15 5 5 5 20 20 20 15 37 30 30 30 28 20 0.0 SAND, clay, fine grained, light brown, moist 0.0 SAND, clay, fine grained, reddish brown, moist 0.0 Cobbles SC SC GP GP Cobbles 0.0 Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Boring No. SB-7 Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 1 of 1 SOIL BORING LOG DIAMETER: 8.38 inches Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona Boart Longyear BK-66 DRILL RIG TYPE: HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions LOGGED BY: J. Hennings DRILLING DATE: 04-24-2008 DRILLER: Sean Gonzalez DRILL COMPANY: Yellow Jacket DEPTH TO WATER: No Groundwater Encountered TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: N/A Recovery (%) Sample Submitted to Lab Blow Counts Depth (Ft.) 140#/30' Visual Classification USCS Remarks STRATUM Boring Detail PID 0 Gravel Fill 100 À 5 10 100 4 4 4 9 11 8 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, dry 0.0 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, dry SC SC 0.0 SC 100 15 15 22 27 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, dry 0.0 SAND, clay, fine to medium coarse grained, reddish brown, dry 25 30 33 20 SC Soil Boring Location Map GROUNDWATER DEPTH HOUR SAMPLE TYPE RATE None NOTES: Total Depth 20 ft. Backfilled on 04-24-2008 Drill cuttings Split Spoon Sample – Driven Hand Auger N North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road APPENDIX C Test Pit Logs Preliminary Site Investigation Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Soil Pit No. Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 1-W 1 of HDR SOIL PIT LOG ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions 1 LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona LOGGED BY: SURVEY DATE: B. Kesner 04-24-2008 EXCAVATOR : Belfor Environmental Remarks 0 No trash SAND, silt 80%, rock 15% 1 Sand layer at 2-ft bgs, metal foil waste just above sand layer material. SAND100%, 2 Sand layer, trash, < 2 % SAND 100% 3 Pit Location N 32° 17.990' W 111° 00.731' 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Soil Pit No. Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 2-W 1 of HDR SOIL PIT LOG ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions 1 LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona LOGGED BY: SURVEY DATE: B. Kesner 04-24-2008 EXCAVATOR : Belfor Environmental Remarks 0 SAND 95%, rock <5% 1 Sand layer at 2-ft bgs, no trash SAND 100%, 2 SAND 100% Slightly moist, no trash 3 Pit Location N 32° 18.010' W 111° 00.733' 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Soil Pit No. Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 3-W 1 of HDR SOIL PIT LOG ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions 1 LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona LOGGED BY: SURVEY DATE: B. Kesner 04-24-2008 EXCAVATOR : Belfor Environmental Remarks 0 No trash SAND, silt 70%, rock 30% 1 Sand layer at 2-ft bgs, no trash SAND 100%, 2 SAND 100% No trash 3 Pit Location N 32° 18.0033' W 111° 00.734' 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Project Name: North La Cholla Blvd. Soil Pit No. Page: Project No: 047-59914-007 4-E 1 of HDR SOIL PIT LOG ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions 1 LOCATION: La Cholla Blvd.- Ruthrauff Road to River Road, Tucson, Arizona LOGGED BY: SURVEY DATE: B. Kesner 04-24-2008 EXCAVATOR : Belfor Environmental Remarks 0 < 1 % PVC plastic fragment, concrete ~ 6-ft bgs, no trash SAND, SAND, 99%, silt 90%, rock, rock 1010% % 1 SAND, 100%, GRAVEL 90%, rock 10% 1 intact 10 oz green bottle, no other trash SAND, GRAVEL 100% 95%, rock 5% Old cable line and old capacitor (approximately 3.5-in length), 1 large rock, 2-ft oblong 2 3 Pit Location N 32° 18.031' W 111° 00.712' 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 North La Cholla Boulevard West Ruthrauff Road to West River Road APPENDIX D Summary Tables Preliminary Site Investigation Table 1 North La Cholla Boulevard Soil Sample Analytical Results Analyzed By EPA Method 8260B Volatiles: Units in mg/kg (ppm) Sample ID Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Methyl tertbutyl ether (MTBE) Naphthalene 2-Butanone Cis-1,2 DCE Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Trichloroethene (TCE) Vinyl Chloride Total Xylenes Residential 0.65 650 400 32 56 NE 43 0.51 3.0 0.085 270 Non Residential 1.4 650 400 710 190 NE 150 13 65 0.75 420 SB-1-5’ SB-2-5’ SB-3-5’ SB-4-5’ SB-5-5’ SB-6-5’ SB-7-5’