SPR 500 APRIL 2014 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona SPR‐500 April 2014 Prepared by: Jeff Swan Swan Consulting, LLC 5118 E. Seminole Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86004 G. Bruce Kay Ninyo & Moore 3202 E. Harbour Drive Phoenix, AZ 85034 George A. Ruffner Amanda Sydloski EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Avenue, Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA‐AZ‐14‐500 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date April 2014 6. Performing Organization Code Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jeff Swan, Swan Consulting, LLC; G. Bruce Kay, Ninyo & Moore; George A. Ruffner and Amanda Sydloski, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Swan Consulting, LLC 5118 E. Seminole Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86004 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR‐PL1(171)500 Ninyo & Moore 3202 E. Harbour Drive Phoenix, AZ 85034 EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Final Report (7/07‐4/12) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract Constructing and maintaining Arizona’s highway system requires a dependable, abundant supply of mineral aggregates, borrow, quarried rock, and other materials. Finding such sources is important in northern Arizona, where suitable materials may be limited and land jurisdictions, including sovereign American Indian nations and lands administered by the State of Arizona and federal agencies, are difficult to develop for such purposes. The Flagstaff, Globe, Holbrook, Kingman, and Prescott districts of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), encompassing Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, may require up to 46 million tons of material for pavement preservation, safety improvements, widening, or reconstruction of traffic interchanges on the Interstate system and maintenance over the next 20 years. This study focuses on potential sources within a 10‐mile‐wide corridor along the existing Interstates, U.S. highways, and state routes in the five‐county project area; the project team identified 285 sites that may be suitable. The team estimates that these sites may require three months to three years to develop, depending on the time needed for environmental clearance and permitting, site exploration and characterization, and site development, including building haul routes to move materials for highway projects. An implementation plan was outlined for ADOT that provides a process to determine which sites should be reviewed and cleared. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Aggregate sources, northern Arizona, mineral aggregates, borrow pits Document is available to the U.S. Public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 22161 19. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages Unclassified 20. Security Classification Unclassified 129 22. Price 23. Registrant's Seal CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 1 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1. Project Goal ........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2. Literature Review................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Literature Review Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 3. Data Compilation .............................................................................................................. 11 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Materials Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 11 Decision Rules/Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 13 Environmental Review.......................................................................................................................... 13 Section 404 ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................. 14 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 14 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Additional Site Considerations ............................................................................................................. 15 Geographic Information Systems Data Compilation ............................................................................ 16 Chapter 4. Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................ 21 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Assumptions Based on Project Work Program .................................................................................... 21 Ranking Based on Program................................................................................................................... 24 General Schedules for Aggregate Site Availability ............................................................................... 24 Implementation Plan Summary............................................................................................................ 26 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 27 References ......................................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A: GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY CONTACTS .................................................................... 31 APPENDIX B: ADOT ONLINE SURVEY .................................................................................................. 41 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE LETTERS ........................................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX D: MASTER DATABASES..................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX E: MASTER DATABASES SORTED BY 10‐MILE‐WIDE CORRIDOR .......................................... 75 APPENDIX F: SITES CATEGORIZED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .......................................................... 81 APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL TIME FRAMES .................................................................................. 95 APPENDIX H: MAPS OF SITES WITHIN 10‐MILE‐WIDE CORRIDOR ...................................................... 101 APPENDIX I: TYPES OF MATERIALS EACH SITE CAN PROVIDE ............................................................ 107 APPENDIX J: MAPS OF ACTIVE, POTENTIAL SITES ............................................................................. 111 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Environmental Clearance and Geotechnical Investigation Timelines (Approximate) ............................................................................................................. 20 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Information Sources for Northern Arizona Materials Sources ....................................... 11 Table 2. Mineral Aggregate Sites with Potential Environmental Issues ....................................... 15 Table 3. Rock Quarry Sites with Potential Environmental Issues ................................................. 15 Table 4. Files Available through the ADOT Research Center ........................................................ 65 Table 5. Master Databases Column Heading Definitions ............................................................. 65 Table 6. Master Databases (Sorted by 10‐mile‐wide Corridor) Column Heading Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 77 Table 7. Mineral Aggregate Sites with Biology‐related Issues...................................................... 83 Table 8. Rock Quarry Sites with Biology‐related Issues ................................................................ 85 Table 9. Calendar Days to Environmental Clearance under Various Scenarios ........................... 98 Table 10. Calendar Days Needed for Geotechnical Investigation .............................................. 100 Table 11. Materials Available from Potential Sites ..................................................................... 109 LIST OF ACRONYMS AB aggregate base AZSITE Arizona Archaeological Site and Survey database ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADMMR Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources AZMILS Arizona Mineral Industry Location System ASLD Arizona State Land Department AC asphalt concrete ARFC asphalt rubber friction course ARAC asphalt rubber asphalt concrete BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management FTP file transfer protocol GIS geographic information system JD Jurisdictional Delineator MRDS Mineral Resource Data System (USGS) SR state route SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC technical advisory committee TRS township, range, and section TI traffic interchange USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Constructing and maintaining Arizona’s highway system requires a dependable and abundant supply of mineral aggregates, borrow, quarried rock, and other materials. These needs are particularly important in northern Arizona, where suitable materials may be limited and where land jurisdictions, including sovereign American Indian nations and lands administered by the State of Arizona and federal agencies, are difficult to develop for such purposes. The Flagstaff, Globe, Holbrook, Kingman, and Prescott Districts of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), encompassing Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, may require up to 46 million tons of materials to meet the districts’ needs for pavement preservation, safety improvements, widening, or reconstruction of traffic interchanges to the Interstate system and maintenance over the next 20 years. This study focuses on potential sources within a 10‐mile‐wide band along the existing Interstates, U.S .highways, and state routes within the five‐county project area. A list of potential sites was developed by gaining access to federal, state, and local agencies’ databases that identified potential materials sites. Study components initially included a review of all potential sources, regardless of land jurisdiction, an evaluation of the types of materials available (e.g., mineral aggregate, quarried rock), and development considerations. The technical advisory committee (TAC) later directed the research team not to consider sites on Arizona State Trust lands. The project team identified 285 sites in the project area that may be suitable for future materials sources. These sites may require three months to three years to develop, depending on the length of time needed for environmental clearance and permitting, site exploration and characterization, and site development, including constructing haul routes to move materials for highway projects. An implementation plan is presented for ADOT to use in prioritizing sites. It provides a process to determine which sites should be reviewed and cleared based on the type of materials available, the location of the site in relation to a highway corridor, and the amount of environmental clearance effort required. Use of this implementation plan should assist ADOT staff determine how to allocate resources and obtain quality materials economically. Potential barriers to obtaining mineral resource sites include the proximity to existing development, land jurisdiction, and the suitability of sites in the absence of detailed exploration and site characterization. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. PROJECT GOAL Introduction The goal of this study was to evaluate the existing aggregate sources and identify new aggregate sources for highway construction and maintenance activities in northern Arizona (for this report, northern Arizona covers Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino, Apache, and Navajo counties). The objectives of this project were: 1) Identify and evaluate the existing aggregate sources available for construction and maintenance. 2) Identify and evaluate the development potential of undeveloped aggregate deposits for use in construction and maintenance. 3) Determine the means by which these sources could be accessed and used. 4) Estimate the expected volumes of aggregates based on an illustrative set of construction and maintenance projects in northern Arizona anticipated over a 20‐year time frame. Background This project was conceived to benefit both the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the contracting industry, because it was becoming evident that readily available aggregate for construction and maintenance was becoming increasingly scarce. Finding aggregate and borrow materials for highway construction and maintenance has become more difficult and, in many cases, more expensive. ADOT had explored and established materials sources for use by the contracting industry and, to some degree, for use by ADOT maintenance forces in the past. Because of changes in the quality and quantity requirements for materials from when sites were prospected to the time they may be designated for use, ADOT is open to the perceived risk of responsibility for the quality and quantity of the materials. Contractors are now required to be more responsible for the quality and quantity of the materials used in roadway construction. Thus, contractors are taking a greater interest in finding or establishing their own materials sources. This approach has been reasonably effective for the construction industry to establish materials sources, but has not been as effective for ADOT maintenance forces. Because the focus was on contractors acquiring their own sources, ADOT began to reduce the number of sites in its own inventory. Initially, ADOT maintenance forces were able to bid for materials from commercial sources. Over time, with relatively few commercial materials sites in northern Arizona, the availability of affordable materials became limited. There have been examples of ADOT’s northern Arizona maintenance operations needing to obtain the appropriate materials from as far away as Phoenix to complete projects. The lack of local sources creates an expensive and time‐consuming alternative for ADOT maintenance forces. 3 It has been difficult in the past for ADOT to find available materials and to obtain quality materials. Not being able to access quality materials takes away options in how pavement sections are designed and what materials can be used in those sections. Asphaltic concrete is the product of choice for paving over portland cement concrete pavement. This pavement is not an option because of the lack of sources where the required quality standards can be maintained during production. Aggregate base has also proven to be expensive because of the lack of quality sites or lack of the ability to work a site to make the quality product. Providing a greater choice of materials sources would assist the designer in making more economical choices when designing a roadway section. Other factors have affected the ability of ADOT or contractors to establish materials source sites, including liability and permitting issues, as well as challenges related to environmental concerns. Much of northern Arizona is either public land or American Indian trust lands. Identifying a new materials source or renewing permits for an existing source requires the applicant to consider environmental issues. On American Indian nations, these issues are difficult to address due to conflicting development and preservation goals. Public lands have extensive regulations to meet, though there is more coordination among those agencies than what is found on American Indian lands. Methodology Establishing new sources for aggregate can be costly and can involve lengthy studies prior to use, resulting in higher prices for aggregate materials and shortages in quality materials needed for construction and maintenance activities. These considerations produced concerns about the ability of existing materials sources in northern Arizona to meet the needs of future construction and maintenance projects. This project addresses these concerns. It undertook an effort to identify new sources of materials for use in highway maintenance and construction projects. It defined a process for ADOT to identify and prioritize those sites that may be needed in the future. The study area included Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai counties, which include the ADOT districts of Flagstaff, Globe, Holbrook, Kingman, and Prescott. An illustrative set of construction and maintenance projects for a projected 20‐year time frame was developed for the study area Responding to the original research request of March 6, 2007, these districts estimated the quantity of materials needed to deliver the illustrative projects over the specified period to be more than 17 million tons. As of 2007, 15 ADOT and 86 contractor materials source sites were qualified under ADOT Standard Specifications and were presumed available for immediate use. However, the existing sites likely do not have the quantity of materials needed to meet the demand. This study focuses on finding new sources of materials for ADOT’s construction and maintenance program. The project team created a master list of materials sites by contacting governmental agencies and private entities to determine whether any had located potential sites; the contact list is in Appendix A. There was also an effort to develop an online survey (Appendix B) for private‐ sector individuals and ADOT personnel to provide information on potential and existing 4 materials sites. Sample letters inviting agencies and individuals to participate in this study or in the online survey are included in this report (Appendix C). The information gathered included the location of the site and type of materials available at the site (Appendix D, available upon request). This information then was used to limit the number of sites to those that would most likely be used by ADOT for maintenance and construction activities. The number of materials sites to be subject to further environmental review was further reduced by identifying only those sites within a 10‐mile‐wide corridor (a 5‐mile corridor on each side) centered on a state highway and categorized based on the type of materials (Appendix E, available upon request). An environmental review was conducted on the remaining sites, and the results are outlined for the individual sites (Appendix F). The final steps in the study included developing an implementation process based on its findings. The methodology and recommended prioritization process should give ADOT and its partners a way to address future materials needs while meeting regulatory requirements. 5 6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The study involves an inventory of materials sites in northern Arizona and the search for information on these materials sites. With assistance from the technical advisory committee (TAC), the project team focused on locating materials sites and information in Yavapai, Mohave, Coconino, Navajo, and Apache counties. The team identified a set of illustrative construction and maintenance projects for the study area, and estimated the quantity of materials that would be required by ADOT to deliver those projects over a conceptual 20‐year time frame. The information‐gathering process included the ADOT engineering districts in Prescott, Kingman, Flagstaff, Holbrook, and Globe. Additionally, the team conducted a survey of the identified governmental agencies and private sector individuals to initiate comments about the possibility of identifying additional materials sites. A survey participation request was forwarded to the individuals on the contact list that was developed; requests also went to the additional contacts identified during this initial phase. In general, this survey had limited responses from governmental and industry sources. Methodology The methodology that was developed reflects this project’s unique nature. The project did not lend itself to the standard literature review, because there was limited literature available on the subject. To remedy this issue, various agencies, local governments, and private industry sources were identified that might have information regarding materials sites in northern Arizona. Then they were contacted to find out whether they had information they would share. Appendix A contains the table of these contacts. The governmental agencies contacted included the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Indian Health Services; the Bureau of Reclamation; the U.S. Forest Service; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the National Park Service; the Federal Highway Administration; the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Bureau of Mines and Mineral Technology; Housing and Urban Development; the Arizona State Land Department; Mohave County; Yavapai County; Coconino County; Navajo County; Apache County; the Cities of Flagstaff, Holbrook, Winslow, Kingman, Prescott, Sedona, Bullhead City, and Show Low; and the Towns of Page, Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Prescott Valley, and St. Johns. American Indian nations and tribes contacted included the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai‐Apache Nation, the Yavapai‐Prescott Indian Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Havasupai Tribe, and the Ute Mountain Ute. Also contacted were the departments of transportation in the five adjacent states—California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. The private entities and associations contacted included Arizona Rock Products, Arizona General Contractors, Yavapai‐Apache Materials, Northern Arizona Builders Association, Dyna Rock and Sand, and Rinker Materials. 