FHWA-AZ-EIS-14-01-F South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Volume II: Appendices, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c), 49 U.S.C. § 303, and 33 U.S.C. § 1251 by the Federal Highway Administration and Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Area Power Administration September 2014 Appendix Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 AGENCY LETTERS AND COMMUNICATION ............................................................ A1 CHAPTER 2 2-1 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION ....................................................................... A250 CHAPTER 3 3-1 ALTERNATIVES PECOS ROAD LOCAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION .................................................. A514 CHAPTER 4 This page intentionally left blank GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY COORDINATION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4-1 ADOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY ....................................... A517 4-2 FIVE PERCENT PLAN FOR ATTAINMENT OF THE 24-HOUR PM-10 STANDARD ........ A557 4-3 2014 MAG CONFORMITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. A562 4-4 DUST CONTROL PERMIT .............................................................................. A640 4-5 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ..................................................................... A662 4-6 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ....................................................................... A674 4-7 FARMLAND CONVERSION ............................................................................. A692 4-8 SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION.................................... A695 CHAPTER 5 5-1 5-2 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 4(F) CONSIDERATION ........................... A702 SECTION 4(F) CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................. A709 CHAPTER 6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 NOTICE OF INTENT ...................................................................................... A741 NEWSLETTERS AND ADVERTISEMENTS ............................................................ A742 SOUTH MOUNTAIN CITIZENS ADVISORY TEAM ................................................. A773 SUMMARY REPORT: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .................................................................................... A795 6-5 OUTREACH TO GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............................................................. A917 6-6 OUTREACH TO GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ........................................................................ A946 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 1-1 APPENDIX 1-1 AGENCY LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS Appendix 1-1, Agency Letters and Communications, contains a record of communications to and from representatives of federal, state, tribal, and local agencies. An initial contact list used for the purposes of agency scoping is included along with copies of agency letters and responses (when appropriate) received during the preparation of the DEIS and prior to the issuance of the DEIS. Letters and responses are grouped by federal, state, tribal, and local agency, followed by consultant inquiries and responses, and then organized in chronological order. • A1 A2 • Appendix 1-1 Initial Contact List Arizona Department of Transportation Steve Jimenez, Assistant State Engineer 205 S . 17'" Avenue, 295 MD 61 4E Phoenix, AZ. 85007 Arizona Department of Water Resources Joseph Smith, Director 500 N. ~ Street Phoenix , AZ 85004-3921 Arizona Department of Transportation Dan Lance, Deputy State Engineer 206 S . 17"' Avenue, 133A MD 102A Phoenix, AZ. 85007 Arizona Game & Fish Department Duane Shroufe, Director 2222 W . Greenway Road Phoenix , AZ 85023-4313 Arizona Department of Transportation John Lawson, Geotechnical 1221 21 " Avenue, MD 068R Phoenix, AZ. 85009-37 40 Arizona State Land Department Michael Phalen, Planr-ing Director 1616 W . Adams Street Phoenix , AZ 85007-2614 Arizona Department of Transportation John Louis , Assistant state Engineer 206 S . 17"' Avenue, 129E MD 611 E Phoenix, AZ. 85007-32 t 2 Arizona State Parks Kem eth Travous, Director 1300 W . Washington Street Phoenix , AZ 85007 Arizona Department of Transportation M ike Manthey, Assistant State Engineer 2828 N. Central avenue, #900 MD 061 E Phoenix, AZ. 85004 State Historic Preservation O ffice Jam es w . Garrison, Officer 1330 W . Washington Street Phoenix , AZ 85007-2929 Arizona Department of Transportation Sabra Mousavi, Right-of-Way Project Manager 205 S . 17"' Avenue, 349 MD 61 2E Phoenix, AZ. 85007-32t2 Arizona Department of Transportation Perry Powell, Assistant State Engineer 1309 N. 22" Avenue, MD E700 Phoenix, AZ. 85009 Arizona Department of Transportation Annette Riley, Traffic Design 2828 N. Central Avenue, #900 Phoenix, AZ. 85004 Arizona Department of Transportation Many Romo, Right-of-Way 205 S . 17"' Avenue, 371 MD 61 2E Phoenix, AZ. 85007-32t2 Arizona Department of Transportation Mary Viparina, Project Manager 205 S . 17"' Avenue Phoenix, AZ. 8507 Arizona Department of Transportation George Wallace , Roadway design 1739 WI Jac.kson street, MD 050P Phoenix, AZ. 85007-32t2 Arizona Department of Transportation Harry Woelzlein, Roadside Development 205 S . 17"' avenue, 129E MD 611 E Phoenix, AZ. 85007-32t2 Arizona Department of Public Safety Dennis Garrett, director PO Box 6638 Phoenix, AZ. 85005-6638 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Gila River Indian Comm unity Elaine Blackwater, Land Use & Ordinance Officer PO Box E Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Comm unity Department ol Environmental Quality Dan VIair, Air Quality Manger PO Box97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Comm unity Gary Bohnee, Executive Assistant PO Box97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Comm unity Pima Maricopa Irrigation Project George Brooks, Environmental Coordinator PO Box E Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Comm unity Utility A uthority (Power) Harry Cruye, Board Chairman, PO Box 5091 Chandler, AZ 85226 Gila River Indian Comm unity Department ol Transportation Robert Cubley, Civil Engineer PO Box97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Telecommunications Mark DeoNease 7065 w. Ellison Drive Chandler, AZ 85226 Initial Contact List Gila River Indian Community Urban Gift, Community Manag er PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Douglas Jones , Fire Chief PO Box 5083 Chandler, AZ 85226 Gila River Indian Community Department of Environment Pat Mariella, Director PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Luis Martinez, Chief of Police PO Box 568 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Pima Maricopa Irrigation Project Harry Millsaps P0Box 9E Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community John Ravelsloot, Coordinator Cultural Resources Program 192 S . Skill Center Rd., Bldg 300 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Department of Environmental Quality Jeffery Ray, Air Quality Specialist PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Land Use Plaming & Zoning Fred Ringlero, Director POBox E Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation John Roberts, Right of Way Agent PO Box 97 Sacaton, /1:2. 85247 Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation Sandra Shade, Director PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Larry Stephenson PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation Douglas Torres , Right of Way agent PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Gila River Indian Community Department of Environmental Quality Janet Travis, A ir Quality Specialist PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 GR IC-Departmert of Economic Development Dean Weatherly, Director PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY SRPM IC Ivan Makil, President 1005 E. Osborn Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256 Cultural and Environmental services Bobby Ramirez, Acting Manager 1005 E. Osborn Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256 COUNTY/ REGIONAL AGENCIES Flood Control District of Maricopa County Michael S. Ellegood, Director 2801 W . Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009--6356 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Timothy Philtips, Project Manager 2801 W . Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 Maricopa County Planning & Development JOf Rich, Director 4 11 N. Central Avenue , Fl 3 Phoenix, AZ 85004-211 5 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Tom Buick, Director 2901 W . Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009-6357 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Michael Sabatini, Planning Division Manger 2901 W . Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009-6357 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Bob Woodring, Project Management Speciaist 2901 W . Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009-6357 Maricopa County Environmental Services AI Brown, Director 1001 N. Central Avenue, Suite 550 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1952 Maricopa Association of Governments James Bourey, Executive Director 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ. 85003 City of Phoenix Mike Gritzick, Water services 200 W. Washington Street, a"' Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Maricopa Association of Governments Eric Anderson 81 302 N.1 Avenue, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ. 85003- 1598 City of Phoenix Don Herp, Traffic Desi~ 200 w. Washington, 81 Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 CITY AGENCIES City of Phoenix Harold 1-b tt, Police Chief 620 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 City ol Avondale Paul Adams~,Fire Chief 1825 N. 107 Avenue Avondale, A Z 85323 City ol Avondale Todd Hileman, Assistant City Manager 525 N. Central Averue Avondale, A Z 85323 City of Phoenix Lionel Lyons, Development SeiVices Manager 200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 City ol Avondale Stephen MacKinnon, Police Chief 519 E. Western Avenue Avondale, A Z 85323 City of Phoenix- Intergovernmental A ffairs Norris Norvold, 200 W. Washington Street, 12"' Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 City ol Avondale Scott Schrader, City Manager 525 N. Central Averue Avondale, A Z 85323 City of Phoenix-Water and SeoNer Carlos Padilla 200 W. Washington Street, a"' Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 City ol Avondale Felipe Zubia, Development Service Director 1225 Sf 4• Street Avondale, A Z 85323 City of Phoenix Mario Saldamando, City Engineer 200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 City ol Chandler Uoyd Page, Senior Geologist 21 5 E. Buffalo street Chandler, AZ 85225 City ol Phoenix Alan Bnunac ini, Fire Chi ef 150 S . 12• Street Phoenix, AZ. 85034 City ol Phoenix Tom Callow, Streets Transportation Director 200 W . Washington Street Phoenix, AZ. 85003 City of Phoenix Jim Sparks, Traffic Operations 200 W. Washington, 5"' Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 City of Phoenix Jack Tevlin, Deputy Manager 200 W. Washington Street, 12"' Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 City of Phoenix-Public Transit Facilities Manager Kini Knudson, Public Transit director 302 N. Rrst Avenue, Sul e 700 Phoenix, AZ 85034 City ol Phoenix James Colleu, Parks and Recreation 200 W . Washington Street Phoenix, AZ. 85003 City of Tolleson Manuel Dominguez, Public Works director 9501 W . Pima Tolleson, AZ 85353 City ol Phoenix Ray Dovalina , FreeoNay Coordinator 200 W . Washington Street, 5m Floor Phoenix, AZ. 85003 City of Tolleson Reyes Medrano 9555 W . Van Buren Tolleson, AC 85353 City ol Phoenix Frank Fairbanks, City Manager 200 W . Washington Street Phoenix, AZ. 85003 City of Tolleson George Pickett, Fire Chief 9 169 W . Monroe Street Tiolleson, AZ 85353 Appendix 1-1 Initial Contact List City of Tolleson lawrence Rodrig..ez, Police Chief 9555 W . Van Buren Tolleson, AZ. 85353 Infinity O utdoor Melinda Preciado, Electric 2502 N. Black Canyon Highway Phoerix, AZ 85009 City of Tolleson Ralph V elez, City Manager 9555 W . Van Buren Street Tolleson, AZ. 85353 MCI-MCIWorld.Com Heth Sharp, Investigations 2250 lakeside Blvd., Dept 2855-642 Richardson, TX 75082 UTI LITES O..Vest Sara Wade 6350 south Maple, Room 125 Tempe, AZ. 85232 Arizona Public Service Rancly Clawson, MS 4118 PO Box 53933 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3933 Arizona Public Service Steve Goodman, MS 3 162 PO Box 53933 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3933 O..Vest Emilio Brug..eras, Design Engineer Manager NW 10220 N. 25" avenue, Room 100 Phoerix, AZ 85027 Initial Contact List Salt River Project-Irrigation John Sullivan, Associate General Manager PO Box 52025 Phoenix, AZ. 85072-2025 San Carlos Irrigation & Power Ben Charley, Supervisory electrical Engineer PO Box 250 Coolidge, AZ 85228 Southwest G as Gene Florez 9 S. 43'0 avenue, MS 420-586 Phoenix, AZ. 85009 Southwest G as Jody McDougal, Franchise S upervisor PO Box 52075 Phoenix, AZ. 85009 Arizona Public Service Tom Uost, MS 3162 PO Box 53933 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3933 O..Vest Ted Spenser, Design Engineer Manager SE 6350 south Maple, Room 125 Tempe, AZ. 85232 Southwest G as Keith Johns 9 S. 43'0 avenue, MS 420-586 Phoenix, AZ. 85009 Arizona Public Service John Herrera, MS 31 62 PO Box 53933 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3933 O..Vest Steve Nicholls, Engineering Director 6350 south Maple, Room 125 Tempe, AZ. 85232 Swiftport Fueling Ken Dezening, Aviation Fuel 4200 East Air l ane Phoenix, AZ. 85034 AT&TCQrp, Franco Jauregui, Project Engineer 360 E. A lessandro Blvd. Riverside, CA 92508-2402 Roosevelt Irrigation Dist rict Ken Craig 103 West Baseline Rd . Buckeye, AZ. 85326 U.S. Sprint Communications Company Colin Sword 401 West Harrison Street Phoenix, AZ. 85003 Broadwing Communications Geneva Ti tus 11 22 Capital of Texas Highway Austin TX 78746 Roosevelt Irrigation Dist rict Stan Ashby 103 West Baseline Rd . Buckeye, AZ. 85326 SCHOOL DISTRICTS Cox Communications Scott Gusso 1550W. Deer Valley Road Phoenix, AZ 85027 Salt River Project-Financial David A reghini PO Box52025 Phoerix, AZ 85072-2025 Cox Communications Jin Woodruff 1550 W . Deer Valley road Phoenix AZ. 85027 Salt River Project-Financial Mark Bonsall, Associate General Manager PO Box 52025 Phoerix, AZ 85072-2025 El Paso Natural G as-Complex Manager Bil Ward, District Superintendent 7776 S. Pointe Parkway west, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85044 Salt River Project-Irrigation Paul Cherrington PO Box52025 Phoerix, AZ 85072-2025 Kinder Morgan Energy Dan Tarango, line Rider 49 N. 53' 0 avenue Tempe, AZ 85043 Salt River Project Paul Hursh, Southside water Engineering PO Box 52025 Phoerix, AZ 85072-2025 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P/SFPP, l P Don R. Quinn 1100 Town & Country Road Orange, CA 92868 Salt River Project Dick Silverman, General Manager PO Box 52025 Phoerix, AZ 85072-2025 Cartwright El ementary School District John Wollums, Superintendent 340 1 N. 67" avenue Phoenix, AZ. 85033-4599 Creighton El ementary School District Donna Cranswick, Superintendent 27032 E. Fowler Street Phoenix, AZ. 85016-7498 Fowler Elementary School District Randall Blecha, Superintendent 1617 W. 67" Avenue Phoenix, AZ. 85043 Isaac Elementary School District Paul Hanley, Superintendent 3348 w. McDowell Rd. Phoenix, AZ. 85009-2390 Kyrene Elementary School District Don Enz, Superintendent 8700 S. Kyrene Rd. Tempe, AZ. 85284-2 197 Laveen Elemen tary School District Connie Stolfels, Superintendent 940 1 I s, 51 " avenue Laveen, AZ. 85339-0029 littleton El ementary School District Quentin Aycock, Superintendent 1252 S. 1151" avenue Cashion, CA 85329 AMEC Earth & Environmental Rob Mongrain 3232 W . V irginia Avenue Phoenix , AZ 85009 HDR Engineering A my Edwards 3200 E . Camelback Rd., Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ. 850018 Murphy Elementary School Dist rict Robert Dodnfrio, Superintendent 2615W. / Buckeye Rd. P hoenix, AZ 85009-5783 DFD Jackie Guthrie, Subconsu~ant 1941 0 W. Black Knob Street Casa Grande, AZ. 85222 HDR Engineering Tim Morrison 3200 E . Camelback Rd., Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ. 850018 P hoenix Elementary School District Paul Moty, Superintendent 1817 N. 1• street P hoenix, AZ 85006-2152 DFD Steve Kellogg 2425 E. Camelback Rd., Stile 400 Phoenix , AZ 8501 6 HDR Engineering Fi ona Goodson 3200 E . Camelback Rd., Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ. 850018 P hoenix Union High School Dist rict Raj Chjopra, Superintendent 4502 N. Central Avenue P hoenix, AZ 85012 DFD Kerrylynn Kovaleski 2425 E. Camelback Rd., Stile 400 Phoenix , AZ 8501 6 HDR Engineering KurtWatzek 3200 E . Camelback Rd., Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ. 850018 Riverside Elementary School District Jack bliss , Superintendent 1414 S. 51 81 Avenue P hoenix, AZ 85043 Digital Mapping Associates Frank Deal 21 640 N. 19"' avenue, Suite C103 Phoenix , AZ 85027 Higgins & Associates Pat Higgins 70 1 W . SouthemAvenue., Suite 105 Mesa, AZ 85210 Roosevelt Elementary School District Fredirick Warren, Superintendent 6000 S. 7" street P hoenix. , AZ. 85040-4294 Digital Mapping Associates Penny Galbreathe 21 640 N. 19"' avenue, Suite C103 Phoenix , AZ 85027 l in a & Associates Pete Uma, President 7250 N. 16" Street, Su~e 300 Phoenix, AZ. 85020 Tempe Elementary School District John Baracy, Superintendent 3205 S. Rural Road Tempe, AZ 85283 DMJM Tom Monchack 2777 E. Camelback Rd., Stile 200 Phoenix , AZ 8501 6-4352 l in a & Associates Pat Ramos 7250 N. 16" Street, Su~e 300 Phoenix, AZ. 85020 Tempe Union High School District James Buchanan, Superintendent 500W. Guad.U.pe Road Tempe, AZ 85283-3599 Ernst and Young Jay Pulis, Principal Real estate Advisory services One Renaissance Sq ., Tw o N. Central Phoenix , AZ 85004 l ogan Simpson Design Eileen Hammond 51 w . :t• street, Suite 450 Tempe, AZ. 85281 Tolleson Union High School District K ino Flores, Superintendent 9419 W. Van Buren Street Tolleson, AZ. 85353-2898 Union Elementary School District James Ramsay, Superintendent 3834 S. 91 81 avenue Tolleson, AZ. 85353-9394 CONSULTANTS AMEC Earth & Environmental l arry Hansen 3232 W . Virginia Avenue P hoenix, AZ 85009 AMEC Infrastructure Dave Bender, Senior Project Manager 4435 E . Holmes Avenue Mesa, AZ. 85206 AMEC Infrastructure Darrell Truitt, Project Principal 4435 E . Holmes Avenue Mesa, AZ. 85206 AMEC Earth & Environmental David Peterson, Vice President, Senior Geologist 3232 W . Virginia Avenue P hoenix, AZ 85009 Ernst and Young Stefani Bhimarl, Real Estate Advisory Services One Renaissance Sq ., Suite 2300 Tw o N. Central Phoenix , AZ 85004 Godec , Randall & assoc.i ates JomGodec 3944 N. 14" St reet Phoenix , AZ 85014-51 13 Godec , Randall & assoc.i ates Bill Rawson 8313 E. Vista Drive Scottsdale, AZ. 85250-7321 HDR Engineering Steve Martin 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Stile 350 Phoenix , AZ 850018 l ogan Simpson Design Diane Simpson Colebank, Presiden t 51 w . :t• street, Suite 450 Tempe, AZ. 85281 Quarles & Brady Striech lang Roger Ferland Renaissance One Two N. Central A venue Phoenix, AZ. 85004-2391 Quarles & Brady Striech lang Jeremy lite, Attonney Renaissance One Two N. Central A venue Phoenix, AZ. 85004-2391 Wi lbur Smith Associates linda Meronek, Associate-in-Charge 4600 S . Mill Avenue, Suite 275 Tempe, AZ. 85282-6757 Wi lbur Smith Associates Ron Holmes 4600 S . Mill Avenue, Suite 275 HDR Engineering Jack Allen 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Stile 350 Phoenix , AZ 850018 Tempe, AZ. 85282-6757 Wi lbur Smith Associates A nne Morris 1301 Gervais Street Columbia, SC 29201 • A3 A4 • Appendix 1-1 Agency Letters and Communication Appendix 1-1 ·' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DIVISION 5) Page 2, last line, again identifies this facility as a parkway. terminology? 234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, flZ.. 85004 Is this the appropriate February 8, 2001 IN REPLY REFER TO We suggest a time frame for an EIS/DCR be discussed in this memorandum. HA-AZ NH-202-D-(ADY) South Mountain Corridor Sincerely, W111iam P. Vachdft William P. Vachon Area Engineer cc: K.Davis B. Vachon B. Hayden (ADOT 107A) Governor Donald R. Antone, Sr. Gila River Indian Community PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 RE :Development of Alternative Alignments for a South Mountain Transportation Corridor on Gila River Indian Community Lands Dear Governor Antone: On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration and the Arizona Department of Transportation, I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for allowing us to partner with members of your staff as we undertake the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Design Concept Report for the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study. Our monthly meetings have proven to be extremely helpful in understanding and resolving mutual concerns and identifying the best approaches to each step ofthe study. Having completed the EIS "scoping" phase and establishing a preliminary need for some type of transportation improvement in the South Mountain corridor, we are currently embarking on the alternatives identification stage of the study. I am writing to request your assistance in this effort. We understand that several transportation and roadway proposals over the past decade have affected the Gila River Community, and you may have identified some alignments that may be preferable to the Community. We ask that you provide us with several alternative routes that we may include in the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study for detailed environmental and socioeconomic evaluation through the remainder ofthe EIS process. Through our monthly coordination meetings, we have learned that the Gila Borderlands Task Force has been engaged in developing and evaluating possible roadway corridors, and it may be appropriate for our study team to work through them in establishing which alternatives the Tribe would like to include in the EIS studies. In order to satisfy our procedural requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, we will need to have confirmation from the Tribal Council of the alternatives that you direct us to • A5 A6 • Appendix 1-1 study. As required by law, this documentation will be used to describe the alternatives selection process that was undertaken for the EIS. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DIVISION Again, thank you for your continued participation in this study process. We are confident that it will result in acceptable solutions for both the Gila River Indian Community and the Phoenix metropolitan region. 234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, AZ. 85004 April 5, 2001 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D (ADY) (540.1) Sincerely, SR 202L; South Mountain Freeway Maricopa County, Arizona FHW A-AZ-EIS-0 1-0 l-D Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator cc: Lieutenant Governor Richard Narcia, Gila River Indian Community, PO Box 97,Sacaton, AZ 85247 Sandra Shade 315 W. CasaBlanca Rd, PO Box 97, Sacaton, AZ 85247 Larry Stephenson (same as Shade) Victor Mendez, ADOT IOOA Dan Lance, ADOT E700 Mary Viparina, ADOT 614E Steve Thomas, FHW A Dave Anderson, HDR Engineers Inc,. 217IE. Highland AVE, Suite 250, Phx 85016-6606 WPVachon:vdk 0(/ Office Of The Federal Register (NF) National Archives and Records Administration 700 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20408-0001 Gentlemen: Enclosed you will find three (3) signed originals of the notice of intent for the proposed improvements to State Route 202L; South Mountain Freeway in Maricopa County, Arizona. Please publish the required notice of intent in the Federal Register. We are expecting the notice to appear in the Register of April20, 2001. For further information please contact Stephen D. Thomas, Environmental Program Manager, at (602) 379-3918. Sincerely, ( ....... . :r· - ... , .. or- "' , ·- .\ ..~ .• · • :r··. . ~· ~. ~ . .. . /"""' Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Enclosure Cc: Ralph Ellis, Arizona Department of Transportation (619E) SDThomas:sg Appendix 1-1 should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. [4910-22] (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway DEPARTivfENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 ENVIRONMENTAL Th1PACT STATEivfENT; MARJCOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT program.) ACTION: Notice oflntent Issued on SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an individual impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project within Maricopa County, Kenneth H. Davis, District Engmeer Phoenix Arizona. . FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth H. Davis, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-3646. SUPPLEivfENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to study the proposed South Mountain Corridor in Maricopa County, Arizona. The · proposed project will involve construction of a new multilane freeway in the metropolitan Phoenix area extending approximately 25 miles from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-1 0 southeast of Phoenix to form a southwest loop. The proposed project will evaluate potential impacts to mountain preserve land, residential and commercial development, Tribal lands, cultural resources, historic roads and canals, Endangered Species, jurisdictional water of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste. Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. A full range of reasonable alternatives will be considered • A7 A8 • Appendix 1-1 An agency scooping/partnering workshop has been set up for October 30- 31, 2001. This workshop will include a field review to familiarize your staff with the project area, as well as, an opportunity to express any issues or concerns that your agency may have relative to the proposed project. You will receive more information on the workshop in the near future. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DIVISION 234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, AZ.. 85004 September 7, 2001 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) SR-202L; I-10 s/o Phoenix to I-10 w/o Phoenix South Mountain Freeway Environmental Impact Statement Request to Serve as a Cooperating Agency We believe the EIS process will satisfy NEP A requirements, including those related to alternatives, environmental consequences, and mitigation. In addition, we intent to utilize the EIS and subsequent Record of Decision as a basis for any necessary permit applications. Please notify this office, in writing, of your decision. We appreciate your cooperation to date, and look forward to working with you on the essential project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Kenneth Davis, District Engineer at 602-379-3914, or Mr. Stephen Thomas, Environmental Coordinator, at 602-379-3918. Sincerely, Ms. Lisa Hanf Manager Office ofFederal Accounting Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 7 5 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 STEPHEND. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Dear Ms. Hanf: Enclosures The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), as joint lead agencies, have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed South Mountain Corridor Project located between I-10 south ofPhoenix and I-1 0 west of Phoenix, in Maricopa County, Arizona. The EIS will identify and evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives, including the no-build alternative, and their potential impacts upon the human and natural environment. The South Mountain Corridor Project is an integral element ofthe Maricopa Association of Governments' Regional Freeway System (map enclosed), and is also part ofthe National Highway System. A Notice oflntent to Prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on April20, 2001 (copy enclosed). Your agency has jurisdiction in this area because the proposed project is located in a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide, particulates, and ozone. As a result, we are requesting the Environmental Protection Agency to be a cooperating agency. Your agency's involvement will be to participate and finally concur in the evaluation of the air quality issues associated with the proposed freeway, and will not involve direct analysis or writing during EIS preparation. To assist our interagency cooperation, we will invite you to coordination meetings, consult with you on any relevant technical studies, and provide project information cc: Thomas, Vachon, Davis R. Ellis (619E) J. Allen (HDR), S. Martin (HDR) Katiann Wong-Murillo (Western Resource Center) Nova Blazej (EPA-SF), Sandra Shade (GRIC) Appendix 1-1 Federal R.egister/Vol. 66. No. 77 /Friday, April 20, 2001/Notices 20345. facilities they used and the services they a recommended alternative was selected · ACTION: Notice of intent to deny petitions for rulemaking; request for received The information collected will arid an accompanying Design Concept be used to evaluate current · Report was completed in September .;..co_mme _ _n_ts_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-:-_ niaintenance, facility, and seivice 1988. Due to the elapsed time and SUMMARY: The FMCSA announcesits practices and policies and to identify changed conditions that have occurred intent to deny petitions for rulemaking new opportunities for improvements. since completion of these documents, from the Manufactured Housing .new studies are required. Institute (MHI) and Multinational Legal. Jacklyn J. Stephenson, Letters describing the proposed action Services, PLLC (Multinational) · Senior Manager, Enterprise Operations and soliciting comments will be sent t~ . concerning overloading of tires used for Information Services. . appropriate Federal, State ~d local · the transportation of manufactured [FR Doc. 01-9817 Filed 4-1~1: 8:45 am] agencies including the EnVJronmental homes; Currently, these tires may be BIWNG CODE 81~ Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of loaded up to 18 percent over the load rating marked on the sidewall of the Engineers , Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau· ofLand Management, U.S~ Fish tires, or in the absence of such a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Wildlife Service, Arizona State marking, 18 percent above the load Land DepiU1ment Arizona Game &: Fish rating specifi~d in publications of. Federal Highway Administration Department City of Phoenix, Town of certain organizations specializing in tires. The termination date of the rule Laveen, City of Avondale, and the Gila Environmental Impact Statement; allowing 18-percent overlQading of River Indian Tribe .. Letters will .also.be Maricopa County, Amona sent to intemsted parties including, the . these tires was originally set fo:t · AGENCY: Federal Highway Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning November 20, 2000, but was delayed Administration (FHWA), DOT. · Committee. Laveen Village Planning until December 31~. 2001, to.provida. the AcnoN: Notice of intent: Committee and Estrella Village PJ.anniilg agency time to complete its review of Committee. · the MHI's petition to allow 18 percent SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this A 'Series of public meetings will be overloading on a permanent basis. The notice to advise.the public that an held in the communities within the agency has'now completed its review of ·individual impact statement will be proposed study area. In addition,~ a the MHI's. data and believes that there prepared for a proposed highway project public hearing will be held. Public . should be no further delay in the within Maricopa County, Arizona. notice will be given advising of the time termination date. The agency has also FOR FUR"JlfER INFORMATION CONTACT: . Kenneth H. Davis, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) . 379-3646. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAnON: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transport;ltion (ADOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to study the proposed South Mountain Corridor in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed prqject will involve construction of a new multilane freeway in the metropolitan Phoenix area extending approximately 25 miles from 1-10-west of Phoenix to I-10 southeast of Phoenix to form a southwest loop. The proposed project will evaluate potential impacts to mountain preserve land, residential and commercial development, Tribal lands, oultural resources, historic roads and canals, End~ered Species, . · jurisdictional water of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste. Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. A full range of reasonable alternatives will be considered including (1) taking no action; (2) using alternate travel modes; {3) limited access parkway; {4) major urban arterial with transportation system management improvements; and (5) a freeway. A Final State Environmental Assessment was completed for the · South Mountain Corridor. At that time, and place of the meetings and hearing. A formal scoping meeting is planned . between Federal, State, city and Tribal stakeholders. To insure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues· identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all intl!rested parties. Comments or questions concerning 1:hi.sproposed action and the EIS should be · directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. · (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and· Construction. The regulations implementing Exlicutive.Order 12372 regarding intsrgovemmental consultation on Fedeml programs and activities apply to this program.) Kenneth B. Davis, Distr.ictEitgineer,Phoenix. . [FRDoc. 01--9782 Filed 4-1~1; 8:45am] BIWHG CODE 41 ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety A#jminlstratfan [Docket No. FMCSA-97-2341] Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Manufactured Home Tires Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. AGENCY: completed its analysis o~ . · Multinational's petition to rescind the · final rule which delayed the termination date until. December 31, 2001, and determined on a preliminary basis that the petition should be denie.d Denial of both petitions would result m transporters of manufactured homes being prohibited from operating such units on overloaded tires on or after January 1, 2002. DAn:s: We must receive your comments by May 21, 2001, We will consider comments received after the comment closing date to th13·extent practicable. ADDRESSeS: You can mail, fax, hand ·delive~ or electronically submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DG 20S9o0001, FAX (202) 493-2251, on·lina at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. You must include the docket number. that appears in the heading of this document in your comment. You can examine and copy all comments at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; e.t. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you want us to notify you that we received you comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or postcard. FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Regional Freeway System January 2001 Certification Remaining Life Cycle Cost (Millions) 2001 - 2007 2001 $40 Design $95 R!W $315 $1 '135 Construction Total $1,545 Obligated Roadway Construction 0 S~.eo NorthernAVe developed to a comparable level of detail so that their comparative merits may be evaluated. Decisions will be made after the impacts and public comments on all reasonable alternatives have been fully evaluated. The development and evaluation of alternatives is particularly important for projects anticipated to have significant environmental impacts (thus requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement) so that the relative levels of impacts associated with each viable alternative can be fully evaluated. This comparative analysis is essential to the validity of a process that must eventually identify the best overall alternative from an array of reasonable alternatives that wer:e likely to cause substantial or significant impacts on the environment. Hollis, Nelson, Vachon, Davis REIIOLLIS :vdk • A19 A20 • Appendix 1-1 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DIVISION One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004-2285 May 25 , 2004 IN REPLY REFER TO HDA-AZ (030) The Honorable Ed Pastor U.S . House of Representatives 2465 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D;C. 20515-0302 Dear Congressman Pastor: Federal Highway Administrator Mary Peters.asked my office to respond to you regarding the correspondence you presented her during the House Transportation Subcommittee's hearing on Environmental Streamlining on April29, 2004. This correspondence was from Landry, Creedon & Associates, Inc. dated April26, 2004, related to the loop alignment between 51st and 61st A venues of the South Mountain Freeway project in Phoenix, Arizona. The South Mountain Freeway (SR-202L), located in the south and southwestern portion of the Phoenix Metro Area, is currently undergoing an intense Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analysis to assess the impacts of various alternatives along the South Mountain Loop corridor. The draft EIS will not be completed until sometime in 2005. The Arizona Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) understands fully the concerns cited in Mr. Landry's April26 correspondence to you, which refers to local support of a single, specific alignment in the general vicinity of 51st and 61st Avenues. This single alignment was identified in ea.rlier 1988 State-level studies ofthe South MountainFreeway Corridor for which FHWA had no involvement. We are also aware that a considerable amount of urban planning and development has occurred based on the earlier identified alignment supported by those studies. However, the need to consider additional alternatives in the current environmental analysis and design concept studies for the South Mountain Freeway is driven by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) and at least three factors: • • • First, the EIS process (as discussed in more detail below) requires that all reasonable alternatives for an improvement be evaluated, Second, the development and accelerating growth in the western portion of the Phoenix Metro Area in the past 15 years may have substantially changed travel patterns and transportation needs, and, Third, there is a definite need to evaluate the impacts (traffic operations, safety, social, economic, and environmental) of connecting the South Mountain Freeway to Interstate 10 in west Phoenix. The location identified in the earlier 15 year-old studies may no longer be the best overall location for this connection. Also, the alternatives now being considered were, in part, identified through extensive outreach effort to citizens and various other groups represented in the area, which is a clear indication the community understands the changes in the area and their interest in other alternatives. Further, because oftoday's high traffic volumes on Interstate 10 and the projected traffic increases the South Mountain freeway will add to I-10, the old connection may create substantial safety and operational problems not anticipated 15 years ago. Yet another reason to evaluate all available alternatives is that the same 1988 study of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor that identified the single, specific alignment between 51st and 61st A venues also identified a single, specific alignment on Pecos Road for the east-west portion of the corridor. But in this case, the local jurisdictions are opposed to the previously planned and . supported 1988 east-west alignment and want to consider other alternatives. So on one end of this project (between 51st and 61 st Avenues) the local jurisdiction is in favor of the 198 8 alignment, while on the other end of the project (Pecos Road) the same jurisdiction is opposed to the 1988 alignment. Without following the EIS process to its conclusion, any fmal decision on specific alignments is premature and potentially subject to legal challenge. The Maricopa Association of Government's (MAG) adopted 2003 Regional Transportation Plan clearly states "location of the South Mountain Freeway is being au to coordination meetings, consult with you on any relevant technical s tudies, and >rovide project information_ We believe the ElS process will satisfy NEPA rcquirernents, including t11ose related to alternatives, environmental consequences, and mitigation . AMERICAN ECONOMY I / Appendix 1-1 2 Please noli fy this office, in writing, of your decision: We a\Jpreciate your cooperation. to ~ate, . . and look forward to working with you on this essenlllli proJect Ifyotl have any questions, please contact Steve Thomas, Environmental Program Manager, at 602-382-8976. Sincerely, Fcdc•·al R egister/Vol. 6G, No. 77/Friday. April 20, 2001/Notices f~cilitics they used and the services they received. The information collcctccl will be used to evaluatc current mnin tcnance, facility, and serv ice pr3ctices and policies and to identify new oppo11unities for improvements. STEPHEN·D. :VHGlMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator J•cklyn ). Stephen•un, Senior Manc•eer, Bntcrpn'se Operali()IIS Jnformalion Services. (FR Doc. Ql-9617 Filed 4-19-01; S:45 om] BilliNG COOf &120..o&.~P Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION cc: Federal Highway Administration AHansen SThomas KDavis MBruder (EM04) MHollowell (EM02) AEdwards, HDR SDThomas:cdm a recommended alternative was selected and nn accompanying Design Concept Rep011 was completed in September Hma. Due to tho elapsed time ~nd chnnged conditions that have occurred since completion of these docU>nenls, new studies are required. Letters describing the proposed action 3nd soliciting comments will he sent to nppropri~te Federal, State and local agencies including the Enviroumental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Bureau oflndian Affairs, Bureau of Land Monagcmcnt, U.S. Fish and WildHrc Sc.rv ico, Arizon~ State Land Department, Ari7.ona Game & Fish Deportment, City of Phoenix, Town ?f Laveen, City of Avondale, and the G•la Environmental Impact Statement; River Indian Tribe. l-•lllcrs will also be Maricopa County, Arizona sent to Interested parties including, the Ahwatuko>l J"oolhills Villago Planning AGENCY: Federal High way Committee, Laveen Villngc Planning Administration (PHWA), DOT. Committee and Estrella Village Plnnning ACTION: Notice of intent. Committee. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this A series of public meetings will be notice to advise the public that an held in the com munities within the individual impact statement will be proposed study area. In addition •. a prepared for a proposed highway project public hearing will bo held. Publtc within Maricopa County, Ari~ona. notice will be given advising of the time FOil FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and place o f the meetings and hearing. Ktmneth H. Davis, District Engineer, A formal scoping m eeting is planned between federal, State, dty and Tribal Federal Highway Administration, 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330, stakeholders. Phoenix, AZ 65004, telephone (602] To insure that the full range of issues 379-3646. related to th is proposed action arc addressed •nd all significant issues SUPPLEMENTARY 11'/FORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with Ihe AriMountain Corridor in Maricopa provided above. County , Arizona. The proposed project will involve construction of a new (Catalog of Fcdernl Domestic 1\ssistancc multilane freeway In the metropolitan Prog>om Numbor 20.205, Highway Planning Phoenix area extending npproxi ma lely and Consiiuction. The regulnlions imptemcnt in& Executtve Order l237?.. 25 miles from I-10 wnst of Phoenix to regarclinn intcrgovcrnmnnl<:~l consuttcllton on l-10 southe•st of Pl>oenix to form a Federal prosrams and activities apply to !,his southwest loop. The proposed project prosram.) will evaluate potential impacts to mountain preserve land, residential and Konnc\h H. Davis, commercial d evelopmtml, Triball~nds, District Brogincor, Phocroi,r. cultural resouPXes. hlstodc roads and (FR Doc. 01··9702 Filed 4- JO.··Ol; 8:45 ami canals, Endangered Species, Oll LINC CODE 49\ G-22wM jurisdictional water of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste. Improvements to ll>e corridor arc DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION conside•·ed t\ecessary to provide for thn existing and projected tralfic demand . A Federal Motor Carrier Safely full range of rMsonab\e alternatives will Administration he considered including (1) tAking no action; (Z] usine alternate travel modes; [Docket No. FMCSA-97-2341] (3] limited access pork way; (1) major urban arterial with transportation Parts and Accessories Necessary for system management improvements; and Safe Operation ; Manufactured Home (5) a fTccway. Tires A J"i nnl Sla te Environmental AGIc agency has nlso completed its analysis of Multinational's petit ion to rescind the final rule which delnyr.cl thc termination date until December 31, 2001 . nn d determined on a preliminary basis that the petition should be denied . Denial of both petitions would result in transporters of manufactured homes being prohibited from operating such units on overloaded tires on or afier January 1, 6002. OATES: We must receive your comments by May 21, 2001. We will consider comments received aficr t\10 comment closing date to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: You can mail, fax, bond deliver or electronically submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Tra11sportation, Docket Management Pncility, Room Plr401,100 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 205900001, FAX (202] 4!J3- 2251, on·line at http://dmscs.dot.gov/submit. You must include the docket number that appears in the heading of th is document in your comment. You can examine and copy all comments at the above address from 9 a.m . to 5 p.m .. c.t. Monday through Friday, except Fedcrall>olidays, If you want us to notify you that we received you comments, please include a selfadc:lressed, stamped envelope or postcard. FOR FURTHER INFORMAl tON CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Offico of Dus and Truck Standards an d Operations, MC-r•sv, (?.0?.) 36!\-4009. Federal Motor Carrict Safety Administration, 100 Seventh • A23 A24 • Appendix 1-1 HARRY E. MITCHELL '51H Ch~rHC'I AJ COMM1TUE ON TRANSPORTAnoN AND INFRASTRUCTURE ~~~ &.0Cot.4Mint.E 0"' A'\1\ATION 1tlO lDtliGWOR'rn HO\I&.E 0ff'M:E tli..ADNO Sl ~GOMV ~((.ON t-o .tWWAY~ ......tJ WA.S»>"riTO"'oo. OC2051!J p,,. 20l11S.-1t90 lf'l.t.t-t$rT SLI~\IMilT[£ ON WAT£R Rf.;SCLJMU~l Nllll (JIC'i'lp(')foiMJN1 7201 f:ASTCAMEUACIC R040. Sur.t.Jj5 5C011l>OAI r, A] ~?bl Qrungress nf tflt 1Elnitt.b ~tates PH 4B0--94.&--24l l ~· 4~0-~Z«t lltou.se of iRtprt.t.untatiuts Departlpent of Energy COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS W~tern Area Power Administration P.O. Box2SI21 3 Lakewood, CO 80228-8213 c.t.~~.:A.......,'f Suecot.tftmn-t. Cf'l 0\l\t-l•ot(jtlr- "Nll ~'o"f5TIGAT"O•IS COMMITIUON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Su8CUMMfTT£l ON ft.. December 1 1, 2009 ~r-tUl&_..v 41H'l"-t.jO'tA 10"- RECEIVED Mr. Dennis S mith Executive Director Maricopa Association of Governments DEC 1 4 2009 302 N lst Ave, Suhc 300 PhOCllLX, AZ 85003-1562 AZ Dept ol Tra"'tportatlon Olroclor't omco MAR 12 2009 Mr. Robert Hollis Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1906 Dear Mr. Hollis: Uear Mr. Smi!l1, I wan t to thank you for facilitating Monday's meeting of key stakeholders to discuss the possibility of studying an al ternative route for the Loop 202 freeway through the G iJa Ri ve r Indian Community. I was elated by the fact that Lt. Gov. Joseph Manuel and Communjty Manager David Whi te of the Gilt~. River lndian Community attended this meeting and were open to the idea of receiving a proposal for an alternative route from ADOT and MAG. As you know, l oppose the current proposed al ignment along Pecos Road. I realize that this intriguing new development is contingent upon further consideration and a written request by the Tribal Government. which Lt. Gov. M anuel indicated could be lbrlhcoming soon. While r understand !l1at the ongoing Enviro nmental Impact Study on the current proposed Pecos Road route \vill continue in tbe mean time, I view this meeting- which included not only representatives from MAG. ADOT and the GRIC, but also representatives from the 1:cdcral Highway Administration. Bureau of Indian Affairs. City of Phoenix. Bureau of indian Affairs. my office. the Office of Congressman 1:-:d Pastor and Counci lman Sal DiCiccio -a~ an important opportLmi ty worthy of exploration. I was also especially interestt:d to learn of the potentially substantial cost savings to taxpayers that could be achieved by pursuing an alternative route tllrough the Gila Rjver Indian Communi ty. Given lhe current economic climate and the state's ongoing revenue issues, I look forward to seeing a proposal that outlines in more detai4 how these savings might be realized. Again. thank you for your work and leadership on Lhls matter. and please extend my gralitucle to all who took part in the d iscussion. Sincerely. I'JJJ~ z.