7 The surveys (Appendixes B and C) were developed to reach out to individuals and firms that may have had additional information about materials sites. The surveys could be completed on the Internet or a paper copy could be requested. Analysis The literature and data availability review found that any information on existing and potential materials sites is dispersed among many agencies and entities. Once contact was made, the information requested was categorized as immediately available for use, somewhere in the entity’s system, or nonexistent. In some cases, information existed, but the entity’s policy prevented the release of that information. Those entities with policy objectives that included maintaining an inventory of lands and land use, along with entities that monitored information for others, seemed to be the most responsive to the information request, and they often asked that a follow‐up survey be forwarded to them. In many cases, these entities had the resources to maintain inventory of the sites and had information pertaining to the sites. Mohave County and the BLM are examples of those agencies that had policies and the resources to maintain an inventory of materials sites. Tribal governments did not have systems in place to track materials sites and usage. The BIA deferred to the individual tribes in the tracking of materials sites and use. The research team worked with four of five tribal regional councils of the Navajo Nation government to gain a cooperative agreement to assist the team in this study. The surveys resulted in 11 responses, of which four identified themselves. One respondent was from the private sector, one was from the Tonto National Forest, one was from Coconino County, and one was from ADOT. The e‐mail received was from ADOT. The project team has been unable to recover the actual survey data due to the change in lead researchers. Some of the information recovered was comments made about the survey. The comments offered by individuals provided insight into the issue of developing materials sites. Of the comments, the private sector respondent noted that “ADOT has a wealth of leased pits and I constantly hear that they are not keeping their leases. ADOT should be actively adding pits, not losing them.” The ADOT e‐mail noted, “There is one comment to make—the cost of acquiring an ADOT environmental analysis keeps the smaller organizations from actively pursuing the analysis and opening their pit up to ADOT projects. [Large construction companies] can absorb the cost much easier than a [smaller firm or] landowner with an excellent site. With an expenditure of $10,000 to $15,000 and no guarantee of a return on their money, the smaller players are not willing to invest that money on such an intangible. This is a part of the puzzle that needs to be considered.” 8 The determination of materials site acceptability for use by construction and maintenance forces is complicated by the role of ADOT, the private sector, and other governmental agencies’ roles in the process of obtaining use of a materials site. To the best of the knowledge of the project team members, ADOT continues to encourage the private sector to find and develop materials sites, including any environmental clearance activities. In determining the materials demand for this project’s study area, the project team used an illustrative set of construction and maintenance projects over a projected 20 yearsas the basis to calculate the demand for aggregate in the future. The materials demand was calculated based on an unconstrained funding scenario and used the following assumptions:  Milling and replacing asphaltic concrete (AC) on Interstate roadways: 5/8‐inch asphalt rubber friction course (ARFC), 2‐inch asphalt rubber asphaltic concrete (ARAC), 5‐inch AC, and 3‐inch depth for shoulder build‐up.  Interstate reconstruction: 5/8‐inch ARFC, 4‐inch ARAC, 8‐inch AC, and 14‐inch aggregate base (AB)  Primary, secondary roadway widening: 5/8‐inch ARFC, 4‐inch ARAC, 8‐inch AC, and 14‐inch AB  Pavement preservation used the pavement values represented by milling and replacing AC on Interstate roadways multiplied by 36 lane miles per year. The total aggregate demand, excluding maintenance requirements, for 20 years is approximately 46 million tons. Literature Review Conclusion Information on existing and potential materials sources in northern Arizona is dispersed among numerous governmental, tribal, and private entities. The information available to the study team depends on an entity’s resources and mission, especially for those entities that have a need to monitor materials sites and their use as a part of their overall mission. The least information is available from those entities not required to dedicate resources to maintaining materials source information. The contacts from the first steps in the literature review were used to conduct the surveys in the latter phase of the review and resulted in limited responses and no additional sites being identified. The survey confirmed that there is limited knowledge of the availability of sites and the steps necessary to incorporate them into the construction and maintenance operations within ADOT or any other agency. The aggregate demand for road construction during the next 20 years in northern Arizona is 46 million tons. 9 10 CHAPTER 3. DATA COMPILATION Introduction The project team, the project manager, and the TAC identified potential issues affecting sites, such as the status of mining claims and development, the status of geotechnical studies, environmental analysis issues (including owner/operators who may be unwilling to complete the process), known biological, cultural, or hazardous materials issues associated with each area, permit limitations/complications, land use, tribal concerns, site access issues, and sites that otherwise may not meet the standard specification requirements. Materials Characteristics The materials characteristics were developed from the data received from the various sources of materials site information. The sites were located based on geographic, coordinate, or public lands information, depending on how the information was provided by the source. The sites were then mapped based on the location data. The team conducted a thorough literature and agency search for data relating to materials sources in northern Arizona. Data were obtained from numerous sources listed in Table 1. Table 1. Information Sources for Northern Arizona Materials Sources. Name of Database or List 1. ADOT Material Source Inventory for Storm Water Compliance Purposes 2. ADOT Materials Site Inventory, June 2, 2004 3. Arizona Mineral Industry Location System (AZMILS) Apache County 4. AZMILS Coconino County 5. AZMILS Navajo County 6. AZMILS Mohave County 7. AZMILS Yavapai County 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ADOT Cleared Commercial Sources, Arizona ADOT Cleared Commercial Sources, California ADOT Cleared Commercial Sources, Colorado ADOT Cleared Commercial Sources, New Mexico ADOT Cleared Commercial Sources, Nevada ADOT Cleared Commercial Sources, Utah U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) 15. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Pit Data Source ADOT Materials Section ADOT Materials Section Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR 2007a) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR 2007b) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR 2007d) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR 2007c) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR 2007e) ADOT Environmental Planning ADOT Environmental Planning ADOT Environmental Planning ADOT Environmental Planning ADOT Environmental Planning ADOT Environmental Planning U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2007) ASLD 11 Table 1. Information Sources for Northern Arizona Materials Sources. Name of Database or List 16. Navajo‐Hopi Materials Deposit Data 17. New Mexico Data 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Survey Data BLM Data, Arizona Survey Data BLM Data, California Survey Data BLM Data, Nevada Survey Data Latitude/Longitude Survey Data Nevada Mine Directory Survey Data (Township, Range, and Section [TRS]) Utah Data Various Arizona Area Pit Data (TRS) Various Arizona Area Pit Data (Latitude/Longitude) 27. ADMMR Active Mines Pit Data 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. California Pit Data Imperial County California Pit Data Inyo County California Pit Data Riverside County California Pit Data San Bernardino County ADOT County Material Inventory Data 33. Colorado Data 34. National Atlas Crushed Stone Operations, Arizona 35. National Atlas Crushed Stone Operations, California 36. National Atlas Crushed Stone Operations, Utah 37. National Atlas Sand and Gravel Operations, Arizona 38. National Atlas Sand and Gravel Operations, Colorado 39. National Atlas Sand and Gravel Operations, New Mexico 40. National Atlas Sand and Gravel Operations, Utah 41. National Atlas Sand and Gravel Operations, California Source Mineral Resources of Navajo‐Hopi Indian Reservations, Arizona‐Utah, Vol. II and III, (Kiersch 1955a, 1955b) New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Division Response to survey request for data Response to survey request for data Response to survey request for data Response to survey request for data Response to survey request for data Response to survey request for data Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining An evaluation of sand and gravel resources in and near the Verde Valley of the Coconino National Forest, Arizona (Cox 1995); An evaluation of sand and gravel resources in and near the Prescott National Forest in the Verde Valley, Arizona (Cox et al. 1999) Directory of Active Mines in Arizona 2007, ADMMR spreadsheet California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Information compiled from the ADOT County Material Inventory data maps (ADOT 1980, 1978, 1975; Arizona Highway Department 1973, 1972) Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety US Geological Survey Minerals Information Team; crushed stone operations considered active in 2002 with a production of greater than 50,000 tons and that are nongovernmental and nonportable The data obtained from the sources in Table 1 were first compiled into spreadsheets. These data were then combined to form a single large summary spreadsheet. The summary spreadsheet was used as input for geographic information system (GIS) software, which was 12 used to sort and map the data, to further identify potential materials sites worth exploring by ADOT. The project team stratified the number of sites by establishing a 5‐mile corridor on each side of the existing state highway centerlines. This corridor focused on sites that are within a reasonable proximity to existing state highways. Appendix H provides the general layout of all identified sites within the 10‐mile‐wide corridor. The team used the materials classifications summarized from the data to identify the types of materials each site could provide (Appendix I). The TAC’s guidance then focused the team on mineral aggregate, riprap, and rock quarry sites. This resulted in 285 sites to be further examined. The materials sites have not been classified as either maintenance‐ or construction‐ specific. Individual site materials characteristics that directly relate to ADOT materials specifications are not available. Decision Rules/Assumptions Before doing environmental overviews of the potential sites, the team decided, with TAC input, to make several rules regarding the study methodology. First, it was assumed that any site would be approximately 80 acres. Second, the study would focus on two types of materials: mineral aggregate and rock quarry. Third, potential materials sources would be restricted to within 5 miles of an existing state highway. The TAC also determined that no materials source sites would be located on Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) land because of the auction requirement for land sales; that the environmental clearance would not differentiate between pits used for maintenance and those used for construction; and that a haul route was a critical element for a viable materials source and would be included in the clearance. Environmental Review The team examined 128 potential mineral aggregate sites and 157 potential rock quarry sites (materials source sites) for issues associated with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, conflicts with existing land use, presence of cultural resources, and potential biological compliance issues related to federally listed species. Environmental clearance processes do not differentiate between construction and maintenance materials sources. Haul routes were not specifically identified for each site. The assumption is that haul routes are available to the sites and that any environmental clearance process will need to include the routes. Section 404 The presence of Waters of the United States (Waters) was determined by checking for “blue line” washes on U.S. Geological Survey 7.5‐minute topographic series maps for each materials source site. Blue line washes generally exhibit characteristics of an ordinary high water mark and are, therefore, assumed to be Waters. If the 80‐acre area contained one or more blue line washes, the site would likely require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the environmental clearance process. 13 Land Use Land use at each potential materials source site was determined through a review of aerial photography. Land‐use conflicts were identified as an overlap between a materials source site and existing development. For example, if an 80‐acre area was surrounded by development, it was identified as a conflict, while sites that had development on only one side were not scored as a conflict as long as site access appeared unimpeded. Only obvious conflicts were counted and, in this respect, the evaluation was a conservative estimate of land‐use conflicts. Biological Resources At each materials source site, the study used aerial photography and existing databases to examine the potential for biological compliance issues related to federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species for Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai counties were reviewed to determine which species or federally designated critical habitats may occur at or near each materials source site. Species‐specific data, such as known range and occurrence records provided by the USFWS or the Arizona Game and Fish Department, were cross‐referenced for proximity to, or overlap of, the mineral aggregate sources or rock quarries. Cultural Resources The status of cultural resources at each materials source site was determined by reviewing previous cultural resource survey records. The majority of the materials source sites had not been previously surveyed and, therefore, most sites will require additional survey. Absence of a cultural site does not necessarily mean absence of a potential conflict. Two resources, the AZSITE database maintained by the Arizona State Museum and the ADOT Portal, were the source of background data on the materials source locations. The AZSITE database contains locational information pertaining to previous cultural resource surveys and previously documented cultural resources. Scanned versions of the original archaeological site cards and some National Register of Historic Places eligibility information also are available. The ADOT Portal is a database that contains scanned versions of cultural resources reports carried out along the Arizona’s highways for ADOT. This information can be accessed by entering the road name and milepost. 14 Results Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the percentage of sites that have potential environmental issues. Table 2. Mineral Aggregate Sites* with Potential Environmental Issues. Issues Biology Cultural 404 Land Use None Apache County (%) 18 9 82 0 9 Coconino County (%) 31 38 62 0 8 Mohave County (%) Navajo County (%) 49 17 80 20 9 0 20 0 0 80 Yavapai County (%) 30 25 73 21 16 Total (%) 33.1 22.8 71.7 15.7 15.0 *Sites may be listed in multiple categories. Table 3. Rock Quarry Sites* with Potential Environmental Issues. Issues Biology Cultural 404 Land Use None Apache County (%) 0 0 50 0 50 Coconino County (%) 6 26 57 6 26 Mohave County (%) 13 52 57 9 9 Navajo County (%) 0 33 50 0 50 Yavapai County (%) 18 16 70 18 13 Total (%) 11.5 26.1 61.8 10.8 20.4 *Sites may be listed in multiple categories. The data developed for the sites, along with a summary of discussion regarding the sites, are outlined in Appendix F, and the maps outlining the sites are in Appendix J and are by county. Additional Site Considerations The sites represented on the maps in Appendix J are those that have been identified by this study and the various agencies as possible materials sources for use by ADOT. The maps represent both active and potential sites. The data provided did not differentiate between active and potential sites. It was determined during TAC meetings and subsequent communications with ASLD that any potential materials sites on lands administered by ASLD are subject to the same rules as those applicable to any other sale of mineral materials on state land. These rules require that ASLD sell mineral materials via a process that includes an auction to obtain the highest possible revenue for the materials. Consequently, as directed by the TAC, sites on lands administered by ASLD were dropped from further consideration. The information concerning state trust land sites is included in the original master database compiled by the project team and is available upon request to the ADOT Research Center as Appendix D for ADOT’s use in the future. 15 Geographic Information Systems Data Compilation The raw locational data originated from the ADOT Materials Group and was composed of two spreadsheets, one containing latitude/longitude data and the other containing township, range, and section (TRS) data. Both sets of data were then plotted utilizing ArcGIS software. The TRS data required an additional step prior to plotting by way of a geocode process. The TRS data was geocoded with supplemental Public Land Survey System data for Arizona, California, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Each TRS location was then plotted within the center of its closest square‐mile section based on its TRS description. The corridors were buffer zones generated from ADOT’s Interstate, primary, and secondary highway system, queried by request for this particular study. Once the aggregate locations and corridors were created, a selection by location within ArcGIS was used to query out only the focus aggregates for this study. The selected aggregates were then exported to a Personal Geodatabase. The supporting data are found in Appendix E (available upon request). 16 CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Introduction The goal of the implementation plan was to rank aggregate source sites based on their relative ease of development. Therefore, the implementation plan, proposed by the project team, assumed that ADOT will further develop a program of individually identifying, clearing, and testing existing and future aggregate sites for use in the construction program and for use by maintenance forces. This plan is a recommendation to ADOT on how to prioritize resources to identify and establish individual aggregate sites for future use. Assumptions Based on Project Work Program The following assumptions were made to determine the aggregate sites that would be selected by ADOT for an illustrative future capital improvement program. The illustrative projects along the corridors listed before would range from major improvements, such as widening and traffic interchange (TI) construction, to pavement preservation projects. In some cases, sites identified along the major or primary corridors may provide aggregate to corridors with intermittent aggregate needs for pavement preservation or maintenance. a. Locations of most aggregate needs (TI construction, roadway widening, pavement preservation) i. Interstate corridors include Interstate 40, Interstate 17, and Interstate 15. These corridors are the most heavily traveled in traffic and truck volumes. Most of the state’s widening and major improvement projects focus on these routes. Pavement preservation projects on Interstate corridors tend to be tens of miles long and require large amounts of aggregate. They therefore cost more than those on other routes. ii. Other routes include U.S. 93 and U.S. 89. These routes are major connectors between northern Arizona communities and other communities in and out of Arizona. These routes are heavily traveled and have a diverse mix of traffic that includes commercial vehicles, tourists, and local commuters. Major improvement projects are not as common and pavement preservation projects tend to be extended in terms of design life expectancies and usually are shorter in length than Interstate projects. b. Locations of intermittent aggregate needs (pavement preservation, minor widening) i. Routes include U.S. 160, U.S. 191. These routes are major connectors between northern Arizona communities but are not as heavily traveled as the major routes. Commercial vehicles are fewer in terms of the total traffic volume, and the more heavily trafficked areas are near commercial developments. Widening projects are limited to intersections or to the construction of 21 passing lanes. Pavement preservation projects are not as extensive in terms of length of project or design life as with the major roadways. ii. Other routes include State Route (SR) 64, SR 260, and SR 264. These routes are similar to the previous routes in that they are not as heavily traveled and the higher traffic volumes are in areas with commercial development. Most traffic is either from tourists or commuters with limited commercial traffic. Some major widening has occurred in the past; in the future, with limited funds, there may be minor widening in localized areas. c. Locations of intermittent aggregate needs (pavement preservation) i. Routes include Business I‐40, SR 67, SR 69, SR 77, SR 87, SR 89A, SR 95, SR 98, SR 99, SR 169, SR 180A, SR 261, SR 273, SR 277, SR 377, SR 373, SR 389, SR 473, SR 564, U.S. 60, U.S. 64, U.S. 163, and U.S. 180. These routes connect northern Arizona communities, but most work may be limited to pavement preservation to preserve the existing investment in the pavement structure. Traffic is mixed with some tourist and commuter traffic. Some minor improvements may be necessary due to localized growth. Many of the projects along these routes could access aggregate sites used for the Interstates. d. Corridor width (distance from the existing paved roadway) i. 354 sites are within a 20‐mile corridor width (10 miles from each side of centerline). Setting the 20‐mile‐wide corridor is the initial step to identifying sites that may be accessible for upcoming projects. Caution should be exercised in using this corridor width because some sites may not be economically accessible. In addition, some sites may be challenging in terms of obtaining clearances for haul roads and access. ii. 285 sites are within a 10‐mile corridor width (5 miles from each side of centerline). Just over 80 percent of the available sites within the 20‐mile‐wide corridors are within the 10‐mile‐wide corridor. The project team recommends giving highest priority to the sites in this corridor. Project economics also dictate staying within the 10‐mile‐wide corridor. The additional haul distance could cost a contractor or site owner an additional $30,000 per mile for the life of one project. e. Environmental and regulatory considerations Sites should be prioritized based on the effort required to obtain environmental clearance so that proper focus is directed to those sites that stand a reasonable chance of getting environmental clearance. Sites that may require an extended environmental clearance time should be carefully considered in the prioritization process to ensure that all economically viable sites are considered. 