~ An y ., hell Member of Congress PRINTED ON RFCV'CUD PAP£11 We have received your February 4, 2009,letter inviting Westem. Area J>ower Administ~·ation's (Western), Desert Southwest Region to par~icipate a<> a cooper~ttng agency, as defi~1e~ t~l the Council on Environmental Quality RegulatiOns for Implcmenttng the Procedural Ptovtstons of the National Enviromnental PoUcy Act (NEl)A) (40 CFR 150 I .6 and 1508.5), for ~e Sou~h . Mountain Corridor Project (Pa:oject), for which the Federal Highway Adminis~ation (FH~ A) ts the lead Federal agency. Western accepts FHWA's invitation to be a cooperatmg agency m the NEPA process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For the proposed Project, Western understands we may need to move or reconfigme several . transmission line towers. Such·involvement would obligate Western to co~duct a NEP ~ re~tew; however, as a cooperating agency, Western would be able to adopt FHWA s EIS _to satisfy tts NEPA compliance requirement. · Westem's Desert Southwest Regional Office wil l coordinate wilh FHW A concerning the proposccl EIS effort. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Mr. John Holt by e-mail at holt@wapa.gov or by phone at 602-605-2592. Sincerely, Timothy J. Meeks Administrator Appendix 1-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street 2 San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 cc: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director Office ofNEPA Policy and Compliance, GC~20 U.S. Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 Ms. Yardena Mansoor OfficeofNEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-20 U.S. DepartmentofEnergy Washington, DC 20585 May 17,2001 Kenneth H. Davis, District Engineer · Federal Highway Administration 234 North Central A venue, Suite 330 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Dear Mr. Davis: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Notice of Intent published April 20, 2001, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed South Mountain Corridor in Maricopa County, Arizona. Our comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed project is intended to provide improvements to accoiillllodate existing and projected traffic demand. The proposed action is to construct a new multilane freeway in the . metropolitan Phoenix area extending approximately 25 miles from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-10 southeast of Phoenix to form a southwest loop. Proposed alternatives include: 1) no action, 2) using alternate travel modes, 3) limited access parkway, 4) major urban arterial with transportation system management, and 5) a freeway. We appreciate this opportunity for early participation in the environmental assessment of the South Mountain Corridor. EPA applauds the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for considering a broad range of alternatives, including using alternate travel modes, in this project. To assist in the scoping process, we have identified several issues for your attention in the preparation of the EIS. The Notice of ,Intent is fairly general in its description of the proposed project and its potential impacts. As such, our comments are fairly general. We look forward to continued participation in this process as more information becomes available. Our specific comments are listed below: Puroose and Need EPA considers a clear Purpose and Need statement fundamental to a well prepared EIS. The NOI states that ·improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. The "Need" statement in the EIS should address the following three questions for both current and future conditions: South Mountain Scoping Comments lof4 • A25 A26 • Appendix 1-1 Why? What is the basic problem or deficiency with the existing situation and why is this a problem? How does it relate to the agency mission? What facts support the need? Why here? Why is this problem or deficiency occurring here and why is it important? Where does "here" end, ·and why? Why now? Why does the problem need to be addressed now (urgency)? Why not earlier or later? What could happen if the problem were not addressed now? Each need for the action must have an associated measurable objective or "purpose" that can be used to measure the effectiveness of each alternative in meeting that need. Traffic Modeling The traffic modeling for the EIS will include projections of future traffic demand. EPA's overall recommendation for this section is to make both the methodology and the assumptions in the traffic analysis as transparent as possible to the public and decision makers. To do this, EPA recommends that FHWA: Identify which traffic model will be used, discuss its strengths and weaknesses, and describe why it was selected. Identify the variables, assumptions, and inputs used in the model, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those variables, assumptions, and inputs, and discuss why those variables, assumptions, and inputs were selected. - Air Quality The proposed project will likely have air quality impacts during both construction and operation. The Phoenix metropolitan area is currently in nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than ten microns (PMlO). This situation has several implications for the proposed project: Since the project is located in a nonattainment area for ozone, the project should be included in a conforming Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) before the NEPA process is completed. Air quality impacts from project construction will likely include PMlO and CO emissions. Since the project is located in a nonattainment area for both PMlO and CO, the EIS should include a detailed fugitive dust control plan and a CO hot spot analysis. Sensitive receptors should be identified. Indirect and Cumulative Impact in terms of Larid Development NEPA requires consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts, including those impacts from land development associated with the provision of additional transportation infrastructure. This is often referred to as Growth Inducing hnpacts. Various methods to assess the land use impacts of transportation exist, as documented in the report by the National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board's National Cooperative Highway Research Program entitled, "Land use hnpacts of Transportation: A Guidebook" (Report 423A, 1999). An electronic copy of this report is available from EPA upon request. Include feedback loops in the traffic model between trip distribution and travel time. Include a table outlining traffic performance, by alternative, in the Summary section of the EIS. . The EIS should also include a specific section that addresses induced travel demand. Research indicates that, especially in rapidly growing communities, induced travel demand plays a considerable role in incre~ed traffic volumes both in the short-run and the long-run (see attached: Noland, Robert B., and Lewison L. Lem, "Induced Travel: A Review of Recent Literature and the Implications for Transportation and Environmental Policy," paper presented at the European Transport Conference, Sept. 2000). EPA is particularly concerned about this issue because induced travel demand leads to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increased air emissions from those vehicles. FHWA may want to consider using the SMITE model (Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation) to estimate the amount of induced travel that may be generated by the proposed project. This is a sketch tool that can be useful in cases where four-step urban travel models are either unavailable or are unable to forecast the full induced demand effects. _ South Mountain Scoping Comments 2of4 As described in the report, some of the more analytically reliable methods to assess the land development impacts of transportation infrastructure include formal land use models such as DRAMIEMPAL, 'MEPLAN, and TRANUS. If a land use model is available and calibrated to the region, using these models can result in estimates of the potential land -use impacts of the changes in transportation infrastructur~. In situations where formal land use models are not available in the region, an alternative method of assessing future land development effects of transportation is the "Delphi review method". As NCHRP Report 423A describes, the Delphi review method uses a structured approach to obtain a set of expert opinions on the land development effects of transportation: , Like the traffic modeling section, EPA's overall recommendation is to make both the methodology and the assumptions in the growth inducing analysis as transparent as possible to the public and decision makers. To do this, EPA recommends that FHWA: Identify which land use model will be used, discuss its strengths and weaknesses, and describe why it was selected. South Mountain Scoping Comments 3of4 Appendix 1-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX Identify assumptions used in the model, the strengths and weaknesses of the assumptions, and why those assumptions were selected. For example, describe which method will be used to allocate growth to zones, its strengths and weaknesses, and why that method was selected. Ground truth the results of the land use model by enlisting local expertise involved in land use issues,such as local government officials, land use and transportation planners, home loan officers, and real estate representatives. Use their collective knowledge to validate or modify the results of the land use model. Pollution Prevention The Resource Conservation &Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 6002 requires federal, state, local agencies, and their contractors that use appropriated federal funds, to purchase EPA-designated recycled materials, including EPA-designated transportation, construction, and landscaping products. In addition, EPA supports deconstruction and materials reuse in projects where existing structures are removed. Commit to materials reuse, where appropriate and feasible, and include a commitment to the Buy-Recycled requirements. For further details, please see EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/cpg, as well as attached materials on Buy-Recycled and Constructipn Waste Management. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be happy to discuss these comments with you in further detail. Perhaps the project team meeting scheduled this summer would be a good time to discuss our comments, especially as more information may be available at that time. We look forward to continuing our early involvement in this project. I can be reached at 415-744-2089 or blazej.nova@epa.gov. . . ~~. ~ Nova Blazej Transportation Coordinator Attachments: Induced Travel, Noland and Lem, 2000 2000 Buy-Recycled Series: Transportation, Construction, Landscaping Products Construction Waste Management cc: October 23, 2001 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Use the results of the growth inducing analysis as inputs into the travel forecasting process performed on each of the build alternatives. Sincerely, ~ . 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 Steve Thomas, FHWA-AZ 4of4 Dear Mr. Hollis: We are writing in response to your letter ofSeptember 7, 2001 inviting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to participate as a cooperating agency in the proposed South Mountain Corridor Project located between 1-10 south ofPhoenix and 1-10 west of Phoenix, in Maricopa County, Arizona. As you know, EPA enjoys a positive working relationship with the Arizona Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and we look forward to continuing that relationship on the South Mountain Corridor Project. EPA has been involved in this project through preliminary meetings with Steve Thomas, FHWA Environmental Coordinator, and by providing formal scoping comments in response to the project Notice oflntent. Nova B1azej of my staffwi11 also attend the inter-agency scoping/partnering meeting on October 30- 31 in Phoenix, and we plan to continue our early and coordinated involvement in this project throughout the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Due to resource constraints, however, EPA respectfully declines FHWA's invitation to participate in the South Mountain Corridor Project as a cooperating agency. EPA Region 9 encompasses lhe Staks of California, Nevada, Hawaii, and Arizona, aud, with tht: except.ion of Hawaii, each of these States has a very active transportation program. Under Section 309 ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and comment on all EISs. As such, our office is involved in a very high volume ofFHWA projects. In the past year we were reviewed approximately 45 FHWA projects. Because of our high work load, EPA is unable to participate as a cooperating agency in the South Mountain Corridor Project. We are, nonetheless, committed to being an active partner in the development ofthe EIS and are available to provide FHWA with early input into the project. As a point of clarification, your letter states that FHWA is inviting EPA to participate as a cooperating agency in the South Mountain Corridor Project because the Maricopa County is designated as a federal nonattairunent area for carbon monoxide, 'particulates, and ozone, and, as stated, EPA has jurisdiction by law. While EPA does have jUrisdiction within the Clean Air Act, we do not expect to have any approval activity within this project as related to air quality issues. Printed on Recycled Paper • A27 A28 • Appendix 1-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 2 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact me or Nova Blazej, the point of contact for this project. Nova can be reached at 415-744-2089 (after October 30, 2001, 415-972-3846) or blazei.nova@epa.gov. l;/1~ Lisa B. Hanf, Manager Federal Activities Office cc: Horst Greczmiel,CEQ Joe Montgomery, EPA-HQ Steve Thomas, FHWA-AZ January 31, 2002 David Anderson HDR Suite 250, Park One 2141 East Highland Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85016-4792 Dear Mr. Anderson: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Purpose and Need Technical Memorandum (January 2002) prepared for the South Mountain Transportation Corridor project, Maricopa County, Arizona and sent by your office for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The proposed project is intended to provide improvements to accommodate existing and projected east-west traffic demand by constructing a new multilane freeway in the metropolitan Phoenix area. We appreciate the attention to and effort invested in the development of the Purpose & Need statement and this opportunity for our early involvement. The Purpose & Need statement lays the foundation for the rest of the document and deserves close attention. We have two comments, one concerning the content of the memorandum and one concerning process. With regard to content, we recommend refining the project purpose and, thereby, establishing a basis for setting the project study area. The northeast boundary of the project study area presented in the memorandum runs along the south side of South Mountain Park. During the Interagency meeting held in October, 2001, several agencies suggested broadening the project study area to encompass the area north of South Mountain Park, as an alignment north of South Mountain Park might also satisfy the need for improved east-west travel demand. EPA has the following specific recommendations: • Refine the project purpose, or project objectives. For example, the memorandum describes the transportation demand and land use objectives of the proposed project in somewhat general terms. The project purpose should be refined to describe specific transportation demand, system linkage, and land use planning objectives. A summary, in bulleted form, at the beginning of the document would also be helpful. Refining the project objectives will help determine the appropriate project study area boundary. Justify the study area boundary and make changes, as appropriate. Respond to the question as to whether an alignment north of South Mountain Park would satisfy the project objectives. Appendix 1-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX With regard to process, EPA believes this project would be appropriately reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act Section 404 Integration Process for Surface Transportation Projects in Arizona, California, and Nevada Memorandum of Understanding (1994) (NEPN404 MOU). Because of the potential project impacts to the Salt River and the need for an Individual Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), future project delays can be avoided by coordinating the NEPA process and the Section 404 process early on in project development. We have proposed initiating the NEPN404 MOU process to the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), and we continue to recommend using the NEP N404 MOU process in the development of this project. Under the NEP N404 MOU, the first step in the integration process is concurrence on Purpose & Need. Should FHWA and ADOT elect to initiate the NEP N404 MOU process, EPA would be prepared to concur on the Purpose & Need statement with the changes cited above. 