22 i. All sites and their access roads will require a cultural resources survey. The project study team has found that almost none of the sites considered have cultural resources surveys. The access roads also must be surveyed. As a result, the project team has not used this parameter for eliminating sites from future consideration. This is the first step in any investigation of a particular location. Once adequate information is obtained upon completion of a Class III cultural resources survey (a 100 percent survey), an informed decision can be made. Should cultural resources be present, the site would be modified to protect those resources or would be eliminated from future consideration. Mitigation of cultural resources impacts at a location should not be pursued unless the type of aggregate obtained is not available elsewhere. ii. The sites would then be ranked according to: 1) Surrounding land use. Consideration of land use on adjacent properties is a valuable parameter for evaluating potential sites. This may help to avoid the potential for locating aggregate sources adjacent to sensitive land uses (e.g., residential developments and schools). 2) The presence of threatened or endangered species or their habitat. The presence or absence of threatened or endangered species (or their habitat) is useful for evaluating potential sites. Although it is possible to environmentally clear a site that is occupied, or potentially occupied, by a threatened or endangered species, the project team recommends that such sites be eliminated from consideration unless the type of aggregate obtained is not available at another location. 3) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requirements (i.e., Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404). Many aggregate sites, especially those providing sand and gravel, are traversed by ephemeral or perennial drainages that could be Waters of the United States (Waters) under jurisdiction of the Corps. Sites traversed by perennial drainages should be eliminated from consideration unless the type of aggregate obtained is not available at another location. Though it is possible to permit sites within Waters under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, those sites where impacts to Waters would exceed one‐half acre should be avoided. This approach could accommodate use of Pre‐Certified and Nationwide permits. Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification and an individual Section 404 permit may require up to two years to obtain and would likely incur additional costs for mitigation. 4) Land ownership. Potential aggregate sites on lands within some jurisdictions (e.g., American Indian trust lands and the Arizona State Land Department) should be eliminated from consideration unless the type of aggregate obtained is not available at another location. 23 Ranking Based on Program a. Current five‐year construction program It is recommended that ADOT initially identify those projects in the current program that will need major quantities of aggregate and then identify the aggregate sites nearest the project that the project could possibly use. To accomplish the clearance processes, the lead time is normally two years (see Appendix G) and can increase to five years depending on the site location, outside agency review, and participation in clearing the site. b. Development projects in program (Design Concept Reports, Project Assessments) ADOT should coordinate upcoming projects with the development of aggregate needs and potential aggregate sources identified in this study. Incorporating aggregate needs into the project‐development process would open more aggregate sites for ADOT’s use. General Schedules for Aggregate Site Availability The general schedules for determining site availability are based on previous experience in identifying sites, determining the aggregate characteristics, and obtaining environmental clearances for an individual site. Figure 1 shows the approximate time needed for environmental clearances and a geotechnical investigation. See Appendix G for a more‐detailed discussion of environmental and geotechnical clearance time frames. See Appendix J for detailed maps of environmental concerns at mineral aggregate and rock quarry sites. 24 Figure 1. Environmental Clearance and Geotechnical Investigation Timelines (Approximate). Of the 285 sites evaluated, all lacked complete cultural resource surveys. A site file review and Class III cultural resources survey and report will be required for each site and the associated access roads. a. Sites with only cultural resource issues Almost all locations will require a Class III cultural resources survey. If the results are negative and there are no concerns, these sites should receive first priority for environmental clearance. b. Sites with Section 401/404 issues Sites with cultural resource issues (no survey) and Section 401/404 considerations should receive second priority for environmental clearance. 25 c. Sites with land use issues Sites with land use conflicts should not be considered for environmental clearance unless the type of aggregate obtained is not available at another location. Adjacent conflicting land uses introduce additional time and costs to obtain clearances, and the conflicts tend to persist throughout the life of the aggregate source. Implementation Plan Summary Implementation of a systematic program to develop new aggregate sources for highway construction and maintenance in northern Arizona focuses on sites within a 10‐mile‐wide corridor around a particular roadway. Interstate routes should receive first priority, as future requirements for aggregate sources are greatest. 26 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The research effort to evaluate the existing aggregate sources and to identify new aggregate sources for highway construction and maintenance activities in northern Arizona produced a listing of potential materials sites and an implementation plan for ADOT to use in developing these potential sites. The project canvassed both the private and public sectors to identify the programs and materials sites that could possibly be used for maintenance and construction materials. This effort identified 285 sites. This project also conducted surveys of private‐ and public‐sector individuals involved in materials production in northern Arizona and adjacent states to determine whether there were any other sites available for use. Also an effort was made to reach the American Indian communities to develop a list of available sites. The response to these efforts essentially was limited to governmental entities that had developed systems in gathering and recording information on materials sites, including mining claims, mining, sand and gravel operations, and rock quarries. Response from the American Indian communities included discussion about providing information on materials sites; this information was not always available. The interview responses were limited and reflected the different expectations of how sites were to be identified and developed by both private and public sectors. The private sector would prefer that the public sector do the preliminary work in developing and reserving a materials site, while the public sector would prefer the opposite. The research team also developed some project materials needs based on a 20‐year time frame. The basis of the aggregate needs was an illustrative set of construction and maintenance projects in northern Arizona. The construction materials needs were estimated at 25 million tons for new construction and 19 million tons for pavement preservation. Maintenance needs would be approximately 2 million tons over the 20‐year time frame. The project, with guidance from the TAC, limited the identified sites by first identifying those sites classified as rock quarry and mineral aggregate sites. The second data sort identified sites within a 10‐mile‐wide corridor of an Interstate or state highway. This corridor was 5 miles from each side of the highway. These data sorts produced a listing of 285 materials sites. The final data sort generally rated the sites based on environmental impacts and the amount of effort to environmentally clear the sites. The results appear in Table 2 and Table 3. The implementation process outlined in Chapter 4 is a result of identifying materials sites and generally prioritizing them in terms of further investigation. The scope of the project limited the project team’s ability to delve deeper into each materials site’s characteristics, though the end result identifies sites that warrant further investigation by ADOT. 27 The project team recommends that ADOT take the following steps in partnership with the various private and public entities that impact the Department’s maintenance and construction operations:  Adopt the implementation process and identify areas of critical materials needs for the five‐ year capital improvement program in northern Arizona.  In partnership with the contracting industry, develop an agreement and assign responsibilities to execute the proposed implementation process.  Initiate a concentrated outreach effort to the American Indian community to identify possible materials sources and develop a working agreement so that produced materials can be shared among the entities. In examining the objectives of this study, the following responses are provided: 1) Objective: Identify and evaluate existing aggregate sources available for construction and maintenance. Response: The project team identified and evaluated existing sources based on the information provided by the individual agencies. 2) Objective: Identify and evaluate the development potential of undeveloped aggregate deposits for use in construction and maintenance. Response: The project team determined that with the environmental clearance steps that are required to use a materials source, the development potential was limited by the need for environmental clearances or “administrative” processes. Those sites, within the 10‐mile‐ wide corridor, have been generally ranked by the environmental clearance effort and probability that clearance could be done in a reasonable time. 3) Objective: To determine the means by which these sources could be used. Response: This study determined that the sources identified for further study would be limited to those that could be classified as sources of mineral aggregate and, in some cases, aggregate base materials. 4) Objective: To estimate quantity of potential volumes and general locations of need for aggregates for ADOT’s use in northern Arizona over at least a 20‐year time frame. Response: The project team provided an estimate of project aggregate needs over a 20‐ year time frame based on an illustrative set of construction and maintenance projects in northern Arizona. The project team recommends that the implementation plan and process be adopted and a project developed to further examine the process and how it can be applied to individual materials sites in the areas of the highest materials demand. 28 REFERENCES Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). 2007a. Arizona Mineral Industry Location System database: Apache County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (now Arizona Geological Survey) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). 2007b. Arizona Mineral Industry Location System database: Coconino County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (now Arizona Geological Survey) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). 2007c. Arizona Mineral Industry Location System database: Mohave County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (now Arizona Geological Survey) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). 2007d. Arizona Mineral Industry Location System database: Navajo County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (now Arizona Geological Survey) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). 2007e. Arizona Mineral Industry Location System database: Yavapai County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (now Arizona Geological Survey) Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 1980. Materials Inventory, Apache County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 1975. Materials Inventory, Coconino County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 1978. Materials Inventory, Navajo County. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. Arizona Highway Department. 1973. Materials Inventory, Mohave County. Phoenix: Arizona Highway Department in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. Arizona Highway Department. 1972. A Materials Inventory of Yavapai County. Phoenix: Arizona Highway Department in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. Bliss, J.D. 1997. Mineral Resource Assessment of Selected Nonmetallic and Metallic Resources of the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 97‐486. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. 29 Cox, L.J. 1995. An Evaluation of Sand and Gravel Resources in and near the Verde Valley of the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 95‐31. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey Cox, L.J., J.D. Bliss, and R.J. Miller. 1999. An Evaluation of Sand and Gravel Resources in and near the Prescott National Forest in the Verde Valley, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 99‐127. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. Kiersch, G.A. 1955a. Mineral Resources of Navajo‐Hopi Indian Reservations, Arizona‐Utah, Volume II: Nonmetallic Minerals. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Kiersch, G.A. 1955b. Mineral Resources of Navajo‐Hopi Indian Reservations, Arizona‐Utah, Volume III: Construction Materials. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. USGS Mineral Resource Data System database. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. 30 APPENDIX A: GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY CONTACTS 31 32 Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information Arizona Contractors Association Amanda McGinnis 3030 N. 3rd St. Phoenix, AZ. 85012-3039 (602) 246-8627 (928) 205-5424 amcaennis@azagc.oro Arizona Rock Products Association Steve Trussel 916 W. Adams St. Phoenix, AZ. 85007 (602) 271-0346 Northern Arizona Building Association Denise Fisher 1500 Cedar Ave. Suite 86 Flagstaff, AZ. 86004 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dave Eddy, Geologist BLM Information Obtained County State Web Site Comments Provided list of members with addresses in five northern counties Yes Multiple AZ. WWW.8zca.com steve@azrockproducts.org ARPA will mail or email survey/info to members. Yes Multiple AZ. www.azrockrooducts.org (928) 779-3071 T (928) 7790-4211 F denise@nazba.ora Provided membership directory Yes Multiple AZ. www.nazba.ora Phoenix District Hassayampa Field Office 21605 N. 7th Ave. Phoenix AZ. 85027-2929 (623) 580-5500 david eddy@blm.gov List of active and closed sites in Arizona; Web based application; can develop reports Yes All AZ. Linda Mullenix Phoenix District Hassayampa Field Office 21605 N. 7th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85027-2929 (623) 580-5540 linda mullenix@bim.gov LR2000 Resident Expert All AZ Bureau of Reclamation Carol Irwin Lower Colorado Region Phoenix Region 6150 W. Thunderbird Road Glendale, AZ. 85306-4001 (623) 773-6210 T (602) 284-5107 M cerwin@lc.usbr.gov His office does not track this information; no big projects No Maricopa and Lower Colorado Region AZ. Bureau of Reclamation Joe Liebhouser Lower Colorado Region Office P.O. Box 61470 Boulder City, NV 89006 (702) 293-8414 jliebhauser@lc.usbr.qov No active wor!< in this area; referred to Yuma Office; suggest BLM or FS as better references No Bureau of Reclamation Mike Igoe 7301 Calle Agua Salada Yuma, AZ. 85364-0973 (928) 343-8272 T migoe@lc.usbr.goY Approximate location of local sources Yes Multiple AZlCAJ NV www.lc.usbr.qov Several quarries are permitted through BLM; some are located in CA; mainly use gravel, hardrock, and riprap for levee and bankline roads Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Scott Anderson, Geotech Department Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3519 scott.anderson@fhwa.dot.gov No database or info is maintained by aggregate sources; Info may be found in individual project files No All HI, AZ., CA,CO, NM,NV and other central states www.fhwa.dot.goY Their Western Area Division is considering a similar project. but this area does not include Associations Federal Agencies 33 www.blm.gov/lr2000 AZlNV/ CA AZ. Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information FHWA Mike Peabody, Materials Engineer Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3541 michael.peabody@fhwa.dol.gov FHWA Division Administrator: Robert Hollis FHWA 400 E. Van Buren SI. Suite 410 Phoenix, AZ 64004 (602) 379-3646 robert.hollis@fhwa.dol.gov Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Field Office Director. Rebecca Flanagan One N. Central Ave. Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85004 SW Office of HUD Native American Programs, Acting Administrator: Kevin Fitzgibbons Information Obtained County Send survey to request information No All Send survey to request information No All (602) 379-7100 HUD is not a land owner, but a property owner; it does not track of this type of info No All AZ One N. Central Ave. Suite 600 PhoeniX, AZ 85004 (602) 379-7235 Send survey to request information No All AZ No NA NA www.npS.qoy Apache AZ http://www.nps.gov/cach/ State National Park Service (NPS) Public Information Officer (PIO) Intermountain Region National Park Service 12795 Alameda Parkway Denver, CO 80225 (303) 969-2500 Aggregate and material resources are not available for non-park use; it does inventory certain materials NPS Park Superintendent: Scott Travis Canyon de Chelly National Monument P.O. Box 588 Chinle, AZ 86503-0588 (928) 674-5500 Send survey to request information NPS Deputy Park Superintendent: Glen Canyon National Recreation Area P.O. Box 1507 Page, AZ 86040 (928) 608-6200 nancie e ames@nps.qov Send survey to request information No Coconino AZlUT Park Superintendent: Steve Martin Grand Canyon National Park P.O. Box 129 Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 (928) 638-7888, ext 7945 steve martin@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Coconino, Mohave AZ Engineering Grand Canyon National Park P.O. Box 129 Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 (928) 638-7905 john reese@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Nancie Ames NPS NPS Manager. John Reese Web Site www.hud.gov 83,840 acres, all non-federal www.nps.qov/glca http://www.nps.gov/grca/ 1,180,862.78 federal acres, 36,540.54 nonfederal acres 160.09 federal acres AZ NPS Park Superintendent: Ann Worthington Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site P.O. Box 150 Ganado, AZ 86505 (928) 755-3475 ann worthington@nos.gov Send survey to request information No Apache AZ http://www.nps.gov/hutr/ NPS Park Superintendent: William Dickinson Lake Mead National Recreational Area 601 Nevada Way Boulder City, NV 89005 (702) 293-8906 william k dickinson@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Mohave AZlNV http://www.nps.govllame/ 34 Comments Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information NPS Park Superintendent: Kathleen Davis Montezuma Castle National Monument P.O. Box 219 Camp Verde, AZ 86322 (928) 567-5276, ext. 223 kathy m davis@nps.gov Tuzigoot National Monument P.O. Box 219 Camp Verde, AZ 86322 (928) 567.5276 NPS WebSite Comments AZ http://www.nps.gov/moca/ 840.86 federal acres, 16.83 non-federal acres Yavapai AZ http://www.nps.gov/tuzi/ 57.78 federal acres, 754.11 non-federal acres Information Obtained County State Send survey to request information No Yavapai Send survey to request information No NPS Park Superintendent: Nancy Skinnner Superintendent Navajo National Monument HC 71 Box 3 Tonal, AZ 86044 (928) 672.2700 nancy skinner@nps.gov Send survey to request infomnation No Navajo, Coconino AZ http://www.nps.gov/nava/ 360 federal acres NPS Park Superintendent: Brad Travor Petrified Forest National Park P.O. Box 2217 Holbrook, AZ 86025 928.524.6228, ext. 225 brad travor@nps.gov Referred to Dennis Steele, Facility Director No Apache, Navajo AZ http://www.nps.gov/pefo/ 93,532.57 federal acres NPS Park Facility Manager: Dennis Steele Petrified Forest National Park P.O. Box 2217 Holbrook, AZ 86025 (928) 524-6228, ext. 247 dennis steele@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Apache, Navajo AZ http://www.nos.gov/pefo/ 93,532.57 federal acres NPS Park Superintendent: John Hiscock Pipe Spring National Monument HC 65 Box 5 Fredonia, AZ 86022 (928) 643-7105 john hiscock@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Mohave AZ http://www.nDs.gov/pisp/ 40 federal acres NPS Acting Park Superintendent: Nancy Schultz Superintendent Flagstaff Area National Monuments 6400 N. Highway 89 Flagstaff, AZ 86004 Attn: Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Visitor Center (928) 526-0502 (928) 526-1157, ext. 224 nancy schultz@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Coconino AZ http://www.nps.gov/sucr/ 3,040 federal acres NPS Superintendent Flagstaff Area National Monuments 6400 N. Highway 89 Flagstaff, AZ 86004 Attn: Walnut Canyon National Monument Visitors Center (928) 526-0502 (928) 526-1157, ext. 224 nancy schultz@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Coconino AZ http://www.nps.gov/waca/ 3288.62 federal acres, 290.84 non-federal acres NPS Superintendent Flagstaff Area National Monuments 6400 N. Highway 89 Flagstaff, AZ 86004 Attn: Wupatki National Monument Visitor Centers (928) 526-0502 (928) 526-1157, ext. 224 nancy schultz@nps.gov Send survey to request information No Coconino AZ http://www.nps.gov/wupa/ 35,422.13 federal acres Los Angeles District (213) 452-3908 PublicAffairs.SPL@usace.army.mil No response No Multiple AZJNV/ CA US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jay Field 35 'WINW.usace.army.mil Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information USACE Ruth Fowler, Construction Support Branch AZ-NV Area Office 3636 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012 (602) 640-2003 (602) 640-2018, ext. 235 Ruth.T.Fowler@usace.army.mil U.S. Department of Mines USDA Forest Service (FS) Sarah Leche AZ Zone Office for Minerals 2324 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 225-5200 sleche@fs.fed.us Information Obtained County State WebSite Awaiting response No Multiple AZJNV/ CA Agency eliminated in 1995; functions transferred to DOE, USGS and BLM No NA NA Only handle soils, not material content; suggested I speak to someone in No Maricopa AZ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/home.sht ml Comments Add to survey mailing list Engineering FS FS Terry Brennan Engineering Department 2324 E. McDowell Road Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 225-5375 tbrennan@fs.fed.us Awaiting response No Maricopa AZ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/home.sht ml Forest USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests P.O. Box 640 Springerville, AZ 85938 (928) 333-4301 ezieroth@fs.fed.us Send survey to request information No Coconino, Navajo, Apache, Greenlee AZ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/ Supervsor: Elaine Zieroth FS Forest Supervisor: Joe Stringer USDA Forest Service Coconino National Forest 1824 S. Thompson St. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 (928) 527-3600 jstringer@fs.fed.us Send survey to request information No Coconino, Yavapai, Gila AZ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/ FS Forest Supervisor: Mike Williams USDA Forest Service Kaibab National Forest Supervisor's Office 800 S. Sixth St. Williams, AZ 86046 (928) 635-8200 mrwiliiams01@fs.fed.us Send survey to request information No Coconino AZ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/ FS Forest Supervisor: Alan Quan USDA Forest Service Prescott National Forest 344 S. Cortez St., Prescott, AZ 86303 (928) 443-8000 aguan@fs.fed.us Send survey to request information No Yavapai AZ http://www.fs.fed.uslr3/prescottl FS Forest Supervisor: Gene Blankenbaker USDA Forest Service Tonto National Forest 2324 E. McDowell Road Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 225-5200 gblankenbaker@fs.fed.us Send survey to request information No Yavapai, Maricopa, Gila, Pinal AZ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Jim Bliss U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 520 N. Park Ave. Suite 221 Tucson, AZ 85719 (520) 670-5502 jbliss@usgs.gov Has ADOT county atlas data in digital fonmat (not the maps, just the tables) Yes Pima AZ www.usgs.qov No Pima AZ USGS in Tucson Jim Bliss USGS DeConcini Building 520 N. Park Ave. Room 355 Tucson, AZ 85719 (520) 670-5502 jbliss@usgs.qov Has ADOT county atlas data in digital fonmat (not the maps, just the tables) 36 Add to survey mailing list Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information USDA Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) Bill Johnson 230 N. 1st Ave. Suite 509 Phoenix, AZ 85003 (602) 280-8836 bill.johnson@az.usda.gov NRCS Eric Wolfbrandt, GIS Specialist for agency 230 N. 1st Ave. Suite 509 Phoenix, AZ 85003 (602) 280-8822 eric.wolfbrandt@az.usda·90v County State Characterizing soil content for Arizona; not yet completed inventories in Navajo and Apache counties Yes All AZ www.soildataviewer.nrcs.usda.goY Soil interpretations and soil properties are provided on one map for each state; Soil Data Viewer software provides users access to soil interpretations and soil properties while shielding them from the complexity of the soil database Yes All AZ www.soildataviewer.nrcs.usda.qov State Agencies Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Geological Survey Nyal Niemuth 1502W. Washington SI. Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 771-1604 njn22r@hotmail.com Google Earth map with SAG locations; Directory of Active Mines; library; USGS crushed stone and SAG maps shapefiles; ASLD limestone potential map Yes phil.pearthree@azgs.az.gov AZ Geobib resource; search for literature about SAG; Joe Crow with Rinker Materials No, just a bibliography Pima AZ Reclamation plans on file for few aggregate pits in Coconino No Maricopa AZ CD of SAG leases on State Trust Land Yes Maricopa AZ No Phil Pearthree 416 W. Congress, #100 Tucson, AZ 85701 Office Cassandra Dawa 1700 W. Washington SI. 4th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-5971 Arizona State Land Department Rebecca Price 1616 W. Adams SI. Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-2686 CALTRANS Joe Peterson (530) 741-5378 CA pits/multiple districts CDOT Mike Coggins (970) 385-1625 Durango District CDOT Weeminuche (970) 565-0111 Four Comers CDOT Sky MI. Ute (970) 382-0609 Durango Nevada DOT Mel Rodela (775) 888-7787 NMDOT Joan Bowser (505) 827-5541 100% contractor furnished NMDOT Sky MI. Ute (505) 566-9900 Farmington UDOT Tim Biel (801) 965-4859 Statewide Arizona State Mine Inspecto~s (520) 770-3500 rprice@land.az.qov mrodela@dol.state.nv.us WebSite Information Obtained NV pits 37 No Comments Soil Data Viewer is a tool built as an extension to ArcMap that allows a user to create soilbased thematic maps Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information Apache County Steve Rogers P.O. Box 238 St. Johns, AZ. 85936 (928) 337-7536 srogers@co.apache.az.us Coconino County Tim Wolff 5600 E. Commerce Ave. Flagstaff, AZ. 86004 (928) 526-2735 Mohave County Cullin Patillo 3675 E. Andy Devine Ave. P.O. Box 7000 Kingman, AZ. 86402-7000 Navajo County Clyde Holyoak Yavapai County Doug Federico Information Obtained County State Minimal records are maintained No Apache AZ. twolff@coconino.az.qov Sheep Hill is the only site maintained by the county No Coconino AZ. (928) 757-0910 Cullin.Pattillo@co.mohave.az.us Information concerning material sites is part of a .zip file Yes Mohave AZ. 100 E. Carter Drive P.O. Box 668 Holbrook, AZ. 86025 (928) 205-5424 clyde.holyoak@co.navajo.az.us Currently use a cinder pit for maintenance otherwise use commercial sources No Navajo AZ. 1100 Commerce Drive Prescott, AZ. 86035 (928) 777-7561 daug.federico@co.yavapai.az.us County mainly uses commercial sources No Yavapai AZ. County Agencies City Agencies Bullhead City Engineering Department Bill Avery 1255 Marina Blvd. Bullhead City, AZ. 86442 (928) 763-0128 baverv@bullheadcity.com Approximate location of local sources Yes Mohave AZ. Bullhead City Roads/Public Works Don Carley 1255 Marina Blvd. Bullhead City, AZ. 86442 (928) 763-0184 dcarley@bullheadcity.com Approximate location of local sources Yes Mohave AZ. Bullhead City Street Maintenance Randy Williams 1255 Marina Blvd. Bullhead City, AZ. 86442 (928) 763-0184 rwilliams@bullheadcity.com Supervisor of Don Carley Yes Mohave AZ. City of Cottonwood Public Works David Enright 1490 W. Mingus Ave. Cottonwood, AZ. 86326 (928) 634-8033 denright@ci.cattonwDod.az.us Approximate locations of local sources Yes Yavapai AZ. City of Flagstaff Public WorksStreets Dan Holmes 211 W. Aspen Ave. Flagstaff, AZ. 86001 (928) 779-7600, ext. 7235 dholmes@ci.flagstaff.az.us Approximate location of local sources Yes Coconino AZ. City of Holbrook Streets Department Brent Holmes P.O. Box 970 Holbrook, AZ. 86025 (928) 524-6654 No e-mail available Approximate location of local sources Yes Navajo AZ. City of Page Utility Department Fred Ladman P.O. Box 1180 Page, AZ. 86040 (928) 645-4310 ladman@cityofpage.org Approximate location of local sources Yes Coconino AZ. chollister@sedonaaz.gov Approximate locations of local sources (no local sources) Yes Yavapai AZ. City of Sedona Public WorksEngineering Cullen Hollister 102 Roadrunner Drive Sedona, AZ. 86336 (928) 204-7116 38 Web Site Comments Information Obtained County State Ves Navajo AZ No Apache AZ Ves Mohave AZ of local sources Ves Mohave AZ chad.mcdowell@cityofprescott.net Approximate location of local sources Ves Vavapai AZ (928) 759-3070 kstanton@pvaz.net Approximate location of local sources Ves Vavapai AZ (928) 567-0534 iiones@cvaz.org Ves Vavapai AZ Coconino Navajo Coconino, AZ Agency Contact Name Mailing Address Phone Number E-mail Information City of Show Low Maintenance Facility & Roads Operation Mark Cobal 1281 Thornton Show Low, AZ 85901 (928) 532-4102 mcobal@ci.show-Iow.az.us Approximate location of local sources City of SI. Johns Public Works Paul Ramsey 405 W. 4 North SI. Johns, AZ 85936 (928) 337-2031 pramsey@sjaz.us No contact yet Kingman Engineering Department Mike Prior 310 N. Fourth SI. Kingman, AZ 86401 (928) 753-8122 mprior@cityofkingman.qov of local sources Doyle Wilson 900 London Bridge Road Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 (928) 453-6660 wilsond@lhcaz.gov Division Chad McDowell 1505 Sundog Ranch Road Prescott, AZ 86301 (928) 777-1662 Town of Prescott Valley Public Works Ken Stanton 7501 E. Civic Circle Prescott Valley, AZ 86314 Town of Camp Verde Public Works Jessie Jones 473 S. Main SI. Camp Verde, AZ 86322 Lake Havasu Water Resource Manager Prescott Streets Approximate location Approximate location of local sources Navajo Reservation Tribal Irwin Sakis BIA, Western Region Bob Maxwell Fort Mohave Navajo Regional Office Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 1060 Gallup, NM 87305 (505) 863-8282 Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 10 Phoenix, AZ 85001 (602) 379-6782 John Algotts 500 Merriman Ave. Needles, CA 92363 (928) 346-1606 Havasupai Tribe Not contacted P.O. Box 10 Supai, AZ 86435 (928) 448-2731 Hopi Tribe Clay Hamilton P.O. Box 123 Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 (928) 734-2328 Hualapai Tribe Erin Forest P.O. Box 179 Peach Springs, AZ 86434 (928) 769-2216 ext. 112 2214 N. Central Ave. Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 258-4822 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) Esther Corbett Comments Blake Chapman, 928-692-3135 Approximate location Tuba City BIA, Navajo Region Web Site No e-mail available No e-mail available Send survey to request information No Send survey to No Statewide AZ Phone calls not returned No Mohave AZ Send survey to No Mohave AZ Interested in what sites were being used byADOT No Coconino, Navajo AZ Phone calls were not No Mohave AZ No Statewide AZ Apache, Navajo request information request information CHamilton@hopi.nsn.us returned esther.corbett@itcaonline.com This group provided contact information only 39 Dale Wachs, 928-777-1140 Agency Contact Name Kaibab-Paiute Mailing Address Phone Number HC 65 Box 2 Fredonia, AZ 86022 (928) 643-7245 E-mail Information Blind e-mail was sent and returned; phone calls not returned Navajo BIA Chinle Agency Not contacted Send survey to request information Navajo BIA Fort Defiance Agency Not contacted Send survey to request information Navajo BIA Western Agency Not contacted Send survey to request information Navajo Nation Abandoned Mines Madelynn Roanhorse, Program Director Navajo Nation Minerals Brad Niesemeir White Moutain Apache Information Obtained County State No Mohave AZ (928) 871-6982 Send survey to request information No P.O. Box 1910 Window Rock, AZ 86515 (928) 871-6587 Claimed he provided information to the Navajo/ADOT task team No Northeast AZ AZ Richard Palmer P.O. Box 700 Whiteriver, AZ 85941 (928) 338-2530 The tribe did a study a few years ago; steps are being taken to release some of the information No Gila, Navajo, Apache AZ Yavapai-Camp Verde Jerry Piper (Yavapai-Apache Sand and Rock) P.O. Box 249 Camp Verde, AZ 86322 (928) 567-3109 Does have technical information available No Yavapai AZ YavapaiPrescott Mark Galeano, Real Estate Manager 530 E. Merritt SI. Prescott, AZ 86301 (928) 777-9468 No sites being operated by the tribe; it has a site being operated by Fan n Construction No Yavapai AZ No (local contractor) Navajo AZ No Maricopa AZ jerrv,yasr@commspeed.net Private Dyna Rock & Sand (in Winslow) Rinker Materials Tom McCauley Joe Crow 206 W. 1st SI. Winslow, AZ 86047 701 N. 44th SI. Phoenix, AZ 85008 (928) 289-9349 Dyna Rock acts as local source for most city projects (602) 220-5236 1997 prepared Corridor Study for Coconino National Forest 40 Web Site Comments APPENDIX B: ADOT ONLINE SURVEY 41 42 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 1. Introduction & Welcome Welcome to the ADOT Preliminary Survey of Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona. The purpose of this web-based survey is to gather information from ADOT employees, businesses, local governments and non-government agencies about their knowledge of aggregate material resources in the five northern Arizona counties of Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai. Research objectives for this project include identifying and evaluating existing and potential aggregate sources for construction and maintenance, determining how these resources can be used, and estimating the quantity of the expected volumes and general locations of need for aggregates for use over a 20-year planning horizon based on the Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan. We appreciate your time and response in providing this information. Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 43 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 2. Survey Overview & Instructions If you have used, studied, considered, or have an opinion on aggregate material resources, please respond to this survey. Answer as many of the following questions as possible. If you would like a colleague or other interested party to be included in the survey, please contact Vi Brown of Prophecy Consulting Group at vi.brown@att.net or 480.205.2616 and she will provide the necessary information to this individual. If you have questions about the survey or have problems using this web-based survey tool, contact Vi Brown, 480.205.2616 or vi.brown@att.net, or Nelson Moore, 602.980.1247 or nelmoo@att.net. Please respond to this survey on or before March 17, 2008. Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 44 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 3. Aggregate Material Resources and Locations - Site One Please share with us your knowledge of past, existing, and/or future potential aggregate resource sites that you are aware of in northern Arizona. Provide information for each site that you are aware of. (You may input data for up to five sites). 1. Site Name (Site No. 1) 2. Site Location (postal address, nearest cross streets, highway & milepost, or distance & direction from a known point) Physical Mailing Address City County State ZIP Code Nearest Cross Streets Nearest Highway Mile Post 3. Latitude (Enter Degrees as Positive Number; Enter Seconds as a Decimal) Degrees Minutes Seconds 4. Longitude (Enter Degrees as Positive Number; Enter Seconds as a Decimal) Degrees Minutes Seconds 5. Additional Site Location Data 45 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Township Range Section Quarter/Half 6. Site Status (Check Only One) Past Site Existing Site Future Site Don’t Know 7. Is this site permitted? Yes No Don't Know 8. Who owns the permit for this site? 9. List applicable permits Permit (1) Permit (2) Permit (3) Permit (4) Permit (5) 10. Has an environmental assessment/clearance been issued? Yes No Pending Don’t Know 11. Primary Material Type: (Check All That Apply) River Rock Granite - Fresh/Decomposed Metamorphic Alluvial Fan Limestone/Marble Other Cinders Volcanic/Igneous unknown 12. Material Quality:(Check Only One) Poor Fair Good Very Good 13. Estimated quantity of materials at this site(cubic yards): 46 Excellent Unknown ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== 14. Site Use Not a mining site No activity for 10+ years Expired permit or license Possible activity during last 10 years Never used Other 15. Are materials stockpiled on site? Yes No 16. Number of Known Site Users Zero One Two Three Four Five 17. Site Owner ADOT Private Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) County Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Park Service (NPS) Tribal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Other 18. Site Contact Information Contact Phone Email 19. Is information regarding this site available electronically? Yes No Unknown 20. If yes, in what form is the electronic information? 21. Do you have information on additional Aggregate Sources? Yes 47 Six or more ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== No Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 48 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 4. ADOT Employees The following questions are reserved only for ADOT employees and relates to your job function and your knowledge and use of ADOT’s Central Materials Testing Program (CMTP)/Material Information Data Acquisition System (MIDAS). 1. Are you an ADOT employee? Yes No Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 49 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 5. Job Information 1. What is your job title? 2. What is your primary job function or duty? 3. Have you used ADOT’s Central Material Testing Program (CMTP)/Material Information Data Acquisition System (MIDAS) software program? Yes No 4. What do you like best about the CMTP/MIDAS program? 5. What are your suggestions for improving the CMTP/MIDAS program? 6. What other database software programs do you use to perform your job function(s)? (Check all that apply) Excel Access dBase Crystal Reports 50 SAS SPSS Other ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== 7. In your opinion, who should supply aggregate and other material resources to work sites? ADOT Contractor Both Other 8. Please provide additional comments that you may have regarding aggregate and material resources in northern Arizona: Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 51 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 6. Contact Information: Please provide your contact information below: 1. Name First Name Last Name 2. ADOT Organization (if applicable) District or Group Section/Service Other 3. Contact Information Name of Organization or Company Mailing Address City County State ZIP Code Work Phone Cell Phone Fax Number Email Address Powered by SurveyMonkey 52 ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 7. Comments to Questionnaire 1. Rate the Following Questions from "Poor" to "Excellent" Poor Fair Good Ease in accessing survey Format of survey Number of questions Type of questions Clarity of Questions Amount of time to complete survey 2. Do you have additional comments concerning this survey? Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 53 Very Good Excellent ADOT Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=tSV76/P8buLLavk9xM+KxQ== Add Survey and Exit ADOT Survey 8. Exit Survey Exit Survey Here TO Submit Survey, Select "Done" button below and exit survey Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now! 54 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE LETTERS 55 56 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Planning Division Victor M. Mendez Director Arizona Transportation Research Center 206 S. 17th Avenue, MD 075R Phoenix, AZ 85007 Janet Napolitano Governor Dale Buskirk Division Director DATE SUB: SPR 500 - Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Dear ADOT Employee, The Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) is conducting research for ADOT to evaluate existing aggregate material sources and identify new sources for highway construction and maintenance activities in Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino, Apache, and Navajo counties. The material sources to be identified include aggregate, sand and rock, borrow and fill material, cinder, and rock quarry sites. A consulting firm, Prophecy Consulting Group, LLC*, is under contract to perform this work. Research objectives for this project include identifying and evaluating existing and potential aggregate sources for construction and maintenance, determining how these resources can be used, and estimating the quantity of the expected volumes and general locations of need for aggregates for use over a 20-year planning horizon based on the Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan. One of the tasks identified for this study project is to conduct a survey of ADOT employees regarding their knowledge and use of aggregate material resources in northern Arizona. If you have used, studied, considered, or have an opinion on aggregate material resources, please respond to this survey. Your input is very important to us. To access the survey on the web, please click on the following link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message. If you would like a colleague or other interested party to be included in the survey, please contact Vi Brown of Prophecy Consulting Group at vi.brown@att.net or 480.205.2616 and she will provide the necessary information to this individual. If you do not have internet access, or have difficulty accessing the above link on-line, you may obtain a hard copy of the survey by contacting Vi Brown. The survey must be completed by Day of Week, Date in 2008 (three weeks after mailing). If you are completing a hard copy of the survey, it must be postmarked no later than Day of Week, Date in 2008 (three weeks after mailing) and addressed with correct postage to: Prophecy Consulting Group, LLC ATTN: Vi Brown 2005 S. Henkel Circle Mesa, AZ 85202-6564 57 Should you have questions or comments, please contact me at 602-712-6927 or jharris@azdot.gov, Vi Brown at 480.205.2616 or vi.brown@att.net, or Jeff Swan at 928-853-2794 or jswan@npgcable.com. On behalf of the research team, thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jason Harris, Project Manager * ATRC has contracted with the study team led by Prophecy Consulting, LLC, Swan Consulting, Ninyo and Moore, and EcoPlan and Associates. Individuals from these firms may contact you to gather additional information on existing and/or potential material sites within your jurisdiction. 58 Transportation Planning Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 DATE Dale Buskirk Division Director Council Member Navajo Agency Council All Arizona Chapters «Address1» «City», «State» «PostalCode» RE: ADOT Research Project: SPR 500, Aggregate Sources for Northern Arizona Dear Council Member, The Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) is conducting research for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to evaluate existing aggregate sources and identify new aggregate sources for highway construction and maintenance activities covering Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino, Apache, and Navajo counties. The research objectives include: 1) identify and evaluate existing aggregate sources available for construction and maintenance. 