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 May 2, 2002 Mr. David Folts Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 3407 East Cedarwood Lane Phoenix, AZ 85008 Dear Mr. Folts Again, thank you for this opportunity for early involvement. If you have any questions or comments, please fed free to contact me or Nova Blazej, the primary person working on this project. Nova Blazej can be reached at 415-972-3846 or blazej.nova@epa.gov. j;~)knf Lisa B. Hanf, Manager Federal Activities Office cc: Steve Thomas, FHWA Ralph Ellis, ADOT Dana Owsiany, ACOE The Environmental Protection Agency received your letter of March 25, 2002 outlining your concerns regarding the proposed South Mountain Conidor project. Your letter lists a number of health-related questions and requests that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Mountain Conidor project specifically address these questions. The EIS is the appropriate forum to address your concerns, as this document is intended to disclose all environmental, human health, and socio-economic impacts associated with the proposed project to the public and decision-makers. The Federal Highway Administration, as the lead federal agency, and the Arizona Department of Transportation, as the project proponent, will work together to address all comments they receive during the project scoping period by incorporating those comments into the Draft EIS. This includes the issues raised in your letter. Once the Draft EIS is published, the public will have at least 45 days to review and comment on the document. The public will have an additional 30 days to comment once the Final EIS is published. The Environmental Protection Agency has been actively involved in this project and will participate in the review of both the Draft and Final EIS. If you have additional questions regarding the EIS review process, I can be contacted at 415-972-3846. Sincerely, en e_~· Nova J. Blazej Federal Activities Office cc: Lisa Hanf, EPA David Tomsovic, EPA GR West,EPA Steve Thomas, FHWA ~alph Ellis, ADOT Printed on Recycled Paper • A29 A30 • Appendix 1-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX REGJON IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 March 17, 2005 ·David Folts Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 3407 East Cedmwood Lane Phoenix, AZ 85048 June 17, 2005 Dear Mr Folts: Thank you for your email dated February 22, 2005, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed South Mountain Loop 202 transportation improvements in Phoenix, Arizona. EPA welcomes your concerns about future activities that may affect the human and natural environment in the vicinity of_ the proposed transportation project. After receiving your email, Connell Dunning of my staff spoke with Steve Thomas of the Arizona Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding the status of the South Mountain Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) and incorporation of comments raised through the seeping process. Mr. Thomas stated that the Draft EIS is still under ·development and has.not been submitted for public comment. He confirmed that FHWA and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are working to address all comments raised through the seeping process. · If you are concerned that the EIS may not address the questions that you previously submitted, EPA recommends continuing to discuss your specific areas of concern with those agencies that are cooperating in drafting the document. I have copied the Arizona Department of Transportation Project Manager (Mike Bruder) as well as Steve Thomas on this correspondence. Steve Thomas also offered to provide additional information related to opportunities for public · involvement. He can be reached at 602-379-3645 extension 117. EPA commends you for taking an active rok in efforts to protect the human environment and natUral resources associated with the South Mountain area. Once the South Mountain Draft EIS ·is avail~ble to the public, we will review the proposed project to ensure project compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. If you have additional questions about EPA's authorities relative to this proposed project, please have your staff contact Connell Dunning, the lead reviewer of transportation-related environmental impact statements in Arizona. Connell can be reached at dunning.connell@epa.gov or 415-947-4161. · ~.,..... CC: ~ Mr. David Folts Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 3407 East Cedarwood Lane Phoenix, AZ 85048 Dear Mr. Folts: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been asked to respond to your Aprill6, 2005 letter to Representative J.D. Hayworth regarding the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed South Mountain Loop 202 transportation improvements in Phoenix, Arizona. EPA commends you for taking an active role in efforts to protect the human and natural environment in the vicinity of the proposed transportation project. As you know, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed South MoW1tain Loop 202 project. The regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require that an EIS disclose significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed federal action to the human environment. Given the extensive scientific literature on near-roadway health effects, it is important that the EIS for South Mountain Loop 202 include a discussion of potential health effects of the proposed project, especially to "sensitive receptors" (such as children, the elderly, and people in poor health). Following receipt of your February 22, 2005 correspondence to EPA, Connell Dunning of my staff spoke with Steve Thomas of the Arizona Division of the FHWA regarding the status of the South Mountain EIS and incorporation of comments raised through the scoping process (see attached letter March 17, 2005). Mr. Thomas confirmed that FHWA and ADOT are working to address all comments raised through the scoping process, including those raised by Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202. Since you remain concerned that the EIS may not address the questions that you previously submitted, we continue to recommend that you discuss your specific concerns with ADOT and FHWA, the agencies that are preparing the EIS. I have copied the ADOT Project Manager, Mike Bruder, as well as Steve Thomas on this correspondence. As stated in our previous letter, Steve Thomas offered to provide additional information related to opportunities for public involvement. He can be reached at 602-379-3645 extension 117. Lisa B. .Hanf, Manager Federal Activities Office . Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Administration Mike Bruder, Arizona Department of Transportation Printed on Recycled Paper Printed on Recycled Paper Appendix 1-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 Once the Draft EIS is available for public comment, EPA will review the proposed project to ensure project compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Again, thank you for your letter. If you have additional questions, please contact me or your staff may contact Connell Dunning at 415-94 7-4161. Ms. Dunning is the lead environmental reviewer for transportation projects in Arizona. Enrique Manzanilla, Director Community and Ecosystems Division Enclosure cc: Honorable J.D. Hayworth Steve Thomas, Feder~} Highway Administration Mike Bruder, Arizona Department of Transportation April 21 , 2006 David Folts Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 3407'East Cedarwood Lane Phoenix, AZ 85048. Dear Mr Folts: Thank you for your February 28, 2006 letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressing your concerns with potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed South Mountain Loop 202 transportation improvements in Phoenix, Arizona. EPA has responded to your interest in attaining answers to specific air quality questions related to this project on three previous occasions, twice via letter to you (March 17, 2005 and June 17, 2005) and once through a phone conversation with a representative from Congressman J.D Hayworth's office (September 2005). Your letter identifies that you continue to be concerned that the Draft Environmental - -lmpactStatement (EIS) .being .developedfor-this-projectmaynot address the questions-that .you previously submitted. Exposure to mobile source air toxics is known to cause adverse human health impacts, including cancer and other serious health effects. With our increasing understanding of air toxics concerns, and the increasing public attention on this issue, EPA agrees that the Draft EIS for the South Mountain project should assess and reduce all emissionsrelated impacts to air quality and human health. After receiving your February 28, 2006 letter, Connell Dunning of my staff spoke with Steve Thomas ofthe Arizona Division ofthe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding the status ofthe South Mountain Draft EIS and incorporation ofyour comments, ,as well as others raised through the scoping process. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the Draft· EIS is still under development and has not been submitted for public comment. He confirmed that FHWA and Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) are working to address all comments raised through the scoping process. 2 EPA continues to recommend that you discuss your specific areas of concern with those agencies (ADOT and FHWA) that are cooperating in drafting the docwnent. EPA has no role in compiling the Draft EIS and can only recommend that ADOT and FHWA incorporate into the Draft EISa robust analysis of all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of this project and commit to appropriate mitigation and project design elements to reduce impacts to hwnan health and all environmental resources. EPA has recommended via past phone conversations, and continues to recommend through this letter, that ADOT and FHWA include an air quality analysis in the Draft EIS that addresses all questions provided by you and analyzes potential Printed on Recycled Paper • A31 A32 • Appendix 1-1 lJN I TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR impacts of emissions of criteria pollutants (particulate matter less than 10 microns, carbon monoxide, precursors of ozone), air toxics, and diesel particulate matter. EPA also recommends that the Draft EIS provide specific mitigation measures, including operational changes to project alternatives and construction practices, that will reduce impacts to air quality and human health from the proposed project. Once the South Mountain Draft EIS is available to the public, we will review the proposed project to ensure project compliance with applicable environmental laws and · regulations. If you have additional questions about EPA's authorities relative to this proposed proje((t, please contact Connell Dunning, the lead reviewer of transportation-related envirqnmental impact statements in Arizona. Connell can be reached at dunning.connell@epa.gov or 415-947-4161. I have also copied the Arizona Department of Transportation Project Manager (Mike Bruder) as well as Steve Thomas on this correspondence. SteveThomas can be reached at 602-379-3645 extension 117. ~ Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Pima Agency Sacaton, Arizona April 19, 1967 Honorable James A. Haley Chairman, Sub-committee on Interior and Insular Affatrs House of Representatives Washington;· D.C. 20240 . Re: H.R.. 2154 Honorable Raley: in ~:208,860v00 ~AdmTnistratlon· ~-- ---- /Mike Bruder, Arizona Department of Transportation - ~- -~-~ - ---- ~- -------- - ---- ~- -~- ~- ~ 85247 Interstate ~10 Highway across the Gila River Indian Reservation is 24.07 miles lengt:h. 300 feet. wide with additional width required by the four interchanges. Total amount paid was $473,860.00 of which $265.000.00 was paid for tribal lands and Duane James, Manager Environmental Review Office ~--cc:-- Phone 562-3552 CiUREAU OF INDiAN AFrAiRS In aceordance ·v ith nr. Taylor's request regarding yesterday 1 s Sub--committee hearing to consider R.R.. 2154 11 the following information is respectively submitted in connection with Interstace #10 Highway through Che Gila aiver Indian Reservation, Arizona. Sincerely, . 005 Real Prop. Mgmt. . . - -- - -- -~ Ulr individual or a.llotted lands • Planning and negotiations for Interstate ilO Highway involved approxi:Dately four years. Di,fferenc.e.s between Arizona State and Bureau of Indian Affairs appraisals were resolved before coudemnation was seriously considered aDd the right of way was formally approved 2 Ja~ 21, 1966. Appendix 1-1 :-:..:·--- United States Department of the Interior United States Department of the lnte~ior BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PIMA AGENCY Post Office Box 8- Sacaton, Arizona 8524 7 PIMA AGENCY ~ Post Office Box 8- Sacaton, Arizona 85247 IN R.EPLY REFER TO• Office of the Superintendent Telephone Number (520) 562-3326 Mr. Robert E. Hollis Division Adrr,linistrator U.S . Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, AZ Division 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoellix, Arizona 85004 MAY ·5 2005 Marie A. Deeb~Roberge, PE Arizona Department of Transportation Environmental & Enhancement Gronp 205 S. 17th Avenue, Room213E, MD 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr . Hollis:. This is in response to your Septernber 7, 2001 letter requesting Pima Agency' s involvement as a cooperating ~gency with the Federal Highway Authority (FHWA) and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to evaluate issues related to the proposed South Mountain Corridor Project, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation process . Cunently~ the Ak Chin Indian Community and Gila River Indian Community are under the administrative jurisdiction of Pima Agency. The Ak Chin Indian Community is located in Pinal County, south of Maricopa, Arizona and wlH also need involvement thro.ugh this agency's representation with the EIS process. . . We accept your agency's request to be involved with the project as a cooperating Federal agency and represent the interests for the two communities for the proposed South Mquntain Conidor, EIS development process. lf you have any questions or need additional infom1ation, please contact Agency Environmental Specialist, at (520) 562-3326, Extension 267. Mr. Peter B. Overton, Sincerely, ~co Acting Superintendent Dear Ms. Deeb-Robergc: We have received your request for this agency to formally comment in reference to the draft ''Table of Contents" to be utilized with the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), document for the proposed South Mountain Freeway Project, Maricopa County, Arizona. After our meeting on April20, 2005 with Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) staff at the Sacaton Agency, it appears that there is no certainty that the proposed highway project will be located on the Gila River Indian Community lands, nor has the Community officially approved of the project or involvement in the EIS process. Although a proposed freeway alignment, on community lands, is realistic and could be developed into an alternative cited in th.e EIS, this agency can only provide limited comments, at this time, with.out a formal commitment approved by community government, landowners and without a specific proposed altemative, cited on community lands, so that impacts may be properly analyzed. Specifically, a highway corridor_ alignment that is officially acceptable by the community (includes a community governmental resolution document) for study and then incorporation iu. the draft and final EIS document as one of the proposed alternatives. • A33 A34 • Appendix 1-1 The agency has been approved to act as a '~Cooperating Federal Agency" with FHA assuming the "Lead Federal Agency" role for the National Environmental Protection Act, National Enviro:tlltl.ental Policy Act, NEPA. (EIS), process. Therefore. this agency will provide assistance, when requested, with the EIS process and provide comments to your office and directly to FHA, when appropriate. Per the requested questions identi:fied in your letter, dated February 15, 2005, the agency submits the following comments: 1. We have received and reviewed the proposed table of contents for the draft EIS. The _ document appears to be very well written, adequately covers all sections required per NEP A regulations and is very appropriate for use with the draft and final EIS document. A section devoted entirely to the Gila River Indian Community participation, if approved, would be an excellent addition to the document and provide easier reading and located specific information regarding the community's possible participation with the planned project. _ MEMORANDUM OF UNDER TANDING BETWEEN BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND INTERAGENCY AGREE,MENT BETWEEN BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFA RS AND FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINIS RATION 2. There is no apparent need for additional sections at this point. If the collllllunity approves a specific aligm:o.ent in the future, legal descriptions and additional related information could be added to the GRIC section currently shown in the draft table of contents. FOR 3. The agency has reviewed the draft timeframe chart received from ADOT and finds the target dates to be realistic and future event planning for the process to be very good. 4. The agency would like to have 10 copies of th.e draft EIS and 6 copies of the final EIS document and ROD, if possible. S. The agency shall transmit a copy of this letter to the local FHA official for their information and NEPA files. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION FOR SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY (LOOP 202) INTERSTATE 10 (PAPAGO FREEWAY) TO INTERSTATE 10 (MARICOPA FREEWAY) FEDE,R AL-AID PROJ.ECT NUMBER: NH-202-D(ADY) ADOT PROJECT NUMBER: 202l MA. 054 H5764 01L Temporarily, all further official correspondence to Pima Agency should be addressed to the Acting Superintendent, BIA, Pima Agency, Box 8, Sacaton., Arizona. We appreciate your request for our agency to assist the State of Arizona-DOT and we are looking forward to continue working with your agency and FHA to assist the community with there needs as well as the major task of completing the NEP A compliance process for this V•3ry important project. JUNE 2012 If you have any questions or need advice please contact Mr. Peter B. Overton, Agency Envirorunental Protection Specialist, at 520-562-3700, extension 257. Sincerely, '-"~ ~·llld-· ~Superintend~t- . ) NH-202-D(ADY)/2021 MA 054 H5764 OlL Appendix 1-1 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the _ _day of. 2012, by and between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (hereafter referred to as (BIA), the Arizona Department of Transportation, (hereafter refe~ed to as ADOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (hereafter referred to as FHWA). This agreement was initiated pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CPR § 150 1.6), which emphasize the importance of cooperation early in the Environmental Impact Statement process for the proposed action, Section 4(f) Evaluation for South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway), Federal-aid Project Number: N.H-202-D(ADY), ADOT Project Number: 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL. I. Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation with relevant patties under Section 106 of the National Historic Pwservation Act. II. The federal agency Parties enter into this agreement under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 to 4370£, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality at 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 to 1508, FHWA's regulations on lead agency and cooperating agency status .in the NEPA process, 23 C.P.R. § 771.11l(d), and Department oflnterior regulations on lead agency and cooperating agency status in the NEPA process, 43 C.F.R. § 46.225. INTRODUCTION/ STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the project sponsor, working in close consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the lead federal agency for the proposed action, is developing the Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action. According to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR § 1501.6), whlch emphasize the .importance of coopera~on early .in the EIS process, upon request of the federal lead agency, other federal agenctes, with jurisdiction by law or with special expertise on an environmental .issue involved in the project, have the responsibility to be a cooperating agency. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has agreed to be a cooperating agency for the proposed action. AUTHORITY Federal regulations and Department of the Interior policy provide that the BIA, FHWA, and ADOT shall cooperate irt meeting Federal laws, so that one document will comply with all applicable laws (40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(c); 43 C.F.R. § 46.220). m. TEAM MEMBERS The primary poirtts of contact for carrying out the provisions of this agreement are: BIA: Amy Heusleirt, Regional Environmental Protection Officer 2600 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, AZ 85004-3050 (602) 379-6750 Amy.Heuslein@bia.gov The lead agencies have determined that a major transportation facility is needed to address increases in population, housing, and employment projected in the Phoenix metropolitan area over the next 25 years. A major transportation facility .is also needed to address projected increases .in regional transpottation demand and deficiencies in the regional transportation system capacity. The purpose of the proposed action- the South Mountain Freeway-is to address these transportation needs. FHWA: Rebecca Swiecki, Environmental Coordinator 4000 N Central Ave. Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 (602) 382-8979 Rebecca.Swiecki@dot.gov In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ofl969, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section4(f) Evaluation is being prepared. The proposed action is hereinafter referred to as " the Proj ect''. ADOT: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Sabri P. Chaun Hill, Assistant State Engineer 1611 W. Jackson, Mail Drop EMOl Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 712-6268 SHill@azdot. gov This agreement between the BIA, the FHWA, and ADOT is irttended to avoid duplication of effort by the Parties to this agreement .in the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Proj ect. The Patties desire to cooperate, to streamline their review, to reduce duplication, and to satisfy the requirements ofNEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable law s, by preparing a single EIS for the PJOject as permitted by NEP A. The joint process will allow BIA, FHWA, and ADOT to fulfill other requirements under federal law, .including .informal or formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife NH·202·D(ADY)/202L MA 054 H.5764 OIL IV. RESPONSffiiLITIES A. FHWA Responsibilities 1. Act as lead agency within the meaning of 40 C.P.R. § 1501.5 and 23 C.P.R. § 771.109. NH·202· D(ADY)/202L MA 054 H5764 OJL 2 3 • A35 A36 • Appendix 1-1 2. Enstu·e that the EIS meets the requirements outlined in Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500 to 1508, and ensure that the EIS is in compliance with all applicable laws, polic.ies, Executive Orders, and guidelines. 3. Participate in all phases ofEIS preparation, including attending interagency coordination meetings, reviewing draft documents and public notices, and patticipating in public scoping and EIS public meetings and bearings. 14. Assist in maintenance of an administrative record for the EIS and the FHWA Record of Decision. B. ADOT Responsfbilities 1. Act as joint lead agency in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139. 2. Prepare the EIS and other environmental review documents with the FHWA furnishing guidance, participating in the preparation, and independently evaluating the documents. 4. Adhere to the schedule in Attachment 1 to the extent feasible. 5. Designate a representative(s) to serve as the day-to-day liaison or point of contact fo~· the Project. 6. Identify the significant environmental issues, identify and evaluate Project alternatives that are technically and economically practical or feasible and meet the purposes and needs of the proposed action, and coordinate the decision process. 7. Review and approve the Draft EIS and Final EIS prior to its release to the public. 8. Receive and review all agency and public seeping comments, comments on the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, and assist where appropriate with preparing responses to comments. 9. Contribute to the maintenance of a comprehensive mailing list for distribution of Project information and NEPA documents. 10. Ensure that the cooperating agencies are consulted during the early stages of Project planning and are involved in the evaluation of environmental impacts, and development of recommendations for mitigation measures where impacts are nnavoidable. 11. Ensure that all documents relative to the EIS are distributed to the cooperating agencies. 12. Prepare a Record of Decision for the FHWA decisions regarding the Project. 13. Prepare necessary notices for publication in the Federal Register, including Notice of Intent, Notice of Draft EIS Availability, Notice of Final EIS Availability, and Notice of Record of Decision. NH-202·D(ADY)/ 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL 4 3. Participate in all phases ofEIS preparation and the permitting process, including attending interagency coordination meetings, reviewing draft documents and public notices, and participating in public scoping and EIS public review meetings and hearings. 4. Adhere to the schedule in Attachment 1 to the extent feasible. 5. Designate a representative(s) to serve as the day-to-day liaison or point of contact for the Project. 6. Identify the signi£cant environmental issues, identify and evaluate Project alternatives that are technically and economically practical or feasible and meet the purposes and needs of the proposed action, and participate in the decision process. 7. Review and approve the Draft EIS and Final EIS prior to its release to the public. 8. Receive and review all agency and public scoping comments, comments on the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, and prepare responses to comments. 9. Contribute and maintain a comprehensive mailing list for distribution of Project information and NEPA documents. 10. Ensure that the cooperating agencies are consulted during the early stages of Project planning and are involved in the evaluation of environmental impacts, and development of recommendations for mitigation measures where impacts are unavoidable. 11. Ensure that all documents relative to the EIS are distributed to the cooperating agencies. 12. Assist FH.WA in the preparation of a Record of Decision for the FHWA decisions regarding the Project. NH·202·D(ADY)/202L MA 054 H5764 01L 5 Appendix 1-1 13. Assist in the preparation of necessary notices for publication in the Federal Register, including Notice of futent, Notice of Draft EIS Availability, Notice afFinal EIS Availability, and Notice ofRecord of Decision. 14. Maintain an administrative record for the EIS and the FHWA Record of Decision. 15. Construct the project in accordance with and incorporate all committed environmental impact mitigation measures listed in approved environmental review documents unless the State requests and receives written FHWA approval to modify or delete such mitigation features. 10. v. Make their respective decisions based on the EIS as permitted by applicable law and jurisdiction. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROVISIONS A. Applicable Law The Parties agree to comply with aU applicable laws governing activities under this agreement. B. Effect on Prior Agreements There are no prior agreements among the Parties that this agreement would affect. C. BIA Responsibilities. As a cooperating agency, the BIA will: 1. 2. C. Term D. This agreement will commence upon the date last signed and executed by the Parties, and will remain in effect until terminated in accordance with Part V .E. below. Amendments Act as a cooperating agency within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6 and 43 C.F.R. § 46.230. Participate in the EIS process, including attending inter-agency coordination meetings, reviewing draft documents, and participating in the public scoping and EIS public review processes. 3. Designate a representative(s) to serve as the day-to-day liaison or point of contact for the Project. 4. Identify the significant environmental issues, particularly those that relate to the cooperating agency's special expertise or jurisdiction. 5. Articulate any special requirements (laws, regulations, policies, etc.) that need to be addressed in the EIS in order to be a usable document for BIA decisions regarding the project. 6. Maintain control of the administrative Draft EIS and not release or discuss portions of the document until the document has been released for public review. 7. Review agency and public scoping comments, comments on the Draft EIS and Final EIS, and assist where appropriate with preparing responses to comments. This agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the Parties at the same organizational level as those that sign this agreement. Any such amendments wiU be incorporated by written instrument, executed and signed by all Parties, and will be effective as of the date they are signed and executed. E. F. 8. Adbere to the schedule in Exhibit 1 to the extent feasible. 9. Contribute to a comprehensive mailing list for distribution of Project information and NEPA documents. 6 1. Any Party may terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other Pruties of their intention to do so. 2. This agreement shall terminate when no longer authorized by the U.S. Department of the Interior, by federal or state law, or if determined to be unenforceable by any court having jurisdiction over the Parties. Severability Should any portion of this agreement be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the agreement will continue in full force and effect, and any pruty may renegotiate the terms affected by the severru1ce. G. NH-202-D(ADY)/202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Termination Confidentiality Each agency will abide by the confidentiality requirements of its own laws and regulations with respect to determinations concerning and handling of proprietary NH-202-D(ADY)/ 202L MA 054 H5764 01L 7 • A37 A38 • Appendix 1-1 data and any other statutes, regulations, or directives concerning restricted access to records or information in any form. H. Access to Records Each agency will provide public access in accordance with its own rules. I. Information Sharing VI . SIGNATURES ~f-~W Sabri P. Chaun Hill, Assistant State Engineer Arizona Department of Transportation Each agency will provide the others with courtesy copies of all regulation and policy changes that deal with common or pertinent issues. J. Third P a1·ty Beneficiary Rights The Parties do not intend to create in any other individual or entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this agreement shall not be construed so as to create such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this agreement operate only between the Pruties to this agreement, ru1d imue solely to the benefit of the Parties to this agreement. Rebecca Swiecki, Environmental Coordinator Federal Highway Administration Bureau oflndianA.ffairs NH-202-I/(ADY)/202L MA 054 H5764 OlL l\'H·202·D(ADY)/202LMA 054 H5764 OlL 8 9 Appendix 1-1 United States Department l1f the lnteril1r EXHIBIT 1 -· DRAFT ESTIMATED EJS REVIEW CHED E FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE:MEN A ECTION 4(F)EV U TIONFORSOUTHMO TAIN FREEWAY (LOOP 202) INTERSTATE 10 (PA.JlAGO FREEWAY) TO INTERSTATE 10 (MARICOPA FREEWAY) Target Dates Tasks Finalize and Sign Memorandum of Under tanding/Interagency Agreement FHWA Pro ides dmini trativeDraft ' IS to BIA for Review BlA Provide ADEL omment to F WA 10 days after receipt BUREAU \."'f LAND MANAGE\1E\iT Phoenix f-ield Office 21605 \jorth 7th Avenue Phoenix. AI 85027 In ri'ph rl'f~ l 1 1~ : 2800/2912 (2 I 0) AZA-3 I 292-01 ummer2012 30 days after receipt of ADEIS 90 Da Public Comment Period on Draft ElS End Winter 2012 FHWA Provid Spring 2013 Preliminary Fi11al IS to BIA BJA Dedsion Ba ed on EIS -ROD 30 day after receipt o ROD June 13. 2005 Mr. Robert E. Hollis. Division Administrator U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center, Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2264 Dear Mr. Hollis: This letter is being sent in response to your Jetter dated May 27, 2005, concerning the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared tor the South Mountain Corridor Project. We have reviewed the map that was enclosed with your above dated letter and determined that there are no other lands that are either managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or that the BLM maintains an interest, except for the lands at 6th A venue and the Salt River, which are leased under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to the City of Phoenix. We accept your invitation to participate in coordination meetings. and agree to assist in consultation of relevant technical !;itudies. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Andersen at (623) 580-5570. Sincerely, Teresa A. Rami Field Manager NH-202·D(ADY)/202LMA054H5764 OIL 10 • A39 A40 • Appendix 1-1 Un~ted SEP 2001 States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 . Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: ZD2-b(ADi) u.s. Unit< · States Department of t1 FISH &WILDUFE ~ Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE In Reply Refer To: Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite'103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 u.s. eJ AESO/FA September 17, 200 1 AESO/SE 2-21-02-I-005 Mary Viparina, P .E. Project Manager HDR Engineering, Inc. 2141 East Highland Avenue Ste. 250 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Mr. Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 RE: Biltmore Medical Mall Located at 2222 East Highland, Phoenix, Arizona Dear Mr. Hollis: Dear Ms. Viparina, We have received your September 7, 2001, request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be a cooperating agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed South Mountain Corridor Project. Due to heavy workloads and higher priority responsibilities, we unfortunately Will not be able to participate as a cooperating agency for this project as requested. We will assist as necessary and appropriate in order to carry out other National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act activities to assist you in the planning and implementation of this proposed project. Sincerely, Da~y{ Field Supervisor W:\South Mountain Project.doc:GDM:jh October 29, 2001 / This letter responds to your October 3, 2001, request for an inventory ofthreateried or endangered species, or those that are proposed to be listed as such under the Endangered Species Act of.1973, as amended (Act), which may potentially occur in your project area (Maricopa County). The enclosed list may include candidate species as well. We hope the enclosed county list of species will be helpful. In future communications regarding this project, please refer to consultation number 2-21-02-1-005. The enclosed list ofthe endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species includes all those potentially occurring anywhere in the county, or counties; whereyour project occurs. Please note that your project area may not necessarily include all or any of these species. The information provided includes ,general descriptions, habitat requirements, and other information for each species on the list. Also on the enclosed list is the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ·citation for each list and is available at most public libraries. This information should assist you in determining which species may or may not occur within your project area. Site-specific surveys could also be helpful and may be needed to ,verify the presence or absence of a species or its habitat as required for the evaluation of proposed project-related impacts. Endangered and threatened species are protec.ted by F ederallaw and must be considered prior to project development. If the action agency determines that listed species or critical habitat may be adversely affected by a federally funded, permitted, or authorized activity, the action agency must request formal consultation with the Service. If the action agency determines that the planned action may jeopardize a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat, the action agency must enter into a section 7 conference with the Service. Candidate species are those which are being considered for addition to the list of threatened or endangered species. Candidate species are those for which there is sufficient information to support a proposal for listing. Although candidate species have no legal protection under the Act, we recommend that they be considered in the planning process in the .event that they become listed or proposed for listing prior to project completion. Appendix 1-1 MARICOPA LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTY: 10/11/2001 2 If any proposed action occurs in or near areas with trees and shrubs growing along watercourses, known as riparian habitat, the Service recommends the protection of these areas. Riparian areas are critical to biological community diversity and provide linear corridors important to migratory species. In addition, if the project will result in the deposition of dredged or fill materials into waterways or excavation in waterways, we recommend you contact the Army Corps of Engineers which regulates these activities ooder Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 1) LISTED TOTAL= 14 NAME: ARIZONA AGAVE AGAVE ARIZONICA STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL .HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: No DESCRIPTION: HAS ATIRACTIVE ROSETIES OF BRIGHT GREEN LEAVES WITH DARK MAHOGANY MARGINS. FLOWER: BORNE ON SUB-UMBELLATE · INFLORESCENCES. CFR: 49 FR 21055, 05-18-1984 ELEVATION RANGE: 3000-6000 FT. l The State of Arizona protects some plant and animal species not protected by F ederallaw. We recommend you contact the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Arizona Department of Agriculture for State-listed or sensitive species in your project area. The Service appreciates your efforts to identifY and avoid impacts to listed and sensitive species in your project area. If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Tom Gatz (x240). COUNTIES: GILA, YAVAPAI, MARICOPA HABITAT: TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN OAK-JUNIPER WOODLAND & MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY-OAK SCRUB SCATIERED CLONES IN NEW RIVER MOUNTAINS AND SIERRA ANCHA. USUALLY FOUND ON STEEP, ROCKY, SLOPES. POSSIBLY MAZATAL MOUNTAINS. SHOULD BE LOOKED FOR WHEREVER THE RANGES OF Agave toumeyana var. bella AND Agave C:hrystantha OVERLAP. Sincerely, NAME: ARIZONA CLIFFROSE Field Supervisor PURSHIA SUBINTEGRA STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 49 FR 22326 5-29-84 DESCRIPTION: EVERGREEN SHRUB OF THE ROSE FAMILY (ROSEACEAE). BARK PALE SHREDDY. YOUNG TWIGS WITH DENSE HAIRS. LEAVES 1-5 LOBES AND EDGES CURL DOWNWARD (REVOLUTE). FLOWERS: 5 WHITE OR YELLOW ELEVATION RANGE: <4000 FT. PETALS <0.5 INCH LONG. COUNTIES: GRAHAM YAVAPAI MARICOPA MOHAVE ·Enclosure cc: Jolm Kennedy, Habitat ·Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ Governor, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton; AZ (Attn: Biologist) HABITAT: CHARACTERISTIC WHITE SOILS OF TERTIARY LIMESTONE LAKEBED DEPOSITS. WHITE SOILS OF TERITIARY LIMESTONE LAKEBED DEPOSITS CAN BE SEEN FROM A DISTANCE. W:\Cathy Gordon\species list letters\South Mtn. Corridor Team HDR Engineering.wpd:cgg NAME: ARIZONA HEDGEHOG CACTUS ECH/NOCEREUS TR/GLOCH/DIA TUS ARIZONICUS STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: No DESCRIPTION: DARK GREEN CYLINDROID 2.5-12 INCHES TALL, 2-10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, SINGLE OR IN CLUSTERS. 1-3 GRAY OR PINKISH CENTRAL SPINES LARGEST DEFLEXED AND 5-11. SHORTER RADIAL SPINES. FLOWER: BRILLIANT RED, SIDE OF STEM IN APRIL- MAY CFR: 44 FR 61556,10-15-1979 ELEVATION RANGE: . 3700-5200 FT. COUNTIES: MARICOPA, GILA, PINAL HABITAT: ECOTONE BETWEEN INTERIOR CHAPPARAL AND MADREA.N EVERGREEN WOODLAND OPEN SLOPES, IN NARROW CRACKS 'BETWEEN BOULDERS, AND IN UNDERSTORY OF SHRUBS. THIS VARIETY IS BELIEVED TO INTERGRADE AT THE EDGES OF ITS DISTRIBUTION WITH VARIETIES MELANCANTHUS AND NEOMEXICANUS CAUSING SOME CONFUSION IN IDENTIFICATION. .1 • A41 A42 • Appendix 1-1 LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTY: MARICOPA LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTY: NAME: LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT LEPTONYCTER/S CURASOAE YERBABUENAE MARICOPA 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 NAME: GILA TOPMINNOW POEC/L/OPS/S OCCIDENTALIS OCCIDENTAUS STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 53 FR 38456,09-30-88 DESCRIPTION: ELONGATED MUZZLE, SMALL LEAF NOSE, AND LONG TONGUE. YELLOWISH BROWN OR GRAY ABOVE AND CINNAMON BROWN BELOW. TAIL MINUTE AND APPEARS TO BE LACKING. EASILY DISTURBED. ELEVATION RANGE: <6000 FT. COUNTIES: COCHISE, GILA, GRA~M, GREENLEE, MARICOPA, PIMA, Plf'!AL, SANTA CRUZ, YAVAPAI STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICALHAB No RECOVERYPLAN: Yes CFR: 32FR4001,03-11-1967 DESCRIPTION: SMALL (2 INCHES), GUPPY-LIKE, LIVE BEARING, LACKS DARK SPOTS ON ITS FINS. BREEDING MALES ARE JET BLACK WITH YELLOW FINS. " ELEVATION RANGE: <4500 FT. COUNTIES: GILA, PINAL, GRAHAM, YAVAPAI, SANTA CRUZ, PIMA, MARICOPA, LA PAZ HABITAT: DESERT SCRUB HABITAT WITH AGAVE AND COLUNMNAR CA<:;TI PRESENT AS FOOD PLANTS HABITAT: SMALL STREAMS, SPRINGS, AND CIENEGAS VEGETATED SHALLOWS DAY ROOSTS IN CAVES AND ABANDONED TUNNELS. FORAGES AT NIGHT ON NECTAR, POLLEN, AND FRUIT OF PANICULATE AGAVES AND COLUMNAR CACTI. THIS SPECIES IS MIGRATORY AND IS PRESENT IN ARIZONA, USUALLY FROM APRIL TO SEPTMBER AND SOUTH OF THE BORDER THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. NAME: SONORAN PRONGHORN ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA SONOR/ENS/S SPECIES HISTORICALLY OCCURRED IN BACKWATERS OF LARGE RIVERS BUT IS CURRENTLY ISOLATED TO SMALL • STREAMS AND SPRI~GS NAME: RAZORBACK SUCKER XYRAUCHEN TEXANUS STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 32 FR 4001, 03-11-67 DESCRIPTION: BUFF ON BACK AND WHITE BELOW, HOOFED WITH SLIGHTLY CURVED BLACK HORNS HAVING A SINGLE PRONG. SMALLEST AND PALEST OF THE PRONGHORN SUBSPECIES. ELEVATION RANGE: 2000-4000 FT. STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB Yes RECOVERY PLAN : Yes CFR: 56 FR 5495710-23-1991; DESCRIPTION: LARGE (UP TO 3 FEET AND UP TO 6 POUNDS) LONG, HIGH SHARP59 FR 13374, 03-21-1994 EDGED KEEL-LIKE HUMP BEHIND THE HEAD. HEAD FLATTENED ON TOP. OLIVE-BROWN ABOVE TO YELLOWISH BELOW. ELEVATION FT. RANGE: <6000 COUNTIES: PIMA, YUMA, MARICOPA COUNTIES: GREENLEE, MOHAVE, PINAL, YAVAPAI, YUMA, LA PAZ, MARICOPA (REFUGIA), GILA, COCONINO, GRAHAM HABITAT: BROAD, INTERMOUNTAIN ALLUVIAL VALLEYS WITH CREOSOTE-BURSAGE & PALO VERDE-MIXED CACTI ASSOCIATIONS HABITAT: RIVERINE & LACUSTRINE AREAS, GENERALLY NOT IN FAST MOVING WATER AND MAY USE BACKWATERS TYPICALLY , BAJADAS ARE USED AS FAWNING AREAS AND SANDY DUNE AREAS PROVIDE FOOD SEASONALLY. HISTORIC RANGE WAS PROBABLY LARGER THAN EXISTS TODAY. THIS SUBSPECIES ALSO OCCURS IN MEXICO. CYPRINODON MACULAR/US NAME: DESERT PUPFISH SPECIES IS ALSO FOUND IN HORSESHOE RESERVOIR (MARICOPA COUNTY).CRITICAL HABITAT .INCLUDES THE 100YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF THE RIVER THROUGH GRAND CANYON FROM CONFLUENCE WITH PARIA RIVER TO HOOVER DAM; HOOVER DAM TO DAVIS DAM; PARKER DAM TO IMPERIAL DAM. ALSO GILA RIVER FROM AZ/NM BORDER TO COOLIDGE DAM; AND SALT RIVER FROM HWY 60/SR 77 BRIDGE TO ROOSEVELT DAM; VERDE RIVER FROM FS BOUNDARY TO HORSESHOE LAKE. HAL~EETUSLEUCOCEPHALUS NAME: BALD EAGLE STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB Yes RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 51 FR 10842,03-31-1986 DESCRIPTION: SMALL (2 INCHES) SMOOTHLY ROUNDED BODY SHAPE WITH NARROW VERTICAL BARS ON THE SIDES. BREEDING MALES BLUE ON HEAD AND SIDES WITH YELLOW ON TAIL. FEMALES & JUVENILES TAN TO OLIVE ELEVATION RANGE: <5000 COLORED BACK AND SILVERY SIDES. FT. STATUS: THREATENED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 60 FR 35999,07-12-95 DESCRIPTION: LARGE, ADULTS HAVE WHITE HEAD AND TAIL HEIGHT 28 - 38"; WINGSPAN 66- 96". 1-4 YRS DARK WITH VARYING DEGREES OF ELEVATION MOTTLED BROWN PLUMAGE. FEET BARE OF FEATHERS. RANGE: VARIES FT. COUNTIES: LA PAZ, PIMA, GRAHAM, MARICOPA, PINAL, YAVAPAI, SANTA CRUZ COUNTIES: YUMA, LA PAZ, MOHAVE, YAVAPAI, MARICOPA, PINAL, COCONINO, NAVAJO, APACHE, SANTA CRUZ, PIMA, GILA, GRAHAM, COCHISE HABITAT: LARGE TREES OR CLIFFS NEAR WATER (RESERVOIRS, RIVERS AND STREAMS) WITH ABUNDANT PREY HABITAT: SHALLOW SPRINGS, SMALL STREAMS, AND MARSHES. TOLERATES SALINE & WARM WATER CRITICAL HABITAT INCLUDES QUITOBAQUITO SPRING, PIMA COUNTY, PORTIONS OF SAN FELIPE CREEK, CARRIZO WASH, AND FISH CREEK WASH, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. TWO SUBSPECIES ARE RECOGNIZED: DESERT PUPFISH (C. m. macularis) AND QUITOBAQUITO PUPFISH (C. m. eremus). 2 SOME BIRDS ARE NESTING RESIDENTS WHILE A LARGER NUMBER WINTERS ALONG RIVERS AND RESERVOIRS. AN ESTIMATED 200 TO 300 BIRDS WINTER IN ARIZONA. ONCE ENDANGERED (32 FR 4001, 03-11-1967; 43 FR 6233, 0214-78) BECAUSE OF REPRODUCTIVE FAILURES FROM PESTICIDE POISONING AND LOSS OF HABITAT, THIS SPECIES WAS DOWN LISTED TO THREATENED ON AUGUST 11, 1995. ILLEGAL SHOOTING, DISTURBANCE, LOSS OF HABITAT CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. SPECIES HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR DEUSTING (64 FR 36454) BUT STILL RECEIVES FULL PROTECTION UNDER ESA. 3 Appendix 1-1 MARICOPA LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTY: NAME: 10/11/2001 PELECANUS OCCIDENTAL/S CALIFORNICUS BROWN PELICAN SUBSPECIES IS FOUND ON PACIFIC COAST AND IS ENDANGERED DUE TO PESTICIDES. IT IS AN UNCOMMON TRANSIENT IN ARIZONA ON MANY ARIZONA LAKES AND RIVERS. INDIVIDUALS WANDER UP FROM MEXICO IN SUMMER AND FALL NO BREEDING RECORDS IN ARIZONA. STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAS No RECOVERY PLAN: No DESCRIPTION: SMALL (APPROX. 7"), DIURNAL OWL REDDISH BROWN OVERALL WITH CREAM-COLORED BELLY STREAKED WITH REDDISH BROWN. SOME INDIVIDUALS ARE GRAYISH BROWN FT. HABITAT: MATURE COTTONWOOD/WILLOW, MESQUITE BOSQUES, AND SONORAN DESERTSCRUB RANGE LIMIT IN ARIZONA IS FROM NEW RIVER (NORTH) TO GILA BOX (EAST) TO CABEZA PRIETA MOUNTAINS (WEST). ONLY A FEW DOCUMENTED SITES WHERE THIS SPECIES PERSISTS ARE KNOWN, ADDITIONAL SURVEYS ARE NEEDED. CRITICAL HABITAT WAS VACATED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (9/19/01). . NAME: FT. STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 32 FR 4001, 03-11-67; 48 . FR 34182, 07-27-83 DESCRIPTION: WATER BIRD WITH LONG LEGS AND SHORT TAIL. LONG SLENDER DECURVED BILL. MOTTLED BROWN ON GRAY ON ITS RUMP. FLANKS AND UNDERSIDES ARE DARK GRAY WITH NARROW VERTICAL STRIPES ELEVATION PRODUCING A BARRING EFFECT. RANGE: <4500 FT. COUNTIES: YUMA, LA PAZ, MARICOPA, PINAL, MOHAVE HABITAT: FRESH WATER AND BRACKISH MARSHES SPECIES IS ASSOCIATED WITH DENSE EMERGENT RIPARIAN VEGETATION. REQUIRES WET SUBSTRATE (MUDFLAT, SANDBAR) WITH DENSE HERBACEOUS OR WOODY VEGETATION FOR NESTING AND FORAGING. CHANNELIZATION AND MARSH DEVELOPMENT ARE PRIMARY SOURCES OF HABITAT LOSS. STATUS: THREATENED CRITICAL HAS Yes RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 56 FR 14678, 04-11-91; 66 FR 8530, 2/1/01 DESCRIPTION: MEDIUM SIZED WITH DARK EYES AND NO EAR TUFTS. BROWNISH AND HEAVILY SPOTTED WITH WHITE OR BEIGE. ELEVATION RANGE: 4100-9000 FT. COUNTIES: MOHAVE, COCONINO, NAVAJO, APACHE, YAVAPAI, GRAHAM, GREENLEE, COCHISE, SANTA CRUZ, PIMA, PINAL, GILA, MARICOPA HABITAT: NESTS IN CANYONS AND DENSE FORESTS WITH MULTI-LAYERED FOLIAGE STRUCTURE GENERALLY NESTS IN OLDER FORESTS OF MIXED CONIFER OR PONDERSA PINE/GAM BEL OAK TYPE, IN CANYONS, AND USE VARIETY OF HABITATS FOR FORAGING. SITES WITH COOL MICROCLIMATES APPEAR TO BE OF IMPORTANCE OR ARE PREFERED. CRITICAL HABITAT WAS REMOVED IN 1998 BUT RE-PROPOSED IN JULY 2000 AND FINALIZED IN FEB 2001 FOR APACHE, COCHISE, COCONINO, GRAHAM, MOHAVE, PIMA COUNTIES; ALSO IN NEW MEXICO, UTAH, AND COLORADO. 4 ELEVATION RANGE: <8500 RALLUS LONG/ROSTRIS YUMANENS/S STRIX OCCIDENTAUS LUCIDA MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL CFR: 60 FR 10694, 02-27-95 COUNTIES: YAVAPAI, GILA, MARICOPA, MOHAVE, COCONINO, NAVAJO, APAGHE, PINAL, LA PAZ, GREENLEE, GRAHAM, YUMA, PIMA, COCHISE, SANTA CRUZ HABITAT: COTTONWOOD/WILLOW &TAMARISK VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ALONG RIVERS & STREAMS NAME: YUMA CLAPPER RAIL CFR: 62 FR 10730, 3-10-97 ELEVATION RANGE: <4000 COUNTIES:MARICOPA, YUMA, SANTACRUZ, GRAHAM, GREENLEE, PIMA, PINAL, GILA, COCHISE STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: No DESCRIPTION: SMALL PASSERINE (ABOUT 6") GRAYISH-GREEN BACK AND WINGS , WHITISH THROAT, LIGHT OLIVE-GRAY BREAST AND PALE YELLOWISH BELLY. TWO WINGBARS VISIBLE. EYE-RING FAINT OR ABSENT. MIGRATORY RIPARIAN OBLIGATE SPECIES THAT OCCUPIES BREEDING HABITAT FROM LATE APRIL TO SEPTEMBER. DISTRIBUTION WITI-IIN ITS RANGE IS RESTRICTED TO RIPARIAN CORRIDORS. DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EMPIDONAX COMPLEX BY SIGHT ALONE. TRAINING SEMINAR REQUIRED FOR THOSE CONDUCTING FLYCATCHER SURVEYS. CRITICAL HABITAT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (5/17/01 ). GLAUC/0/UM BRASIL/ANUM CACTORUM CACTUS FERRUGINOUS PYGMY-OWL EMPIDONAX TRA/LL/1 EXT/MUS NAME: SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER STATUS: ENDANGERED CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: Yes CFR: 35 FR 16047, 10-13-70; 35 DESCRIPTION: LARGE DARK GRAY-BROWN WATER BIRD WITH A POUCH UNDERNEATH FR 18320, 12-02-70 LONG BILL AND WEBBED FEET. ADULTS HAVE A WHITE HEAD AND NECK, BROWNISH BLACK BREAST, AND SILVER GRAY UPPER PARTS. ELEVATION RANGE: VARIES FT. COUNTIES :APACHE, COCHISE, COCONINO, GILA, GRAHAM, GREENLEE LA PAZ, MARICOPA, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, PIMA, ' PINAL, SANTA CRUZ, YAVAPAI, YUMA HABITAT: COASTAL LAND AND ISLANDS; ARIZONA LAKES AND RNERS NAME: MARICOPA LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE FOUOWING COUNTY: 10/11/2001 5 • A43 A44 • Appendix 1-1 ' ·•,_ c _r ------------~--~A~n~zo~n~a~G~a~m~e~a~n~d~P.