2) identify and evaluate the development potential of undeveloped aggregate deposits for use in construction and maintenance. 3) to determine the means by which these sources could be used. 4) to estimate quantity of the expected volumes and general locations of need for aggregates for use over at least a 20-year planning horizon based on the Arizona Long-Range Transportation Plan. Since the research began a few months ago, ATRC has learned of similar initiatives and objectives are currently underway in the form of multi-agency committees and partnerships. This research project (SPR 500) plans to coordinate efforts with those involved on other committees to achieve the said objectives. Once the research is complete, it will be published and made available to the agencies that participated in this survey. In an effort to efficiently disseminate information (and responses) from each of the Navajo Chapters regarding the attached questionnaire, I respectfully request this letter and questionnaire be placed in all Navajo Agency Council meeting agenda packets for October. The intent of the questionnaire is to determine the location of any existing and/or potential aggregate sources along with the names/agencies responsible for the permit oversight of these sources. Upon locating these aggregate sources, ADOT will apply for a permit (if applicable) through the Navajo Nations Mineral Department for further investigation. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-6927 or email jharris@azdot.gov. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jason Harris, Project Manager Arizona Transportation Research Center│206 S 17th Ave, MD 075R│Phoenix, AZ 85007│602-712-6927 59 ADOT Research Project: SPR 500, Aggregate Sources for Northern Arizona Questionnaire The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is conducting a research project to evaluate existing aggregate sources and identify new aggregate sources for highway construction and maintenance activities covering Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino, Apache, and Navajo counties. The material sources to be identified include aggregate, sand and rock, borrow, cinder, and rock quarry sites. This questionnaire serves as a request for information on existing and/or potential material sites within your jurisdiction. 1. Please provide your contact information below: Name: Agency: Address: Address 2: City/Town: State: Zip: Phone: Email: 2. a. b. c. Material Sources: Existing or Planned Do you have any existing or planned material sites within your jurisdiction? If so, do you have any records pertaining to these material sites? Are the records available for use in this study if permission is granted by owner(s)? If answered ‘yes’ to the above questions, please proceed with remaining questions. If answered ‘no’ to any question above, skip the remaining questions and return questionnaire to address below. 3. a. b. c. d. e. f. Material Sources: Record Locations Where are the records located? Do the records show site location? Is there a legal description of site boundaries? If known, how is the material site being used at present? Do the records contain technical information regarding soil or aggregate type, gradation, etc.? What is the environmental and other permit status? 4. If applicable, please provide names of other agencies/organizations that the research team can contact regarding above questions? 5. Would you like to be notified when the research report becomes available? If so, please provide information in question #1 above. 60 *All questionnaires must be completed by Friday, November 2, 2007 (postmarked by November 2nd) for consideration in this ATRC research project. Please return one-page questionnaire to: ATRC Attn: Jason Harris 206 S 17th Ave, MD 075R Phoenix, AZ 85007 Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-6927 or email jharris@azdot.gov. Thank you in advance for your participation in this survey. Sincerely, Jason Harris, Project Manager Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) Cc: Stan Robbins, Apache County District One Ken Poocha, Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs Don Sneed, ADOT Tribal Coordinator Vi Brown, Prophecy Consulting Group, LLC Jeff Swan, Swan Consulting, LLC Bruce Kay, Ninyo and Moore George Ruffner, EcoPlan and Associates *Note: ATRC has contracted the consultant team led by Prophecy Consulting and includes Swan Consulting, Ninyo and Moore, and EcoPlan and Associates. Individuals from these firms may contact you regarding more information on existing and/or potential material sites within your jurisdiction. 61 62 APPENDIX D: MASTER DATABASES 63 64 The master databases are Excel spreadsheets on file with the ADOT Research Center and available to the public upon request. Table 4 explains the files relating to the master databases. Table 4. Files Available through the ADOT Research Center. File or Folder Name Description File: Master in‐state source data.xls Master in‐state spreadsheet summary of data collected from numerous smaller‐source spreadsheets compiled from various sources. File: In‐state data spreadsheet col heading Column heading definitions for the spreadsheet definitions.doc “Master In‐state source data.xls” File: Master Out‐of‐state source data.xls Master out‐of‐state spreadsheet summary of data collected from numerous smaller‐source spreadsheets compiled from various sources File: Out‐of‐state data spreadsheet col heading Column heading definitions for the spreadsheet definitions.doc “Master Out‐of‐state source data.xls” Folder: “spreadsheets used to compile master Contains the 64 source spreadsheets used to spreadsheets” compile the master spreadsheet (these spreadsheets were primarily compiled in 2008) Folder: “GIS data” Contains the geographic information systems (GIS) database files generated during analyses and sorting of the data (the GIS data is based upon a corridor width of 10 miles, or 5 miles on either side of state highways) Table 5 explains the column headings found in the databases (Microsoft Excel files) on file with the ADOT Research Center. The table also provides a key for codes used in the different columns. Table 5. Master Databases Column Heading Definitions and Key. Spreadsheet Column B C D E F G H I J K L Heading Definition County ADOT_Dist T R S Y X Hwy MP Mat_Type Sel_Cat M N Clrd_Cmcl Op_Own County name ADOT District name Township number Range number Section number Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) Nearest state or federal highway number Nearest highway milepost location Reported material type being extracted from designated location Material type selection category, as defined by the team (all materials types reported were classified as one of these categories: Aggregate Base/SAG; Cementitious Products; Fill; Metals/Minerals; Mineral Aggregate; Miscellaneous; Rock/Quarry; Volcanics) Whether site is cleared commercial site (Y for yes, N for no) Name of site’s operator or owner 65 Table 5. Master Databases Column Heading Definitions and Key. Spreadsheet Column O P Heading Definition Source ADOT_SWPP_ Name of agency or publication supplying the data ADOT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) group number Group A: Currently Active and Inactive Sites for Study Area —Includes a place where work or other activities related to extraction processing, removal, or recovery of minerals is being conducted. May include a site or portion of a site where mining has occurred but is not currently underway and the facility may be covered by an active mining permit issued by the landowner(s), applicable state or federal government agency. Group B: Currently Inactive Site for Study Area—Include a site or part of a site where mining occurred in the past but is not an active facility. A site that is no longer being used will remain in this group until it can be reclaimed, at which time it would be moved to Group C. Group C: Reclamation Phase—Includes activities intended to return the land to a premining state. Once a site is reclaimed, it will be removed from this group. Group I: Non‐mining Sites within Study Area—Includes sites on original ADOT inventory that are not mining sites and so not Sector J of stormwater regulations. Group II: Never Used Sites within Study Area—Includes sites where permits were acquired but the sites were never used by ADOT. Q R S Notes Loc_Desc Sprdsht T U V Site_Mtrl_ Tot_Acres SIC_Code Group III: Reclaimed Sites within Study Area—Includes sites that may be in use by others, but ADOT has no active permit or legal access. Miscellaneous information regarding the site Detailed description regarding the pit location Source spreadsheet number used to provide the date on a given row (folder with the 64 spreadsheets used to compile the master spreadsheet on file at the ADOT Research Center) Pit or location number as reported on the original source data Approximate reported surface area of the pit Four‐digit code number, typically 1429, 1442, 1429 (meaning not defined on original source spreadsheet) 66 Table 5. Master Databases Column Heading Definitions and Key. Spreadsheet Column W Heading Definition Site_Use Site use per Code Number 0 through 17 0‐Not a mining site 1‐Expired permit or license 2‐Never used 3‐No activity for 10‐plus years or since 1993 4‐Reclaimed 5‐Possible activity since 1993 6‐May need revegetation 7‐Residual stockpiles may exist at former mining site 8‐District Construction/Contractors 9‐District Maintenance and/or Construction 10‐Probable no SWPPP required 11‐Probabe SWPPP required 12‐Site visited/no outfall/no SWPPP for current conditions 13‐Site visited/SWPPP or best management practices needed for current conditions 14‐Site visited/confirmed no mining activity (not Sector J) 15‐SWPPP preparation completed 16‐Postpone SWPPP preparation because site is a community source 17‐Postpone SWPPP preparation because ADOT has no legal access Indicates use by more than one agency Indicates whether Environmental Assessment is pending or not available Potential Non‐Stormwater Discharge Code: AA‐Total suspended solids BB‐Total dissolved solids CC‐pH, acids DD‐Fuel (diesel, gasoline, oil, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, solvents) EE‐Heavy metals FF‐Fertilizers GG‐Discharges not regulated under Sector J Indicates the presence of stockpiled material at the site Indicates whether site is in or near Waters of the United States Distance to water in miles U/I Waters—typically “No” or blank (not defined on original source spreadsheet) X Y Joint_Use EA_Effecti Z Pot_NonSW_ AA AB AC AD Stckpl_Mat US_Water Water_Dist U_I_Wat 67 Table 5. Master Databases Column Heading Definitions and Key. Spreadsheet Column AE Heading Definition Owner_Code AF AG Status Lic_Exp AH AI F32 F33 Owner code: 1‐ADOT 2‐Arizona State Land 3‐US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 4‐Bureau of Land Management 5‐Tribal 6‐Bureau of Reclamation 7‐Private 8‐Maricopa County Flood Control District 9‐Department of the Army *column not used* Expiration date of license and/or permit: Perp = perpetual; Deed or Grant = type of license or permit Miscellaneous information regarding source of data Miscellaneous information regarding source of data 68 In‐State Data Master Spreadsheet – Column‐Heading Definitions Spreadsheet Column Column Heading Heading Definition A County County Name B ADOT District ADOT District Name C Township Township Number D Range Range Number E Section Section Number F Latitude Latitude (degrees) G Longitude Longitude (degrees) H Highway nearest State or Federal Highway Number I Milepost nearest highway milepost location J Material Type reported Material Type being extracted from designated location K Cleared Commercial Source (Y/N) Indicates whether the site is a cleared commercial site L Operator/Owner Name of operator/owner of the site M Source Name of agency or publication supplying the data 69 In‐State Data Master Spreadsheet – Column‐Heading Definitions Spreadsheet Column Column Heading Heading Definition Indicates ADOT SWPPP Group Number: Group A: Currently Active and Inactive Sites for Study Area ‐ A materials source in this group will include a place where work or other activities related to the extraction, processing, removal or recovery of minerals is being conducted. Group A may also include a site or portion of a site where mining has occurred in the past, yet currently mining is not being actively undertaken and the facility may or may not be covered by an active mining permit issued by the landowner(s), applicable State or Federal government agency. N ADOT SWPP Group Group B: Currently Inactive Site for Study Area ‐ a material source in this group will include a site or portion of a site where mining occurred in the past but is not an active facility. A site that is no longer being used will remain in this group until it can be reclaimed, at which time it would be moved to Group C. Group C: "Reclamation Phase": Includes activities intended to return the land to its pre‐mining state. (Once a site is reclaimed, it will be removed from this Group) Group I: NON‐MINING SITES Within Study Area: Includes sites on original ADOT inventory that are not mining sites and therefore not Sector J of the storm water regulations. Group II: NEVER USED Sites within Study Area: Includes sites where permits were acquired, but the sites were never used by ADOT. Group III: RECLAIMED Sites Within Study Area: Includes sites that may be in use by others, but ADOT has no active permit or legal access. O Site Notes Miscellaneous information regarding the site P Location Description Detailed description regarding the pit location Q Spreadsheet Number Source spreadsheet number used to provide the data on a given row. A listing of the 64 spreadsheets used to compile the master spreadsheet is provided separately. R Site/Material Source No. Pit or location number as reported on the original source data S Acres Approximate reported surface area of the pit SIC Code Standard Industrial Classification Codes: 1429 crushed and broken stone (basalt and volcanic rock) 1442 sand and gravel 1499 borrow or fill dirt Not 14xx non‐mining sites; material storage areas only T 70 In‐State Data Master Spreadsheet – Column‐Heading Definitions Spreadsheet Column Column Heading Heading Definition U Site Use Site use per code number 1 thru 17. 0 Not a mining site 1 Expired permit or license 2 Never used 3 No activity for 10+ years or since 1993 4 Reclaimed 5 Possible activity since 1993 6 May need revegetation 7 Residual stockpiles may exist at former mining site 8 District Construction/Contractors 9 District Maintenance and/or Construction 10 Probable no SWPPP required 11 Probable SWPPP required 12 Site visited/No outfall/No SWPPP for current conditions 13 Site visited/SWPPP or BMPs needed for current conditions 14 Site visited/Confirmed no mining activity (not Sector J) 15 SWPPP preparation completed 16 Postpone SWPPP preparation because site is a community source 17 Postpone SWPPP preparation because ADOT has no legal access V Joint Use Indicates use by more than one agency W EA Effective Indicates whether Environmental Assessment is pending or not available X Potential Non‐SW Discharge Potential Non ‐ Stormwater Discharge Code: AA Total Suspended Solids BB Total Dissolved Solids CC pH, Acids DD Fuel (diesel, gasoline, oil, PAH, solvents) EE Heavy Metals FF Fertilizers GG Discharges not regulated under Sector J Y Stockpiled Material Stockpiled Material ‐ indicates the presence of stockpiled material at the site Z Water of US Water of US ‐ Indicates whether site is in or near waters of the US. AA Distance to Waters (miles) Distance to Water in miles AB U / I Waters U/I Waters – Indicates whether site is considered as including Unique or Impaired Waters 71 In‐State Data Master Spreadsheet – Column‐Heading Definitions Spreadsheet Column Column Heading Heading Definition AC Owner Code Owner Code: 1 ADOT 2 Arizona State Land 3 USDA Forest Service 4 Bureau of Land Management 5 Tribal 6 Bureau of Reclamation 7 Private 8 Maricopa County Flood Control District 9 Department of the Army AD Status Status of License AE License Expired Expiration date of license and/or permit: Perp = perpetual, Deed or Grant = type of license or permit AF Misc Information regarding Source of Data Miscellaneous information regarding source of data AG Misc Information regarding Source of Data Miscellaneous information regarding source of data 72 Out‐of‐State Data Master Spreadsheet ‐ Column Heading Definitions Spreadsheet Column Column Heading Heading Definition A State State Name B ADOT District *column not used* C Township Township Number D Range Range Number E Section Section Number F G Latitude Longitude Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) H Highway nearest State or Federal Highway Number I Milepost nearest highway milepost location J Material Type reported Material Type being extracted from designated location K Cleared Commercial Source (Y/N) Indicates whether the site is a cleared commercial site L Operator/Own er Name of operator/owner of the site M Source Name of agency or publication supplying the data N Site Notes Location Description *column not used* O P Spreadsheet Number Detailed description regarding the pit location Source spreadsheet number used to provide the data on a given row. A listing of the 64 spreadsheets used to compile the master spreadsheet is provided separately. R Site/Material Source No. Acres S EA Effective Indicates whether Environmental Assessment is pending or not available T Status Status of License Q Pit or location number as reported on the original source data Approximate reported surface area of the pit 73 74 APPENDIX E: MASTER DATABASES SORTED BY 10‐MILE CORRIDOR 75 76 The master databases are Excel spreadsheets on file with the ADOT Research Center and available to the public upon request. Table 6 explains the column headings found in the databases. Table 6. Master Databases (Sorted by 10‐mile Corridor) Column Heading Definitions. Spreadsheet Column Heading Definition B County County name C ADOT_Dist ADOT District name D T Township number E R Range number F S Section number G Y Latitude (degrees) H X Longitude (degrees) I Hwy Nearest state or federal highway number J MP Nearest highway milepost location K Mat_Type Reported material type being extracted from designated location L Sel_Cat Material type selection category, as defined by the team (all materials types reported were classified as one of these categories: Aggregate Base/SAG; Cementitious Products; Fill; Metals/Minerals; Mineral Aggregate; Miscellaneous; Rock/Quarry; Volcanics) M Clrd_Cmcl_ Indicates whether site is cleared commercial site (“Y” for “yes”; “N” for “no”) N Op_Own Name of operator/owner of the site O Source Name of agency or publication supplying the data 77 Table 6. Master Databases (Sorted by 10‐mile Corridor) Column Heading Definitions. Spreadsheet Column P Heading Definition ADOT_SWPP _ Indicates Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Group Number: Group A: Currently Active and Inactive Sites for Study Area— Includes a place where work or other activities related to the extraction, processing, removal, or recovery of minerals is being conducted. Group A may include a site or portion of a site where mining has occurred but is not being actively undertaken and the facility may be covered by an active mining permit issued by the landowner(s), applicable state or federal government agency. Group B: Currently Inactive Site for Study Area—Include a site or portion of a site where mining occurred in the past but is not an active facility. A site that is no longer being used will remain in this group until it can be reclaimed, at which time it would be moved to Group C. Group C: “Reclamation Phase”—Includes activities intended to return the land to a premining state. Once a site is reclaimed, it will be removed from this group. Group I: Non‐mining Sites within Study Area—Includes sites on original ADOT inventory that are not mining sites and, therefore, not Sector J of stormwater regulations. Group II: Never Used Sites within Study Area—Includes sites where permits were acquired but the sites were never used by ADOT. Group III: Reclaimed Sites within Study Area: Includes sites that may be in use by others, but ADOT has no active permit or legal access. Q Notes Miscellaneous information regarding the site R Loc_Desc Detailed description regarding the pit location S Sprdsht Source spreadsheet number used to provide the data on a given row (a listing of the 64 spreadsheets used to compile the master spreadsheet is provided separately) T Site_Mtrl_ Pit or location number as reported on the original source data U Tot_Acres Approximate reported surface area of the pit V SIC_Code Four‐digit code number, typically 1429, 1442, 1429 (meaning not defined on original source spreadsheet) 78 Table 6. Master Databases (Sorted by 10‐mile Corridor) Column Heading Definitions. Spreadsheet Column Heading Definition W Site_Use Site use per Code Number 0 through 17. 0–Not a mining site 1–Expired permit or license 2–Never used 3–No activity for 10‐plus years or since 1993 4–Reclaimed 5–Possible activity since 1993 6–May need revegetation 7–Residual stockpiles may exist at former mining site 8–District Construction/Contractors 9–District Maintenance and/or Construction 10–Probable no SWPPP required 11–Probable SWPPP required 12–Site visited/no outfall/no SWPPP for current conditions 13–Site visited/SWPPP or best management practices needed for current conditions 14–Site visited/confirmed no mining activity (not Sector J) 15–SWPPP preparation completed 16–Postpone SWPPP preparation because site is a community source 17–Postpone SWPPP preparation because ADOT has no legal access X Joint_Use Indicates use by more than one agency Y EA_Effecti Indicates whether Environmental Assessment is pending or not available Z Pot_NonSW _ Potential Non‐Stormwater Discharge Code: AA–Total Suspended Solids BB–Total Dissolved Solids CC–pH, Acids DD–Fuel (diesel, gasoline, oil, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, solvents) EE–Heavy Metals FF–Fertilizers GG–Discharges not regulated under Sector J AA Stckpl_Mat Indicates the presence of stockpiled material at the site AB US_Water Indicates whether site is in or near Waters of the United States AC Water_Dist Distance to water in miles 79 Table 6. Master Databases (Sorted by 10‐mile Corridor) Column Heading Definitions. Spreadsheet Column Heading Definition AD U_I_Wat Unique or impaired waters–typically “No” or blank (not defined on original source spreadsheet) AE Owner_Code Owner code: 1–ADOT 2–Arizona State Land 3–US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 4–Bureau of Land Management 5–Tribal 6–Bureau of Reclamation 7–Privates 8–Maricopa County Flood Control District 9–Department of the Army AF Status *column not used* AG Lic_Exp Expiration date of license and/or permit: Perp = perpetual; Deed or Grant = type of license or permit AH F32 Miscellaneous information regarding source of data AI F33 Miscellaneous information regarding source of data AI F33 Miscellaneous information regarding source of data 80 APPENDIX F: SITES CATEGORIZED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 81 82 At the request of ADOT, EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (EcoPlan) examined 128 potential mineral aggregate sources and 157 potential rock quarries for potential biological compliance issues related to federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species for Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai counties were reviewed by a qualified biologist (Patrick E.T. Dockens, EcoPlan) to determine which species or federally designated critical habitat may occur at or near the mineral aggregate sources or rock quarries. Species specific data, such as known range and occurrence records provided by the USFWS and/or the Arizona Game and Fish Department, were cross‐referenced for proximity to or overlap of the mineral aggregate sources or rock quarries. Forty‐three mineral aggregate sites were determined to have biology‐related issues that may require compliance with state and federal laws should they be utilized (Table 7). Table 7. Mineral Aggregate Sites with Biology‐related Issues. Site No. Issue 8 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 9 Within Critical Habitat for Mexican spotted owl 17 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 18 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 22 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 23 1,200 feet from woundfin Critical Habitat, 400 feet from Virgin River chub and Southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat, within Mohave Desert tortoise range, near known Relict leopard frog populations 24 Within Mohave Desert tortoise range, near known Relict leopard frog populations 25 Within range of Siler pincushion cactus 26 Near localities for Gierisch globemallow (Black Rock Gulch), 900 feet from Virgin River chub, Woundfin, and Southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat, within Mohave Desert tortoise range, nearby Holmgren’s milk‐vetch occurrences 27 Within Mohave Desert tortoise range, near known Relict leopard frog populations 28 Approximately 1 mile from Southwestern willow flycatcher and Virgin River chub Critical Habitat 34 Nearby yellow‐billed cuckoo, Northern Mexican garter snake habitat along river, Gila Chub in river, approximately 350 feet distant 38 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 39 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 42 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 43 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 44 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 83 Table 7. Mineral Aggregate Sites with Biology‐related Issues. Site No. Issue 45 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 46 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 52 Nearby yellow‐billed cuckoo, Northern Mexican garter snake habitat along river, Gila Chub in river, approximately 350 feet distant 55 Within known range of the Peeble’s Navajo cactus 59 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 74 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 85 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, 0.5 mile from Razorback sucker and Southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat 86 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, 600 feet from razorback sucker, Southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat, nearby yellow‐billed cuckoo occurrences 87 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 88 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, 300 feet from known roundtail chub occurrences, nearby yellow‐billed cuckoo occurrences 89 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, 300 feet from razorback sucker Critical Habitat Overlaps Southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat, 250 feet from known roundtail chub occurrences, nearby yellow‐billed cuckoo occurrences 90 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 91 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 92 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 93 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 94 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, 1 mile from razorback sucker, Southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat 96 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 97 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose 201 Within range of Chiricahua leopard frog, ~1.5 miles from a known occurrence, ~0.7 mile from occupied Little Colorado spinedace habitat, within the Mexican Wolf 10(j) population boundaries, ~3 miles south of known breeding range for Mountain plover 202 Within the Mexican Wolf 10(j) population boundaries, within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat, ~3 miles south of known breeding range for Mountain plover, <2 miles from known occurrences of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 206 Within Fickeisen Plains cactus range 208 ~0.25 mile outside Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 210 Within Fickeisen Plains cactus range 214 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 215 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 223 ~1 mile from known yellow‐billed cuckoo occurrences 84 Forty‐one rock quarry sites were determined to have biology‐related issues that may require compliance with state and federal laws should they be utilized (Table 8). Table 8. Rock Quarry Sites with Biology‐related Issues. Site Issue No. 7 Within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 8 Within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 9 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 11 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 12 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 22 Within range of Fickeisen Plains cactus 23 On edge of Brady pincushion cactus range, within range for Welsh’s milkweed Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, ~1.4 miles from Critical Habitat for Little Colorado spinedace, within Mexican 24 spotted owl Critical Habitat, ~0.6 mile from a Mexican spotted owl protected activity center (PAC) 25 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence 38 Within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat, within a Mexican spotted owl PAC 46 Within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat, ~0.5 mile from a Mexican spotted owl PAC 52 Within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat, ~0.5 mile from a Mexican spotted owl PAC 54 Within range for Welsh’s milkweed 55 Within Arizona cliffrose range near Bagdad, within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 56 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range, within USFWS range for Hualapai Mexican vole 57 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 62 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 63 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 64 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 66 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 67 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 68 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 69 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 70 Within range of Siler pincushion cactus 77 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 78 ~1.5 miles from Critical Habitat for Holmgren’s milk‐vetch, within 7 miles of known Mohave Desert tortoise occurrences, <1 mile from known occurrences of Gierisch mallow 85 Table 8. Rocky Quarry Sites with Biology‐related Issues. Site Issue No. 79 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 80 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence 81 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence 82 Within USFWS Chiricahua leopard frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence 94 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 96 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 106 Within Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat 114 Within Arizona cliffrose range near Bagdad, within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 119 Within 0.3 mile of black‐footed ferret 10(j) population boundaries 120 Within 0.3 mile of black‐footed ferret 10(j) population boundaries 122 Within 0.3 mile of black‐footed ferret 10(j) population boundaries 123 Within 0.3 mile of black‐footed ferret 10(j) population boundaries 129 Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, yellow‐billed cuckoo occurrences along river Potential occurrence of Arizona cliffrose, <0.1 mile from razorback sucker Critical Habitat, 131 Northern Mexican garter snake habitat along river, 400 feet from known roundtail chub occurrences, yellow‐billed cuckoo occurrences along river 149 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 86 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Mineral Aggregate Classification No_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 X -109.61975972500 -109.37410728100 -109.59410478000 -109.41916538300 -109.36649169800 -109.27811533400 -109.11813359600 -113.52705839600 -111.55799229300 -112.17356758300 -113.32276609800 -112.01633998600 -110.94085334000 -111.31321662700 -111.18779168500 -112.05197386700 -114.09453913600 -114.34937412500 -113.65004854600 -114.15498536400 -114.59579178700 -114.57816448200 -113.92654831400 -114.03437198900 -112.59238496500 -113.71676196500 -113.93342574300 -112.17993533200 -112.12912390000 -112.16242890100 -112.12706999400 -112.12706999400 -112.10955864900 -112.07508876800 -114.10691494400 -114.19856759900 -114.28689174000 -114.37399958700 -114.46243616800 -113.38399881500 -113.67355504200 -113.90329742900 -114.07511646900 Y 34.35738495820 34.48119892980 34.49079976750 35.24420522000 35.20434639240 35.28138596710 36.93592440940 34.61709165860 35.38734489500 35.48518024590 35.57163061900 36.74218351280 34.86267589040 35.15191188880 35.13631986090 35.27823509860 34.34875096680 34.57358475030 34.86095768830 34.89692947420 34.98061081770 35.05695081890 36.87591077580 36.85785513090 36.97404662510 36.97371429460 36.91583832860 34.35424663180 34.33400909170 34.33942539650 34.31269226600 34.31269226600 34.30905760760 34.32723236630 35.14740382690 35.22704769620 35.22701278350 35.22780198590 35.19517748900 35.18129038750 35.16506068990 35.19407854670 35.17668169500 44 45 -114.07410510200 35.15853011360 21N 17W -114.51543895600 35.19513832220 21N 21W 35 Mineral Aggregate 22 Mineral Aggregate 1 1 44.000000 1 development close by 45.000000 0.5 development close by 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 -113.64583526100 -114.36035342700 -114.36034117800 -112.12429106300 -112.07206420200 -112.18000955800 -112.07508876800 -112.77492256200 -110.65960016800 -110.25050405700 -113.10497557900 -112.16637608700 -112.16820812200 -112.15109211200 -112.75194877800 -112.21626783300 -112.28684856400 -112.26733641500 2 18 30 23 5 5 17 22 9 32 21 21 33 34 11 1 5 16 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 46.000000 47.000000 48.000000 49.000000 50.000000 51.000000 52.000000 53.000000 54.000000 55.000000 56.000000 57.000000 58.000000 59.000000 60.000000 61.000000 62.000000 63.000000 35.41337529800 35.55896612110 35.52994144320 34.23665151630 34.27994682160 34.36887012660 34.32723236630 34.27604767770 34.97864265260 34.92170265430 34.01728559980 34.11203029920 34.08011505750 34.08473511870 34.14184227250 34.45114388810 34.45428830220 34.42696216970 T 11N 12N 13N 21N 21N 22N 41N 15N 23N 24N 25N 39N 17N 20N 20N 22N 12N 14N 17N 18N 18N 19N 40N 40N 41N 41N 41N 11N 11N 11N 11N 11N 11N 11N 20N 21N 21N 21N 21N 21N 21N 21N 21N 23N 25N 25N 10N 10N 11N 11N 11N 18N 18N 08N 09N 09N 09N 09N 12N 12N 12N R 26E 28E 26E 28E 28E 29E 30E 12W 08E 02E 10W 04E 13E 10E 11E 03E 18W 20W 13W 18W 22W 22W 15W 16W 03W 13W 15W 02E 02E 02E 02E 02E 02E 03E 17W 18W 19W 20W 20W 10W 13W 15W 17W 13W 19W 19W 02E 03E 02E 03E 05W 16E 20E 08W 02E 02E 02E 05W 01E 01E 01E S 17 3 33 6 22 28 27 28 9 3 11 31 23 2 12 23 25 10 15 36 2 1 9 21 11 9 33 8 14 16 23 23 25 17 5 10 11 1 19 30 33 20 26 MAT_TYPE NEPA_VB1 NUM Mineral Aggregate 1 1.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 2.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 3.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 4.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 5.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 6.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 7.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 8.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 9.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 10.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 11.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 12.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 13.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 14.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 15.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 16.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 17.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 18.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 19.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 20.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 21.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 22.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 23.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 24.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 25.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 26.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 27.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 28.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 29.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 30.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 31.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 32.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 33.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 34.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 35.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 36.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 37.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 38.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 39.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 40.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 41.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 42.000000 Mineral Aggregate 1 43.000000 Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate Mineral Aggregate F12 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 N 0.5 0.5 1 1 N 0.5 N 0.5 N N N 0.5 N 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 N N N 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 N 1 0.5 0.5 LAND_USE OK OK OK OK OK--in median? OK OK--near highway OK--freeway OK--near road, freeway OK--near highway OK OK OK OK--near freeway OK--near freeway OK--near road, freeway OK airport OK N--developed, in median N--developed N--developed OK OK OK--dirt road OK--freeway N--developed OK N--development OK--near highway OK--near highway N--development agriculture development close by N--developed N--developed OK--adjacent to freeway development close by OK--freeway OK--dirt road, freeway OK--dirt road 1 1 RR very close OK-RR OK-RR--developed other side N OK--near highway N OK 1 in median? 1 agriculture 1 OK--near development N OK--near highway N OK--near freeway 0.5 OK N OK N OK 1 N--development 0.5 OK 1 OK 1 OK--dirt road 0.5 OK--dirt road 87 CULTURAL 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 Notes Pipeline 2 pipelines Pipeline 3 pipelines 2 RR lines-Atchison, Topeka and 0.000000 Santa Fe; Topeka and Santa Fe 0.000000 Power line RR line-Atchson, Topeka and Santa 0.000000 Fe 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 IMPACT BIO_VB NEPA_VB2 Exclude Conty Total Y 0 0 0 Apache 1 N 0 0 0 Apache 1 N 0 0 0 Apache 1 N 0 0 0 Apache 1 N 0 0 0 Apache 2 N 0 0 0 Apache 1 N 0 0 0 Apache 1 N 1 0 0 Mohave 2 N 1 0 0 Coconino 3 N 0 0 0 Coconino 1 N 0 0 0 Mohave 1 N 0 0 0 Coconino 1 N 0 0 100 Coconino 0 Y 0 0 0 Coconino 2 N 0 0 100 Yavapai 0 N 0 0 0 Coconino 1 N 1 0 0 Mohave 1 N 1 0 0 Mohave 1 N 0 0 100 Mohave 0 0 1 0 Mohave 3 0 1 0 Mohave 1 1 1 0 Mohave 4 N 1 0 0 Mohave 2 N 1 0 0 Mohave 2 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 1 0 0 Mohave 2 1 1 0 Mohave 3 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 0 1 0 Yavapai 3 N 0 0 100 Yavapai 0 N 0 0 100 Yavapai 0 0 1 0 Yavapai 1 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 0 Mohave 1 0 1 0 Mohave 2 0 1 0 Mohave 2 N 1 0 0 Mohave 3 Y 1 0 0 Mohave 2 N 0 0 100 Mohave 0 N 0 0 0 Mohave 1 N 1 0 0 Mohave 3 N 1 0 0 Mohave 2 N N 1 1 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N N N N 0 Mohave 0 Mohave 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 Mohave Mohave Mohave Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Navajo Navajo Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Mineral Aggregate Classification No_ 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 X -112.21595831300 -112.54697032900 -112.25494183000 -112.25559783600 -112.25559783600 -112.23568470500 -112.23568470500 -112.39477785700 -112.10583568200 -113.24789213600 -112.28825350500 -112.27104214500 -112.27104214500 -112.35812908800 -112.32367314300 -112.37596249500 -112.42744408800 -112.44491824600 -112.42791958900 -112.46384516700 -111.93728581800 -111.88613296100 -111.90341722700 -111.83209746200 -111.87103007700 -112.02523420800 -112.00737579100 -111.98966039800 -111.91925078300 -111.97215345400 -111.81339952700 -111.81402340800 -112.04251180000 -111.83113648400 -111.83113648400 -112.46373463500 -111.88092862600 -112.74209203600 -113.02599167700 -109.82019200000 -109.19813100000 -109.37551700000 -109.26281900000 -111.93799200000 -112.17939400000 -111.46303100000 -111.44816100000 -111.76050800000 -111.74293600000 -111.46453900000 -114.40143300000 -114.28177800000 -114.50537500000 -114.43400000000 -114.31641100000 -113.56447200000 -114.39861100000 -114.12258900000 -114.11726700000 -110.01312200000 -110.10509700000 -110.10509700000 -112.04072500000 -113.18682200000 Y 34.38708962640 34.38833966130 34.53041611350 34.52441106080 34.52441106080 34.52619967500 34.52619967500 34.54214141650 34.50272435140 34.42855553700 34.57353714880 34.55907171450 34.55907171450 34.57376862860 34.58440379080 34.54504811630 34.62728586500 34.58358745040 34.57130611180 34.55995751350 34.63173136280 34.58576208430 34.55657208470 34.62963938970 34.57671214810 34.73070540950 34.70144433760 34.68705723690 34.70475414680 34.67620460390 34.68380815810 34.64464010260 34.74891471420 34.79193277180 34.79193277180 34.81764837390 34.83794840480 35.28306038170 35.28632537650 34.67081900000 34.02590300000 34.00229400000 34.73855600000 35.18116700000 35.31689200000 35.69690800000 34.99543300000 35.18992500000 35.93176100000 35.69514400000 35.60049400000 35.22709200000 35.79729200000 34.71015800000 34.67967500000 35.13760300000 35.68627500000 34.91708300000 34.91784400000 35.07950800000 34.80937500000 35.80937500000 34.39144400000 34.58601900000 T 12N 12N 13N 13N 13N 13N 13N 13N 13N 13N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 14N 15N 15N 15N 15N 15N 15N 15N 16N 16N 16N 17N 17N 22N 22N 15N 07N 07N 15N 21N 22N 27N 19N 21N 29N 27N 26N 21N 28N 16N 16N 20N 27N 18N 18N 19N 16N 16N 12N 14N R 01E 03W 01E 01E 01E 01E 01E 01W 02E 09W 01E 01E 01E 01W 01W 01W 02W 02W 02W 02W 04E 04E 04E 05E 05E 03E 03E 03E 04E 04E 05E 05E 03E 05E 05E 02W 05E 04W 07W 24E 30E 28E 29E 04E 02E 09E 09E 06E 06E 09E 20W 19W 21W 205W 20W 12W 20W 17W 17W 22E 21E 21E 03E 09W S 25 14 3 10 10 11 11 5 14 31 20 28 28 22 24 33 1 23 24 27 4 24 35 4 30 3 14 24 10 19 22 34 28 9 9 34 19 17 16 29 5 15 4 23 4 29 28 21 3 29 34 11 26 23 35 4 34 30 30 4 3 3 27 3 MAT_TYPE NEPA_VB1 NUM F12 Mineral Aggregate 1 64.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 65.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 66.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 67.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 68.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 69.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 70.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 0 71.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 72.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 74.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 75.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 76.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 77.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 78.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 79.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 80.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 0 81.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 0 82.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 83.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 84.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 85.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 0 86.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 87.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 88.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 89.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 0 90.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 91.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 92.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 93.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 94.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 95.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 96.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 1 97.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 98.000000 Mineral Aggregate 0 99.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 100.000000 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 1 101.000000 1 Mineral Aggregate 0 102.000000 N Mineral Aggregate 1 103.000000 0.5 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 0 0.000000 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 0 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 0 0.000000 0 0.000000 1 0.000000 0 0.000000 LAND_USE near development OK near development near development near development agriculture, development agriculture, development OK--near development OK OK--in median? OK--near development N--development N--development OK--near development N--development N--development OK--highway N--development N--development OK--near development OK--near development OK--near development OK--near highway OK--near development OK--near development N--development OK--nearby development OK--nearby development N-development OK OK N--development N--development OK agriculture, nearby development OK--highway OK--nearby development OK--dirt road 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 88 CULTURAL 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 Notes Cemetery 2 pipelines 2 pipelines IMPACT BIO_VB NEPA_VB2 Exclude Conty Total N 0 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 0 1 0 Yavapai 2 0 1 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 100 Yavapai 0 0 1 0 Yavapai 2 0 1 0 Yavapai 3 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 0 1 0 Yavapai 2 0 1 0 Yavapai 3 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 Y 1 0 0 Yavapai 3 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 1 1 0 Yavapai 3 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 1 1 0 Yavapai 3 N 1 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 1 1 0 Yavapai 3 1 1 0 Yavapai 4 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 100 Yavapai 0 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 2 N 0 0 100 Yavapai 0 N 0 0 0 Yavapai 2 0 0 0 Apache 1 1 0 0 Apache 1 1 0 0 Apache 2 0 0 100 Apache 0 0 0 0 Coconino 1 0 0 0 Coconino 1 1 0 0 Coconino 1 0 0 0 Coconino 1 1 0 0 Coconino 3 0 0 0 Coconino 1 1 0 0 Coconino 1 0 0 0 Mohave 1 0 1 0 Mohave 2 0 0 100 Mohave 0 1 0 0 Mohave 2 1 0 0 Mohave 3 0 0 0 Mohave 1 0 0 0 Mohave 1 0 0 0 Mohave 1 0 0 0 Mohave 1 0 0 100 Navajo 0 0 0 100 Navajo 0 0 0 100 Navajo 0 1 0 0 Yavapai 3 0 0 0 Yavapai 1 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Rock Quarry Classification No_ OBJECTID County 1 26 Apache 2 40 Apache 3 240 Coconino 4 329 Coconino 5 333 Coconino 6 339 Coconino T 16 N 15N 24 N 20 N 20 N 20 N R 30 E 29E 2 E 1 E 9 E 13 E S Y 8 4 4 31 26 29 X LINK Total No1 LINK_1 1 1 1.000000 1.000000 2 100 2.000000 2.000000 3 1 3.000000 3.000000 4 1 4.000000 4.000000 5 2 5.000000 5.000000 6 2 6.000000 6.000000 34.67083300000 34.73419939030 35.48444400000 35.07111100000 35.08527800000 35.10444400000 -109.71916700000 -109.27611027600 -112.17833300000 -112.32111100000 -111.40194400000 -110.98527800000 35.14444000000 -111.63190000000 7 1 7.000000 7.000000 7 346 Coconino 8 347 Coconino 20 N 7 E 3 35.15000000000 -111.63333300000 8 1 8.000000 8.000000 9 10 504 Coconino 11 N 14 E 3 505 Coconino 11 N 14 E 3 34.36722200000 34.36944400000 -110.82861100000 -110.83611100000 9 10 1 1 9.000000 10.000000 9.000000 10.000000 11 506 Coconino 11 N 14 E 3 34.36944400000 -110.83611100000 11 2 11.000000 11.000000 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 508 704 777 799 839 877 896 909 914 935 -111.50972200000 -111.55000000000 -111.48611100000 -111.63000000000 -111.60361100000 -111.56861100000 -112.40194400000 -112.44638900000 -112.40888900000 -112.12722200000 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 100 100 1 1 1 100 1 100 1 12.000000 13.000000 14.000000 15.000000 16.000000 17.000000 18.000000 19.000000 20.000000 21.000000 12.000000 13.000000 14.000000 15.000000 16.000000 17.000000 18.000000 19.000000 20.000000 21.000000 12 N 8 E 16 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 E E E E W W W E 25 14 1 29 21 24 17 36 34.42222200000 35.06000000000 35.17444400000 35.19694400000 35.23611100000 35.25833300000 35.27000000000 35.27861100000 35.28750000000 35.32083300000 22 1010 Coconino 27 N 9 E 29 35.69222200000 -111.46444400000 22 2 22.000000 22.000000 23 1091 Coconino 40 N 7 E 16 36.86666700000 -111.65111100000 23 1 23.000000 23.000000 10E 34 34.56172573760 -111.28624827600 24 1 24.000000 24.000000 12E 02E 02E 02E 09E 4 10 9 10 3 34.71241087680 35.47069764870 35.47069097420 35.47069764870 35.65735310690 -111.08809195300 -112.17358349900 -112.19130402700 -112.17358349900 -111.42824228700 25 26 27 28 29 2 1 100 1 100 25.000000 26.000000 27.000000 28.000000 29.000000 25.000000 26.000000 27.000000 28.000000 29.000000 24 25 26 27 28 29 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino N N N N N N N N 79 Coconino 14N 80 105 106 107 125 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino 15N 24N 24N 24N 26N 8 7 7 8 1 2 1 2 89 County_1 BIO 404_binary LAND_USE_b Cultural_b BIO_binary Apache 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Apache 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 Within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Coconino Hab. 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Coconino Hab. 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican Spotted 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino Owl Crit. Hab. Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican Spotted 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino Owl Crit. Hab. Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican Spotted 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino Owl Crit. Hab. Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Within range of Fickeisen Plains Coconino Cactus 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 On edge of Brady pincushion cactus range, within range for Welsh's Coconino milkweed 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, ~1.4 miles from Crit. Hab. for Little Colorado spinedace, within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Hab., ~0.6 miles from an Mexican 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino Spotted Owl PAC Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known Coconino occurrence 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Rock Quarry Classification No_ OBJECTID County T 30 126 Coconino 27N 31 127 Coconino 27N 32 132 Coconino 28N 33 133 Coconino 28N 34 140 Coconino 16N 35 141 Coconino 17N 36 146 Coconino 18N 37 147 Coconino 18N R 02E 09E 02E 02E 13E 07E 07E 14E S Y 12 31 1 2 5 35 28 36 35.74308417630 35.67199259100 35.84474121770 35.84471818710 34.81056968330 34.81568130900 34.92081458160 34.90979435310 -112.13515521100 -111.48145895200 -112.13539695900 -112.15316384100 -110.99727382900 -111.62854925900 -111.66428413800 -110.81765151300 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 148 153 156 157 158 159 162 163 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino 19N 20N 20N 20N 21N 21N 21N 21N 07E 09E 12E 13E 01W 01W 06E 06E 6 26 5 32 1 5 21 8 35.06362742700 35.09251084060 35.15393594350 35.09675449040 35.22311642680 35.22357806620 35.19330115300 35.22212332270 -111.70128086000 -111.41906524200 -111.15274992500 -110.99365420600 -112.35242915400 -112.42633605100 -111.77003109600 -111.78764109100 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 1 1 1 1 100 2 100 38.000000 39.000000 40.000000 41.000000 42.000000 43.000000 44.000000 45.000000 38.000000 39.000000 40.000000 41.000000 42.000000 43.000000 44.000000 45.000000 46 47 48 49 50 51 164 181 182 187 192 194 Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino 21N 21N 21N 22N 22N 22N 07E 09E 09E 02E 03E 05E 31 15 23 29 21 32 35.16414694610 35.20821077020 35.18285705700 35.26339046590 35.27739895480 35.24005721340 -111.69935611600 -111.43420215800 -111.41652541900 -112.21051575000 -112.08664134200 -111.89414644600 46 47 48 49 50 51 2 100 1 1 1 1 46.000000 47.000000 48.000000 49.000000 50.000000 51.000000 46.000000 47.000000 48.000000 49.000000 50.000000 51.000000 52 53 54 205 Coconino 23N 211 Coconino 41N 212 Coconino 41N 07E 08E 08E 13 11 11 35.38246247540 36.96320536080 36.96320536080 -111.61152969900 -111.50907186700 -111.50907186700 52 53 54 2 100 1 52.000000 53.000000 54.000000 52.000000 53.000000 54.000000 55 647 Mohave 14 N 11 W 20 34.53444400000 -113.42027800000 55 1 55.000000 55.000000 56 1205 Mohave 21 N 15 W 32 35.15694400000 -113.89222200000 56 2 56.000000 56.000000 County_1 BIO 404_binary LAND_USE_b Cultural_b BIO_binary Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Hab., within an Mexican Spotted Owl Coconino PAC 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Hab., ~0.5 miles from an Mexican Coconino Spotted Owl PAC 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Hab., ~0.5 miles from an Mexican Coconino Spotted Owl PAC 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Coconino 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Coconino Within range for Welsh's milkweed 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Within AZ Cliffrose range near Bagdad, within Sonoran Desert Mohave tortoise range 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range, within USFWS range for Hualapai Mohave Mexican vole 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 57 58 59 60 61 1246 1336 1345 1356 1358 16 23 23 24 24 25 30 20 34 36 34.70305600000 35.35055600000 35.35888900000 35.42555600000 35.42638900000 -113.56472200000 -114.14555600000 -113.67972200000 -114.19972200000 -114.25527800000 57 58 59 60 61 2 2 1 2 1 57.000000 58.000000 59.000000 60.000000 61.000000 57.000000 58.000000 59.000000 60.000000 61.000000 Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 62 1443 Mohave 21 N 14 W 20 35.18750000000 -113.79027800000 62 1 62.000000 62.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 63 1487 Mohave 21 N 17 W 6 35.23055600000 -114.13111100000 63 2 63.000000 63.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 64 65 1497 Mohave 1498 Mohave 35.24470000000 35.24472200000 -114.04890000000 -114.04888900000 64 65 2 1 64.000000 65.000000 64.000000 Mohave 65.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 22 N 17 W 36 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 66 1507 Mohave 22 N 17 W 27 35.26194400000 -114.07944400000 66 1 66.000000 66.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 67 1509 Mohave 22 N 17 W 26 35.26777800000 -114.06222200000 67 1 67.000000 67.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 68 1510 Mohave 22 N 17 W 23 35.27361100000 -114.05861100000 68 2 68.000000 68.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave N N N N N 13 17 13 18 19 W W W W W X LINK Total No1 LINK_1 30 100 30.000000 30.000000 31 1 31.000000 31.000000 32 1 32.000000 32.000000 33 100 33.000000 33.000000 34 1 34.000000 34.000000 35 100 35.000000 35.000000 36 100 36.000000 36.000000 37 1 37.000000 37.000000 90 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Rock Quarry Classification T 69 1512 Mohave 22 N 17 W 22 35.27722200000 -114.07611100000 69 2 69.000000 69.000000 Mohave 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 1651 1694 1695 1700 1705 1717 1728 Coconino 42 N 2 W 32 Mohave Mohave Mohave 23 N 13 W 26 Mohave Mohave Mohave 23 N 18 W 13 36.99277800000 35.34470000000 35.34471000000 35.34555600000 35.36430000000 35.37170000000 35.37750000000 -112.53194400000 -113.77000000000 -113.77005000000 -113.64305600000 -114.15830000000 -113.82210000000 -114.15722200000 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 2 100 100 1 1 1 1 70.000000 71.000000 72.000000 73.000000 74.000000 75.000000 76.000000 70.000000 71.000000 72.000000 73.000000 74.000000 75.000000 76.000000 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range Within range of Siler Pincushion Coconino Cactus Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 34.55183070930 -114.33180168300 77 2 77.000000 77.000000 Mohave Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 77 78 206 Mohave 291 Mohave R 14N 41N S 20W 13W 14 Y X LINK Total No1 LINK_1 County_1 BIO No_ OBJECTID County 1 36.97732716920 -113.66256202400 78 1 78.000000 78.000000 Mohave 79 1793 Navajo 11 N 15 E 2 34.36777800000 -110.71027800000 79 2 79.000000 79.000000 Navajo 80 1799 Navajo 12 N 20 E 20 34.41722200000 -110.24750000000 80 2 80.000000 80.000000 Navajo 81 1929 Navajo 14 N 21 E 25 34.57777800000 -110.07361100000 81 2 81.000000 81.000000 Navajo 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 1933 1945 1953 1956 534 535 536 537 558 1855 2170 2171 15 N 16 N 16 N 17 N 18N 18N 18N 18N 19N 10 N 12 N 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 19 E 16 E 23 E 21 E 15E 15E 15E 15E 22E 6 W 1 E 31 14 3 30 2 2 2 2 4 4 22 34.65388900000 34.79027800000 34.81972200000 34.83694400000 34.98228985310 34.98228985310 34.98228985310 34.98228985310 35.07134342050 34.23750000000 34.40666700000 34.40694000000 -110.37305600000 -110.61833300000 -109.89972200000 -110.14750000000 -110.72941568000 -110.72941568000 -110.72941568000 -110.72941568000 -110.01930003200 -112.88416700000 -112.24166700000 -112.25830000000 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 2 1 100 1 100 100 100 100 100 1 1 1 82.000000 83.000000 84.000000 85.000000 86.000000 87.000000 88.000000 89.000000 90.000000 91.000000 92.000000 93.000000 82.000000 83.000000 84.000000 85.000000 86.000000 87.000000 88.000000 89.000000 90.000000 91.000000 92.000000 93.000000 2223 Yavapai 2277 Yavapai 8 N 5 W 10 N 5 W 21 36 34.02444400000 34.17361100000 -112.78055600000 -112.72333300000 94 95 2 100 94.000000 95.000000 94.000000 Yavapai 95.000000 Yavapai 2385 2434 2445 2446 2453 2466 12 N 5 W 34 12 12 12 13 23 19 18 31 34.33500000000 34.39167000000 34.40166700000 34.40250000000 34.41583300000 34.42027800000 -112.76666700000 -112.22500000000 -112.21916700000 -112.19138900000 -112.18777800000 -112.69388900000 96 97 98 99 100 101 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai N N N N 1 2 2 4 E E E W 1 96.000000 96.000000 3 97.000000 97.000000 2 98.000000 98.000000 1 99.000000 99.000000 1 100.000000 100.000000 1 101.000000 101.000000 91 Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai ~1.5 miles from Crit. Hab. for Holmgren's Milk Vetch, within 7 miles of known Mohave Desert tortoise occurrences, <1 mile from known occurrences of Gierisch mallow Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence, within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Hab. Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence Within USFWS current Chiricahua Leopard Frog distribution range, but more than 2.5 miles of known occurrence 404_binary LAND_USE_b Cultural_b BIO_binary Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Rock Quarry Classification No_ OBJECTID County 102 2470 Yavapai 103 2473 Yavapai 104 2483 Yavapai 105 2527 Yavapai T 12 12 12 12 N N N N R 2 2 2 1 E E E E S Y 18 18 18 6 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 2693 2712 2778 2787 2808 2852 2875 2883 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 13 13 14 14 14 14 N N N N N N 1 1 2 2 2 2 W W E W E W 17 17 33 34 31 20 14 N 2 W 16 114 115 116 117 118 2930 2941 2973 2974 3040 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 15 N 9 W 27 15 N 6 E 15 N 6 E 22 N 4 W 31 30 11 119 X LINK Total 102 1 103 1 104 1 105 1 No1 102.000000 103.000000 104.000000 105.000000 LINK_1 102.000000 103.000000 104.000000 105.000000 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 106.000000 107.000000 108.000000 109.000000 110.000000 111.000000 112.000000 113.000000 106.000000 107.000000 108.000000 109.000000 110.000000 111.000000 112.000000 113.000000 114 115 116 117 118 1 3 2 1 1 114.000000 115.000000 116.000000 117.000000 118.000000 114.000000 115.000000 116.000000 117.000000 118.000000 -113.31580000000 119 2 119.000000 119.000000 35.51720000000 35.52077000000 -113.31390000000 -113.31233000000 120 121 2 120.000000 120.000000 1 121.000000 121.000000 3054 Yavapai 35.52077000000 -113.31233000000 122 2 122.000000 122.000000 123 124 125 126 127 128 3055 3083 3097 3098 3129 3132 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 35.52080000000 34.73722000000 34.74900000000 34.74902000000 34.77722000000 34.77780000000 -113.31200000000 -111.78800000000 -112.12200000000 -112.12285000000 -112.10830000000 -112.10890000000 123 124 125 126 127 128 2 1 100 100 1 1 129 130 3135 Yavapai 3137 Yavapai 34.78110000000 34.78140000000 -112.05690000000 -112.10390000000 129 130 3 129.000000 129.000000 100 130.000000 130.000000 34.42333300000 34.42555600000 34.42833300000 34.44583300000 -112.19666700000 -112.19694400000 -112.19722200000 -112.28888900000 34.50666700000 34.51500000000 34.54833300000 34.55166700000 34.56111100000 34.58055600000 34.58600000000 34.58888900000 -112.39083300000 -112.39750000000 -112.16472200000 -112.45972200000 -112.18805600000 -112.49166700000 -113.20600000000 -112.46527800000 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 34.61111100000 34.61944000000 34.65555600000 34.65861100000 35.30833300000 -113.18472200000 -112.34300000000 -111.75583300000 -111.75222200000 -112.69361100000 3049 Yavapai 35.51670000000 120 121 3050 Yavapai 3053 Yavapai 122 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 3140 3145 3147 3160 3162 3200 3201 3205 3206 3215 3216 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 16 N 3 E 17 17 N 2 W 17 N 5 E 25 20 18 N 2 W 34 18 N 2 W 18 N 1 W 26 9 34.78638900000 34.79560000000 34.79670000000 34.82888900000 34.83722200000 34.90690000000 34.90694400000 34.91720000000 34.91722200000 34.95750000000 34.95750000000 -112.05472200000 -112.12470000000 -112.07640000000 -112.42333300000 -111.85805600000 -112.46250000000 -112.46250000000 -112.43580000000 -112.43583300000 -112.36916700000 -112.36920000000 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 123.000000 124.000000 125.000000 126.000000 127.000000 128.000000 131.000000 132.000000 133.000000 134.000000 135.000000 136.000000 137.000000 138.000000 139.000000 140.000000 141.000000 123.000000 124.000000 125.000000 126.000000 127.000000 128.000000 131.000000 132.000000 133.000000 134.000000 135.000000 136.000000 137.000000 138.000000 139.000000 140.000000 141.000000 92 County_1 BIO Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Within Mexican Spotted Owl Crit. Yavapai Hab. Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Within AZ Cliffrose range near Bagdad, within Sonoran Desert Yavapai tortoise range Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Within 0.3 miles of Black-footed Yavapai Ferret 10(j) population boundaries Within 0.3 miles of Black-footed Yavapai Ferret 10(j) population boundaries Yavapai Within 0.3 miles of Black-footed Yavapai Ferret 10(j) population boundaries Within 0.3 miles of Black-footed Yavapai Ferret 10(j) population boundaries Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Potential occurrence of AZ Cliffrose, Yellow-billed Cuckoo occurrences Yavapai along river Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Potential occurrence of AZ Cliffrose, <0.1 miles from Razorback Sucker Crit. Hab., Northern Mexican Garter Snake habitat along river, 400 feet from known Roundtail Chub occurrences, Yellow-billed Cuckoo occurrences along river 404_binary LAND_USE_b Cultural_b BIO_binary 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Aggregate Sources for Construction and Maintenance in Northern Arizona Rock Quarry Classification No_ OBJECTID County 142 3218 Yavapai 143 3219 Yavapai 144 3220 Yavapai 145 3221 Yavapai 146 3223 Yavapai 147 3224 Yavapai 148 3236 Yavapai T R 18 N 2 W S 1 19 N 1 W 32 19 N 2 W 21 N 9 W 34 31 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 09N 13N 13N 15N 15N 15N 15N 15N 15N 21 10 10 22 26 22 22 26 26 583 602 603 645 646 647 648 649 650 0 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai 07W 02W 02W 01E 01E 01E 01E 01E 01E Y X 34.97500000000 34.97500000000 34.97970000000 34.97972200000 34.98610000000 34.98611100000 35.16027800000 -112.43333300000 -112.43330000000 -112.38690000000 -112.38694400000 -112.43610000000 -112.43611100000 -113.26666700000 34.11264031740 34.52501044390 34.52501044390 34.67042692370 34.65587310760 34.67042692370 34.67042692370 34.65587310760 34.65587310760 0.00000000000 -112.99625730400 -112.46265674300 -112.46265674300 -112.25220140500 -112.23464121200 -112.25220140500 -112.25220140500 -112.23464121200 -112.23464121200 0.00000000000 LINK Total 142 100 143 100 144 1 145 1 146 100 147 100 148 100 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 99 No1 142.000000 143.000000 144.000000 145.000000 146.000000 147.000000 148.000000 LINK_1 142.000000 143.000000 144.000000 145.000000 146.000000 147.000000 148.000000 149.000000 150.000000 151.000000 152.000000 153.000000 154.000000 155.000000 156.000000 157.000000 0.000000 149.000000 150.000000 151.000000 152.000000 153.000000 154.000000 155.000000 156.000000 157.000000 0.000000 93 County_1 BIO Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Within Sonoran Desert tortoise range 404_binary LAND_USE_b Cultural_b BIO_binary 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 94 APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL TIME FRAMES 95 96 The different environmental resources—land use, cultural resources, biological resources, and Section 401/404 permitting—considered for each aggregate source require varying amounts of time for environmental clearance. This appendix quantifies the approximate timelines required to clear each resource. Where possible, it presents an average length of time, a best‐case scenario, and a worst‐case scenario. a. Land use A conflict between a potential aggregate source and established land use, such as residential development, cannot be resolved and would rule out the ability to environmentally clear that aggregate source. There is no timeline associated with the environmental clearance because the clearance is not possible. When such a case was identified, the potential source was deleted from the spreadsheet, because its use was not feasible, in spite of its scores on other environmental resources. b. Cultural resources All of the aggregate sources in this study will require at least some cultural survey. This survey would cover the 80 acres including the proposed pit and the access road connecting the pit to the adjacent state highway. The time frame to obtain cultural resource clearance varies, but generally is measured in months. A best‐case scenario for the time to complete the cultural survey, write the reports, and complete the cultural consultation is three months. More realistically, this process takes approximately six months. The worst‐case scenario is when impacts to cultural resources cannot be avoided and data recovery is necessary; here, a time frame of one to two years (and sometimes longer) is not unrealistic. Based on experience with Woodruff Butte, a site of pilgrimage shrines of the Hopi Tribe, site development should not consider areas that are identified as traditional cultural properties (TCPs). These TCPs are typically areas of religious significance or areas where religiously significant resources are obtained. As with land use conflicts, it is recommended that potential aggregate sources with TCPs be dropped from consideration. Cultural resource clearance can be complicated by landownership. Federal landowners, such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, may require survey permits and must lead the Section 106 process when property under their jurisdiction is affected. On average, the presence of federal landowners can add two to four months to the cultural clearance process. c. Biological resources The time needed for biological clearance varies depending on the presence of sensitive biological resources and the potential impacts. If there are no resources present, or no impacts from the project, only a report needs to be prepared—in this case, the report would need to be reviewed only by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). That process could be completed in one to two months. If the project is determined to affect federally listed threatened or endangered species, a minimum of 30 days would be added to the clearance while the impacts are reviewed by the U.S .Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The total biological clearance time would be approximately three months. If ADOT and FHWA determine the impacts adversely affect the threatened or endangered species, the consultation with the USFWS lasts 135 days (4.5 months), increasing the total biological clearance time to six to seven months. 97 Biological resource clearance can also be complicated by landownership. Federal landowners, such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, must concur with the findings of the biology report before they initiate Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. On average, the presence of federal landowners can add one to two months to the biological clearance process. d. Section 401/404 permitting Aggregate sources, especially mineral aggregate, are commonly found near rivers, streams, or ephemeral washes, all of which can be jurisdictional Waters of the United States (Waters); thus, obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is often a component of the environmental clearance process. Before the permit can be issued, a Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) must be conducted. The field work, preparation of the JD, and review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) takes a minimum of two months. The type of permit is determined by the extent of the impact to the jurisdictional Waters: if the area of impact is small (for example, less than 0.5 acre), the permit is likely to be a notifying Nationwide Permit. In this case, the permit would require one to two months to prepare and approximately two months for the Corps to review and approve, for a total of four months. If impacts exceed 0.5 acre, an Individual Permit is generally required. Preparation of the Individual Permit and its review by the Corps are extensive, with total time to obtain clearance being about one to two years. e. Schedules In the absence of insurmountable issues (e.g., adjacent land use or TCPs), the recommended sequence for pursuing environmental clearance would be cultural resources, biological resources, and Jurisdictional Delineation and Section 401/404 permitting. The Corps require cultural and biological reports as part of the documentation for the permit. Given the time commitment, cultural resources work should be started first. If a survey indicates that no fatal flaws (such as TCPs) are present, the biological resource review process can be conducted. Likewise, absent any fatal flaws, such as the presence of federally protected endangered species, the biological clearance can be conducted simultaneously with other resource studies. Finally, the Section 401/404 permitting process should be started while the cultural and biological clearances are being completed (Table 10). Table 9. Calendar Days to Environmental Clearance under Various Scenarios Best Case Cultural only Average Worst Case 90 210 540 Cultural, Section 401/404 120 300 720 Cultural, Biology, Section 401/404 120 300 720 98 f. Section 402 If the amount of disturbed ground associated with developing an aggregate source exceeds 1 acre, an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit will be required and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and reviewed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Preparing and reviewing the SWPPP is relatively straightforward and generally takes the time listed in Table 10. The exception is if the aggregate source is in a watershed that contains outstanding or impaired Waters. Then approximately 60 days should be added to the overall clearance schedule to account for preparation of a more complex SWPPP that includes water quality monitoring and ADEQ review times. g. Geotechnical investigation The schedule for an environmental clearance for geotechnical investigation would be similar to the schedule for overall environmental clearance described in Table 10. A geotechnical investigation generally has a smaller footprint than a clearance for an aggregate source, so the timeline for a geotechnical clearance would likely follow the best‐case scenario or the average scenario, with the extended timeline of a worst‐case scenario unlikely. This schedule assumes that geotechnical analysis is conducted at the beginning of the project clearance, when the schedule may be even more compressed based on the smaller footprint; if a geotechnical investigation is to be conducted after the overall project clearance, the time frame might be longer. Another important assumption is that geotechnical plans are available from the beginning of this clearance period. The schedule for a geotechnical investigation is affected by a number of administrative requirements in addition to environmental clearances. Temporary rights‐of‐entry, utility clearances, and haul road easements may be required before any field exploration begins. SWPPPs may be required if disturbance exceeds a threshold acreage. The site’s physical and geological conditions also affect the schedule. The exploration and sampling needs in potential rock quarries differ from those in alluvial deposits. Access into and around the site may require road construction, track‐ mounted equipment, or difficult access rock‐coring rigs with water trucks. Extensive disturbance is generally avoided unless it is known that development is feasible. Factors include the thickness of overburden and the deposit’s vertical and lateral limits. An on‐ground survey likely will be needed to lay out the exploration plan following environmental clearances. A development or mining plan may be required before determining the suitability and useable volume of the aggregate. Table 11 shows the approximate number of workdays needed to perform a geotechnical investigation for an alluvial site and for a quarry. All cases assume that all clearances have been received. The exploration plan includes up to 80 test pits or borings over a 40‐acre site. Test pits are limited to 15 feet deep, and rock cores are limited to 20 feet deep. Best Case assumes that the site is accessible with normal four‐wheel‐drive equipment, access roads are not required, and a SWPPP is not needed. Average Case assumes that the site is accessible with normal four‐wheel‐drive equipment, that access roads need some grading, and that a SWPPP is required. Worst Case assumes that tracked equipment will be required for access around the site, a pioneer road to the site is required, and a SWPPP is needed. 99 Table 10. Calendar Days Needed for Geotechnical Investigation Best Case Average Worst Case Alluvial deposit 25 50 80 Rock quarry 30 60 100 Subsequent work elements include laboratory testing and reporting, which may take up to 30 days to complete. Other work elements could include a mining plan, license application, and haul road layout and license. 100 APPENDIX H: MAP OF SITES WITHIN 10‐MILE CORRIDOR 101 102 103 S:\ArcGIS\Projects\600000_PHX\601890\001\mxds\GeoPDF_rev2.mxd 12/28/2010 12:24:08 PM JDL California CALIFORNIA Colorado 515 95 146 41 95 163 164 165 147 15 NEVADA 95 MAJOR HIGHWAY / U.S. ROUTE 64 10-MILE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 40 NO DATA MISCELLANEOUS VOLCANIC ROCK / QUARRY RIP RAP MINERAL AGGREGATE METAL / MINERAL FILL CEMENTITIOUS PRODUCT 40 68 93 95 KINGMAN MOHAVE COUNTY 144 170 144 LAKE HAVASU CITY BULLHEAD CITY 167 AGGREGATE BASE / SAND AND GRAVEL CATEGORIES LEGEND MEXICO Arizona Utah New Mexico MAP EXTENT Nevada 15 93 66 0 40 97 40 SCALE IN MILES 89 PRESCOTT 89 COCONINO COUNTY CHINO VALLEY 389 89 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12 North Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator North American Datum 1983 20 71 YAVAPAI COUNTY COLORADO CITY 9 69 169 64 80 260 89 SEDONA 487 98 PAGE FLAGSTAFF CAMP VERDE 17 179 CLARKDALE 180 ARIZONA WILLIAMS 64 67 277 UTAH 87 99 61 60 666 61 ST JOHNS 261 EAGAR 180 81 264 CHINLE APACHE COUNTY 262 64 180 118 41 60 435 32 666 191 53 134 666 10 DATE 12/10 APACHE, COCONINO, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA NORTHERN ARIZONA 1 FIGURE SOURCE: Forest Service Roads - U.S. Forest Service (www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis), 2010; Base - Arizona Land Resource Information System, 2010; ESRI, 2010 260 PINETOP 601890002 73 SHOW LOW 260 SNOWFLAKE 180 191 191 163 NOTE: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 77 TAYLOR 277 377 HOLBROOK 77 PROJECT NO. 99 264 COTTONWOOD NAVAJO COUNTY 87 40 WINSLOW 160 KAYENTA 163 316 261 COLO RADO NEW MEXICO 104 S:\ArcGIS\Projects\600000_PHX\601890\001\mxds\GeoPDF_rev2.mxd 12/28/2010 12:25:27 PM JDL California CALIFORNIA Colorado 515 MAJOR HIGHWAY / U.S. ROUTE 64 10-MILE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 41 95 163 164 40 ROCK / QUARRY RIP RAP 95 146 165 147 15 NEVADA MINERAL AGGREGATE CATEGORIES LEGEND MEXICO Arizona Utah New Mexico MAP EXTENT Nevada 95 68 93 95 KINGMAN MOHAVE COUNTY LAKE HAVASU CITY BULLHEAD CITY 167 40 144 170 144 15 93 66 0 40 97 40 SCALE IN MILES 89 PRESCOTT 89 COCONINO COUNTY CHINO VALLEY 389 89 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12 North Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator North American Datum 1983 20 71 YAVAPAI COUNTY COLORADO CITY 9 69 169 64 80 260 89 SEDONA 487 98 PAGE FLAGSTAFF CAMP VERDE 17 179 CLARKDALE 180 ARIZONA WILLIAMS 64 67 277 UTAH 87 99 61 60 666 61 ST JOHNS 261 EAGAR 180 81 264 CHINLE APACHE COUNTY 262 64 180 118 41 60 435 32 666 191 53 134 666 10 DATE 12/10 APACHE, COCONINO, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA NORTHERN ARIZONA 1 FIGURE SOURCE: Forest Service Roads - U.S. Forest Service (www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis), 2010; Base - Arizona Land Resource Information System, 2010; ESRI, 2010 260 PINETOP 601890002 73 SHOW LOW 260 SNOWFLAKE 180 191 191 163 NOTE: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 77 TAYLOR 277 377 HOLBROOK 77 PROJECT NO. 99 264 COTTONWOOD NAVAJO COUNTY 87 40 WINSLOW 160 KAYENTA 163 316 261 COLO RADO NEW MEXICO 105 S:\ArcGIS\Projects\600000_PHX\601890\001\mxds\GeoPDF_rev2.mxd 12/28/2010 12:24:42 PM JDL California CALIFORNIA Colorado 515 95 146 41 95 163 164 165 147 15 NEVADA 95 MAJOR HIGHWAY / U.S. ROUTE 64 10-MILE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 40 VOLCANIC FILL 40 68 93 95 KINGMAN MOHAVE COUNTY 144 170 144 LAKE HAVASU CITY BULLHEAD CITY 167 AGGREGATE BASE / SAND AND GRAVEL CATEGORIES LEGEND MEXICO Arizona Utah New Mexico MAP EXTENT Nevada 15 93 66 0 40 97 40 SCALE IN MILES 89 PRESCOTT 89 COCONINO COUNTY CHINO VALLEY 389 89 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12 North Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator North American Datum 1983 20 71 YAVAPAI COUNTY COLORADO CITY 9 69 169 64 80 260 89 SEDONA 487 98 PAGE FLAGSTAFF CAMP VERDE 17 179 CLARKDALE 180 ARIZONA WILLIAMS 64 67 277 UTAH 87 99 61 60 666 61 ST JOHNS 261 EAGAR 180 81 264 CHINLE APACHE COUNTY 262 64 180 118 41 60 435 32 666 191 53 134 666 10 DATE 12/10 APACHE, COCONINO, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA NORTHERN ARIZONA 1 FIGURE SOURCE: Forest Service Roads - U.S. Forest Service (www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis), 2010; Base - Arizona Land Resource Information System, 2010; ESRI, 2010 260 PINETOP 601890002 73 SHOW LOW 260 SNOWFLAKE 180 191 191 163 NOTE: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 77 TAYLOR 277 377 HOLBROOK 77 PROJECT NO. 99 264 COTTONWOOD NAVAJO COUNTY 87 40 WINSLOW 160 KAYENTA 163 316 261 COLO RADO NEW MEXICO 106 S:\ArcGIS\Projects\600000_PHX\601890\001\mxds\GeoPDF_rev2.mxd 12/28/2010 12:25:58 PM JDL California CALIFORNIA Colorado 10-MILE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR MAJOR HIGHWAY / U.S. ROUTE 64 95 41 95 163 164 165 146 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 515 147 15 NEVADA 40 NO DATA CATEGORY LEGEND MEXICO Arizona Utah New Mexico MAP EXTENT Nevada 95 68 93 95 KINGMAN MOHAVE COUNTY LAKE HAVASU CITY BULLHEAD CITY 167 40 144 170 144 15 93 66 0 40 97 40 SCALE IN MILES 89 PRESCOTT 89 COCONINO COUNTY CHINO VALLEY 389 89 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12 North Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator North American Datum 1983 20 71 YAVAPAI COUNTY COLORADO CITY 9 69 169 64 80 260 89 SEDONA 487 98 PAGE FLAGSTAFF CAMP VERDE 17 179 CLARKDALE 180 ARIZONA WILLIAMS 64 67 277 UTAH 87 99 61 60 666 61 ST JOHNS 261 EAGAR 180 81 264 CHINLE APACHE COUNTY 262 64 180 118 41 60 435 32 666 191 53 134 666 10 DATE 12/10 APACHE, COCONINO, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA NORTHERN ARIZONA 1 FIGURE SOURCE: Forest Service Roads - U.S. Forest Service (www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis), 2010; Base - Arizona Land Resource Information System, 2010; ESRI, 2010 260 PINETOP 601890002 73 SHOW LOW 260 SNOWFLAKE 180 191 191 163 NOTE: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 77 TAYLOR 277 377 HOLBROOK 77 PROJECT NO. 99 264 COTTONWOOD NAVAJO COUNTY 87 40 WINSLOW 160 KAYENTA 163 316 261 COLO RADO NEW MEXICO APPENDIX I: TYPES OF MATERIALS EACH SITE CAN PROVIDE 107 108 Table 11. Materials Available from Potential Sites. Materials Mineral aggregate Category Mineral aggregate Aggregate base Sand and gravel Aggregate base/sand and gravel Riprap Riprap Cinders Pumice Volcanics Volcanics Borrow Clay Fill Soil and other fill Soil Fill Basalt Boulders Crushed rock Crushed stone Dimension stone/aggregate Dimension stone Flagstone Granite Hard rock Hard rock materials Limestone‐general Marble‐dimension Rock quarry Stone Stone‐dimension Rock/quarry Abrasive Aluminum Arsenic Asbestos Barium Bentonite Beryllium Calcium Coal Copper Diatomite Feldspar Feldspars/silver Gemstone Metals/minerals 109 Materials Gold Graphite Gypsum Iron Kyanite Lead Lithium Magnesium Magnesium compounds Manganese Mercury Mica Molybdenum Perlite Phosphate Plutonium Potassium Rare earths Rhenium Silica Silicon Silver Sodium Tungsten Vanadium Vermiculite Uranium Zeolites Zinc Category Metals/minerals (cont’d) Cement Lime Cementitious products Fluorine Geothermal Helium Manufactured products Mill Petrified wood Specimens Unknown Various Miscellaneous 110 APPENDIX J: MAPS OF ACTIVE, POTENTIAL SITES 111 112 § ¨ ¦ 15 ! ( 389 t u 163 t u 64 t u 191 t u 160 t u ! ( ! ( 89A 67 98 ! ( 564 t u 89 t u ! ( 64 93 ! ( 264 ! ( C C oo cc oo nn ii nn oo M M oo hh aa vv ee ! ( ! ( 264 ! ( t u 64 ! ( 66 t u t u 191 ! ( 180 87 t u 89 93 66 ! ( 68 ! ( § ¨ ¦ ! ( § ¨ ¦ 40 ! ( 99 ! ( t u 40 95 § ¨ ¦ 17 40 77 ! ( 61 ! ( 89 Y Y aa vv aa pp aa ii ! ( ! ( § ¨ ¦ ( ! (! 40 § ¨ ¦ 93 ! ( A A pp aa cc hh ee N N aa vv aa jj oo ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 99 ! ( t u 180 ! ( ! ( t u 77 ! ( ! 169 ( ! ( ! ( 97 89 ! ( ! ( 71 Biology ! ( 95 Cultural LL aa P P aa zz t u ! ( 0 § ¨ ¦ 25 Miles ° ! ( 89 t u 95 § ¨ ¦ 10 ! ( 260 ! ( 260 ! ( ! ( 473 ! ( 273 ! ( t u 261 ! ( 180 87 ! ( 73 § ¨ ¦! ( 101 ! ( 81 61 G G ii ll aa288 303 ! ( ! ( 260 17 10 North 277 ! ( M M aa rr ii cc oo pp aa 404 No Concerns 260 60 72 Land Use ! ( ! (! ! (( ! ( ! ( 95 Mineral Aggregate Location 377 96 ! ( 191 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 188 51 § ¨ ¦ ! ( 87 10 ! ( 88 t u 60 G G rr ee ee nn ll ee ee t u 191 W\10-330\NEPA\MineralAggregateIssus Mineral Aggregate Concerns - Northern Arizona Region 113 § ¦ ¨ 15 ! ( ! ( 389 £ ¤ £ ¤ ! ( ! ( 89A 67 98 £ ¤ 64 £ ¤ 191 163 £ ¤ 160 ! ( 564 £ ¤ 89 ! ( £ ¤ 64 93 ! ( 264 (cc oo nn ii nn oo C C oo! ! ( M M oo hh aa vv ee ! ( 264 ! ( 64 £ ¤ £ ¤ 93 ! ( 180 ! ( 66 66 ! ( ! ( 68 40 ! ( § ¦ ¨ £ ¤ 40 93 ! ( £ ¤ 89 ! ( ! ( ! ( § ¦ ¨ Y Y aa vv aa pp aa ii 95 ! ( § ¦ ¨ 17 ! ( ! ( 89 191 87 ! ( ! ( £ ¤ ! ( ! ( 99 ( ! (! ! ( § ¦ ¨ 40 ( ! (! § ¦ ¨ 77 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( A A pp aa cc hh ee N N aa vv aa jj oo ! ( ! ( 61 99 ! ( £ ¤ ! ( 180 ! ( 77 ! ( ! ( £ ¤ 191 377 ! ( 169 ! ( ! ( 97 96 ! ( 260 277 ! ( 89 ! ( 95 Biology ! ( LL aa P P aa zz 404 Land Use § ¦ ¨ 25 Miles North ° ! ( ! ( ! ( 260 89 ! ( ! ( 473 G G ii ll aa288 ! ( 60 72 ! ( ! ( 73 § ¦! ¨ ( £ ¤ 95 Rock Quarry Concerns - Northern Arizona Region 10 101 ! ( 303 ! ( ! ( 10 ! ( £ ¤ 180 G G rr ee ee nn ll ee ee 188 51 § ¦ ¨ 273 261 87 M M aa rr ii cc oo pp aa § ¦ ¨ 81 61 17 10 No Concerns ! ( ! ( £ ¤ 95 Cultural 0 ! ( 71 Rock Quarry Location ! ( 260 ! ( ! ( 260 ! ( 87 ! ( 88 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ 191 W\10-330\NEPA\RockQuarryConcerns\State 114 t u 191 t u 64 t u 163 t u 160 ! ( 98 ! ( 564 t u 191 ! ( t u 264 89 APACHE ! ( ! ( 264 ! ( 264 t u 191 ! ( 87 NAVAJO ! ( 99 ! ( § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ 40 ( ! ( ! 40 77 ! ( 61 ! ( ! ( 99 ! ( ! ( ! ( t u 180 ! ( t u 77 191 ! ( 377 ! ( ! ( 277 260 ! ( ! ( 81 61 ! ( 260 t u 60 ! ( 260 ! ( 260 Mineral Aggregate Location ! ( t u 288 Biology ! ( 473 ! ( 180 ! ( 373 273 Cultural ! ( 261 404 ! (No Concerns 87 0 ° North ! ( 73 30 Miles ! ( LANDOWNER / AGENT 188 PRIVATE ! ( 88 BLM INDIAN RESERVATION STATE TRUST NAT PARK USFS t u 191 Mineral Aggregate Concerns - Apache and Navajo Counties 115 £ ¤ ! ( 191 £ ¤ 64 £ ¤ 163 £ ¤ 160 ! ( 98 ! ( 564 £ ¤ 191 ! ( 264 £ ¤ 89 APACHE ! ( 264 ! ( 264 ! ( £ ¤ 191 ! ( 87 NAVAJO ! ( ! ( ! ( 99 § ¦ ¨ ! ( § ¦ ¨ 40 ( ! (! 77 40 ! ( 61 ! ( ! ( ! ( 99 ! ( ! ( ! ( £ ¤ 180 ! ( 77 £ ¤ 191 ! ( 377 ! ( ! ( 277 260 ! ( 260 ! ( ! ( 81 61 £ ¤ 60 ! ( 260 Rock Quarry Location ! ( 260 ! ( Biology £ ¤ 288 180 ! ( 473 Cultural ! ( 373 ! ( 273 ! ( 261 404 ! (Land Use 87 ° North No Concerns 0 ! ( 73 30 Miles ! ( LANDOWNER / AGENT 188 PRIVATE ! ( 88 BLM INDIAN RESERVATION STATE TRUST NAT PARK USFS £ ¤ 191 Rock Quarry Concerns - Apache and Navajo Counties W\10-330\NEPA\RockQuarryConcers\ApacheNavajo 116 ! ( 389 t u ! ( 89A 67 ! ( 98 t u 89 t u 160 ! ( 64 ! ( 264 COCONINO 64 ! ( t u t u ! ( 89 180 66 ! ( § ¨ ¦ 40 ! ( 99 ! ( § ¨ ¦ 40 § ¨ ¦ 17 ! ( 89 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 87 179 Mineral Aggregate Location ! ( Biology ! (Cultural! ( 97 ! ( 89 96 404 ! ( ! ( 169 ! ( 69 96 Land Use No Concerns 0 t u 93 ° North 30 ! ( Miles 89 LANDOWNER / AGENT ! ( PRIVATE 71 INDIAN RESERVATION t u NAT PARK 60 BLM 89 STATE TRUST ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 260 ! ( 260 § ¨ ¦ 17 ! ( ! ( ! ( 288 ( ! (! 188 87 USFS Mineral Aggregate Concerns - Coconino County 117 Rock Quarry Location Biology Cultural 404 Land Use No Concerns ° North ! ( 30Miles 0 389 ! ( LANDOWNER / AGENT PRIVATE BLM INDIAN RESERVATION STATE TRUST NAT PARK USFS £ ¤ 89A ! ( 67 ! ( 98 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 160 ! ( 64 ! ( 264 (O C O C O N I N! ! ( ! ( 64 ! ( £ ¤ £ ¤ ! ( 89 180 66 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( § ¦ ¨ ! ( 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( 99 § ¦ ¨ 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( § ¦ ¨ ! ( 17 ! ( 89 ! ( 179 ! ( ! ( ! ( 97 ! ( ! ( 89 96 ! ( ! ( ! ( 87 ! ( 169 ! ( 69 96 ! ( 260 £ ¤ 93 ! ( 71 ! (! ( 89 ! ( 260 § ¦ ¨ 17 ! ( 288 ! ( 89 ( ! (! 188 £ ¤ 87 60 Rock Quarry Concerns - Coconino County W\10-330\NEPA\RockQuarryConcers\Coconino 118 § ¨ ¦ 15 ! ( 389 ! ( MOHAVE ! ( 66 t u 93 ! ( 66 § ¨ ¦ 40 ! ( ! ( 68 § ¨ ¦ ! ( 40 § ¨ ¦ 40 ! ( 95 ! ( Mineral Aggregate Location § ¨ ¦ Biology t u 40 93 Cultural ! ( 404 95 Land Use No Concerns ! ( 97 ! ( ° North 0 96 25 Miles ! ( 96 LANDOWNER / AGENT ! ( 95 119 89 AZ GAME & FISH PRIVATE BLM RECLAMATION COP REGNL & ST PARK COUNTY LAND STATE TRUST ! ( INDIAN RESERVATION UNKNOWN MILITARY USFS NAT PARK Mineral Aggregate Concerns - Mohave County ! ( 89 ! ( 71 WILDLIFE REFUGE § ¦ ¨ 15 ! ( 389 MOHAVE ! ( 66 £ ¤ 93 ! ( 66 ! ( § ¦ ¨ 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 68 § ¦ ¨ 40 ! ( § ¦ ¨ 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( 95 Rock Quarry Location § ¦ ¨ Biology £ ¤ 40 93 Cultural ! ( 404 95 Land Use No Concerns ! ( 97 ! ( ° North 0 96 25 Miles ! ( 96 LANDOWNER / AGENT ! ( 95 89 AZ GAME & FISH PRIVATE BLM RECLAMATION COP REGNL & ST PARK COUNTY LAND STATE TRUST INDIAN RESERVATION MILITARY NAT PARK Rock Quarry Concerns - Mohave County ! ( ! ( UNKNOWN 89 ! ( 71 ! ( USFS WILDLIFE REFUGE W\10-330\NEPA\RockQuarryConcers\Mohave 120 t u t u ! ( 64 89 180 ! ( 66 ! ( § ¨ ¦ 40 § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ 40 40 ! ( § ¨ ¦ 17 ! ( 89 ! ( ! ( 89A ! ( 179 YAVAPAI ! ( 89A ! ( ! ( ! ( 169 ! ( 260 ! ( 97 96 ! ( 87 ! ( 69 ! ( 89 ! ( ! ( ! ( t u 93 § ¨ ¦ 17 ! ( ! ( ! ( 71 ! ( 89 t u 60 t u 60 ! ( 74 Mineral Aggregate Location Biology Cultural 404 ! ( 101 Land Use No Concerns § ¨ ¦ 10 0 ! ( 87 § ¨ ¦ 17 ° § ¨ ¦ North 20 10 Miles ! ( 303 ! ( 51 § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ 10 LANDOWNER / AGENT PRIVATE BLM INDIAN RESERVATION STATE TRUST NAT PARK USFS MILITARY REGNL & ST PARK 10 ! ( § ¨ ¦! ( 10 202 143 t u 60 ! ( § ¨ ¦ 85 10 Mineral Aggregate Concerns - Yavapai County 121 ! ( 87 ! ( 88 ! ( ! ( ! ( £ ¤ £ ¤ ! ( 64 89 180 ! ( 66 ! ( § ¦ ¨ 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( § ¦ ¨ 40 § ¦! ¨ ( 40 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( § ¦ ¨ ! ( ! ( 17 ! ( ! ( 89 ! ( ! ( YAVAPAI ! ( ! ( 89A ! ( 179 ! ( 89A ! ( ! ( 260 169 ! ( 97 ! ( ! ( 69 96 ! ( 87 ! ( 89 £ ¤ 93 § ¦ ¨ ! ( 17 ! ( 89 ! ( 71 £ ¤ 60 £ ¤ 60 ! ( 74 Rock Quarry Location Biology Cultural 404 ! ( 101 Land Use No Concerns § ¦ ¨ 10 0 ! ( 87 § ¦ ¨ 17 ° § ¦ ¨ North 20 10 Miles ! ( 303 ! ( 51 § ¦ ¨ 10 LANDOWNER / AGENT PRIVATE BLM INDIAN RESERVATION STATE TRUST NAT PARK USFS MILITARY REGNL & ST PARK § ¦ ¨ 10 ! ( 202 § ¦! ¨ ( 10 143 ! ( 88 £ ¤ 60 ! ( § ¦ ¨ 85 10 Rock Quarry Concerns - Yavapai County ! ( 87 W\10-330\NEPA\RockQuarryConcers\Yavapai 122