~u~h~D~ep~a~rnn~~e~n~t~op~er~an==n~g~il.l,==an~u=al~---------------·. ~· Section I: W"ddlife, Habitat and the Environment .......,..,~ MARICOPA LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTY: Chapter 2: Habitat and the Environment 10/11/2001 3) CANDIDATE habitat resource category designations. See Commission Policy A2.16. TOTAL=1 NAME: YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO Department Policy: The Game and Fish Department will closely scrutinize and assist in regulation and control. where possible, of those activities involving all-terrain motor powered vehicles that may affect wildlife or create conflicts among competing users of the land resource. COCCVZUS AMERICANUS STATUS: CANDIDATE CRITICAL HAB No RECOVERY PLAN: No CFR: 66 FR 38611; 07-25-01 DESCRIPTION: MEDIUM-SIZED BIRD WITH A SLENDER, LONG-TAILED PROFILE, SLIGHTLY DOWN-CURVED BILL, WHICH IS BLUE-BLACK WITH YELL,.OW ON THE LOWER HALF OF THE BILL PLUMAGE IS GRAYISH-BROWN ELEVATION ABOVE AND WHITE BELOW, WITH RUFOUS PRIMARY FLIGHT FEATHERS . RANGE: <6,500 FT. . Procedures: While recognizing a segment of the population accrues enjoyment from involvement in road/trail races, rallies, enduros, and similar events, organized or otherwise, the Department's primary concern is protection of wildlife resources and habitat. COUNTIES: APACHE, COCHISE, COCONINO, GILA, GRAHAM, "GREENLEE, LA PAZ, MARICOPA, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, PIMA, PINAL, SANTA CRUZ, YAVAPAI, YUMA HABITAT: LARGE BLOCKS OF RIPARIAN WOODLANDS (COTTONWOOD, WILLOW, OR TAMARISK GALLERIES) SPECIES WAS FOUND WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUDED FOR LISTING AS A DISTINCT VERTEBRATE POPULATION SEGMENT IN THE WESTERN U.S. ON JULY 25, 2001. THIS FINDING INDICATES THAT THE SERVICE HAS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO LIST THE BIRD, BUT OTHER, HIGHER PRIORITY LISTING ACTIONS PREVENT THE SERVICE FROM ADDRESSING THE LISTING OF THE CUCKOO AT THIS TIME. Deparnnent employees are requested to be alen to such activities and inform managemen,t. Where these activities involve public lands, the Departtnent requests that the agency or group involved limit such activities primarily to washes and established roads and that the use of trails be minimal and corumed to trails where no habitat damage will result. Further, the Department requests that it be notified of the planned activities and offered an opportl.!Ility to review the route, comment and advise on any effects that the activity may have on-wildlife and its habitat with reference to the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Compensation Policy and Procedure, and recommend alternate routes if conside~ed necessary. !2.2 National Environmental Act Compliance EffeCtive: 01~01'-91 Department Policy: The Arizona Game and Fish Department will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This requires that every proposed Federal Aid (Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson) project be examined objectively to determine the effects it v.ill have on the environment in accordance with NEPA in Federal Aid NEPA Guidelines. Further, the Department will comply with the objectives ofNEPA on any other project or program that may have an effect on the environment. (Contact the Habitat Branch for procedures and guidelines for ::--rEPA compliance.) 12.3 c··_. 6 Wildlife and:Wildlife Habitat Compensation E[foctive: 06-04-94 Department Policy: It shall be the policy of the Department to develop adequate compensation plans for actual or potential habitat losses resulting from land and water projects in accordance with State and Federal laws. Habitat compensation plans will seek compensation at a 100% level, where feasible, and will be developed using Authority: The Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department is authorized under A.R.S. Title 17-211, Subsection D, to perform the necessary administrative tasks required to manage the wildlife resources of the -State of Arizona. Pursuant to those duties and in accordance with federal environmental laws and resotirce management acts, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Endangered Species Act, the Director is further charged with cooperating -in the determination of potential impacts to Arizona's wildlife resources resulting from federally funded land and water projects. In addition, a Commission M.O.U. assigns similar responsibilities for evaluating proposed projects on lands administered by the State Land Department. An integral part of this process is the development of adequate compensation measures aimed at eliminating or reducing project-associated impacts. Procedure: Criteria used to identify general compensation goals are as follows: A. Resource Category I. 1. Designation Criteria. Habitat in this category are of the highest value tO Arizona wildlife species, and are unique and/or irreplaceable on a statewide or ecoregion basis. · 2. Compensation Goal. No loss of existing in-kind habitat value. 3. Guideline. The Department will recommend that all potential losses of existing habitat values be prevented. Insignificant changes that would not result in adverse impacts to habitat values may be acceptable provided they will have no significant cumulative impact. 4. Habitat Types. Habitat types associated with Resource Category I shall include, but not limited to the following examples: a. Perennial Stream Habitats. b. Westlands and Riparian habitats of at least one acre in size which are associated with perennial waters. Biotic communities included · in this classification follow descriptions provided in Brown ( 1982) and Henderson and Minckley (1984). c. Key utilization areas for species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Threatened or Endangered and Endangered State Threatened Native Wildlife species. B. Resource Category ll. 1. Designation .Criteria. Habitats in this category are of high value for Arizona wildlife species and are Chapter I-2 Update 01/97 Page 1 of4 Appendix 1-1 ~----------------~A~n~z~o~n~a~G~am~~e~a~n~d~F,~u~·=h~D~e~p~a~rnn~e~n~t~O~p~e~r=an=n~·g~j{.~a~n~u~a~I----------------­ Section I: W"Udlife, Habitat and the Environment Chapter 2: Habitllt and the Enviro_nment r relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a statewide or ecoregion basis. 2. Compensation Goal. No net loss of existing habitat value, while minimizing loss of in-kind value. 3. Guideline. The Depax:tment will recommend that all potential losses ·of Resource Category II habitat values be avoided or minimized. If significant losses are likely to occur, the Departmen~ will recommend alternatives to immediately rectify, reduce, or eliminate these losses over time. ' 4. Habitat Types. Habitat types associated with Resource Category II shall include, but not limited to, the following examples: a. Key utilization areas for antelope and bighorn sheep. · b. Key utilization areas for Threatened and Candidate State Threatened· Native Wildlife species, candidate species for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered (Categories 1 ~d 2). c. Actual or potential reintroduction sites for species that are listed as Extirpated or Endangered on the State Threatened Native Wildlife list. d. Blue ribbon fishing areas (i.e., Lee's Ferry and Becker Lake). e. Isolated mountain ranges providing Subalpineconiferous forest habitats (i.e., Pinaleno Mountains). f. State and federally operated game preserves, refuges or wildlife areas. g. Montane meadows. C. Resource Category 1. Designation Criteria. Habitats in this category are of high to medium value for Arizona wildlife species, and are relatively abundant on-a statewide basis. 2. Mitigation Goal. No net loss of habitat value. 3. Guidelines. The Department will recommend ways to minimize or avoid habitat losses. Anticipated losses will be compensated by replacement ofhabitat values in-kind, or by substitution of high value habitat types, or by increased management of replacement habitats, so that no net loss occurs. 4. Habitat Types" Involved. Habitats in this category are of a natural, undisturbed condition or they involve bodies of water of economic importance and shall include, but not be limited to, the followmg examples: a. Chihuahua, Great Basin, Yfohave, and Sonoran Desert habitat types. b. Desert-grasslands and Chaparral zones. c. Oak and coniferous woodlands and coniferous forests. . d. Resc;rvoir habitats. m. D. Resource Category IV. 1. Designadon Criteria. Habitats in this category are of m~dium to low value for Arizona wildlife species, due to proximity to urban developments or low productivitY associated with these lands. 2. Mitigation Goal. Minimize loss of habitat value. 3. Guideline. The Department will recommend ways to avoid or minimize habitat losses. Shou,l.d losses be unavoidable, the Department may ' make a recommendation for compensation, b~ed on the significance of the loss. 4. Habitat Types Involved. Habitat types associated with Resource Category IV shall include, but not be limited to, the following examples: a. Agricultural Lands. b. Undeveloped urban areas (i.e., land proximal to waste water treatment facilities, municipal mountain preserves, and undeveloped lands in proximity to municipal and industrial areas). c. Habitats exhibiting low wildlife productivity as a result of man's influence. United States Department of Agriculture ~NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 3003. N. Central Ave., Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2946 Scott C. Mars HDR Engineering 2141 East Highland Avenue Suite 250 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4736 June 14, 2002 Dear Mr. Mars: This response is in regard to your letter dated May 30, 2D02, concerning the proposed alignments of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Project. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has general responsibility, nationwide, for implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPP A) and to review projects that may affect prime farmland and/or wetlands associated with agriculture. After reviewing the information provided, the following is noted: 1. The proposed project, if implemented as planned, will impact prime or unique farmland. Enclosed is for AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact rating form. Stage List: A. Proposal Submittal. Conservation Supervisor (Habitat Branch) receives all lands protection propQsals on an open and continuous basis, whether they are generated internally or externally. Responsibilities: .Date stamp proposals on receipt; retain original proposals in ftles; send letters to Pt'oponents acknowledging receipt; and distnbute proposals and relevant information from the lands files (e.g. previous protection proposals for the same general area) to the Proposal Screening Committee. Time: 5 days from receipt for acknowledgement to proponent · Conservation B. Proposal Screening Committee. Supervisor, chair; Development Branch Chief; Nongame Branch Chief, and Field Operations Coordinator. Responsibilities: Screen proposals on a monthly basis to determine adequacy and appropriateness; return inadequate proposals to proponents for remedy; Conservation Supervisor prepares State 3 briefing ~d routes adequate proposal(s). to Assistant Director, Wildlife Management Division (WMD). Time: Director's Office briefing presentation occurs the· Tuesday immediately following the monthly meeting; return to proponent (RTP) or forwarding to Assistant Director, WMD, to occur within 5 days of monthly meeting. C. Director's Office Briefing Presentation. Conservation Supervisor presents summary of which proposals were returned to proponents (and why they were returned) aod which were routed for biological review. 2. We do not see any immediate concerns or impacts that would directly affect wetland areas associated with agriculture. Projects such as this require a corridor-type assessment. Without the final alignment, we cannot accurately assess the impacts to prime and unique farmland from your project. Please submit an AD-1006 and map for review when the final alignment for this project is selected. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Schmidt, Community Assistance Coordinator at 602.280.8818. Thank you for the chance to review the proposed project. Sincerely, State Conservationist Cc: Jim Briggs, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS, Phoenix, Arizona Kristen Graham-Chaves, District Conservationist, NRCS, Phoenix, Arizona Jeff Schmidt, Community Assistance Coordinator, NRCS, Phoenix, Arizona The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Pagel of4 Chaptel' 1-2 Upd4te 01J97 • A45 A46 • Appendix 1-1 United States Department of Agriculture ~NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 230 N. First Avenue, Suite 509 Phoenix, AZ. 85003-1706 The only other lands that might be exempt from the Act are described in 7CFR658.2(c)(2). This section describes federal programs that were "beyond the planning stage" on August 4, 1984. APR 1:92006 Scott Mars HDR . 3200 East Camelback, Suite #350 Phoenix,Puizona 85018 We hope this written interpretation meets your needs. We are looking into ways to streamline Prime and Unique Farmland requests on very large corridor projects, such as your major road projects. If you have any other questions and/or needs regarding the FPPA, please contact Steve Smarik, Environmental Specialist, at 602-280-8785. Thank you for your interest in the proper administration of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Dear Mr. Mars: In response to your request for interpretation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) in regards to land that has "been committed to urban development," the following is provided: As you are aware, land committed to urban development is not subject to the FPP A. The Act is implemented by regulations that can be found in Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 658. In 7CFR658.2, the definition for "farmland" subject to the Act is as such: "Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section 2540(c) (1) of the Act or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary to be farmland of statewide of local importance. "Farmland" does not include land already in or committed to urban developmentor water storage. Farmland "already in" urban developmentor wa.ter storage includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland already in urban development also includes lands identified as "urbanized area" (UA) on the Census Bureau Map , or as urban area mapped with a "tint overprint" on the USGS topographical maps, or as "urban-built-up" on the USDA Important Farmland Maps. Areas shown as white on the USDA Important Farmland Maps are not "farmland" and, therefore, are not subject to the Act. Farmland "committed to urban development or water storage" includes all such land that receives a combined score of 160 points or less from the land evaluation and site assessment criteria." The only way to exempt lands from the Act are explained therein. A Comprehensive Land Use Plan that designates land to urban development, in itself, does not exempt such lands from the Act. Your reference to 7CFR658.2(d), where comp:r:ehensive land use plans are mentioned, is still under the "definitions" section and is merely describing the phrase "State or local government policies or programs to protect farmland." This phrase is used in the actual site assessment process where subject projects are evaluated on form AD-1 006. If a farmland protection program is part of a comprehensive land use plan, .then those lands are given more points in the assessment process. The Natural Resou(ces Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer ERIC BANKS Assistant State Conservationist (FA Programs) Appendix 1-1 1-Wl\ Tmt!I.!IVI!IJ ~ NRCS Af'R 2:! 2009 Natural Resources Conservation &wvloo •ROl: _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 230 N, Ar$1 A\4enue, Sul\o 509 Phoenix, ArizOna 85003-1733 (602)280-8801 ALE: --------------------OIST.: u.s. Coul1hoj&« 2 l\1>& 01 0 •.. '" PART II (To . . . t. oln\11o 1 byNRCS) Doc.s lhr. corndnt c:ont.l,n ptlll'$, vr•que $~1ewiCie(J( local imp(li1Mt l~mt11nd? {II no. 1M FI'PA 213110 I'" W59 ~~~,:. , '"m""' ~~ 578 789 " '""" Md U"Que F.,ml"'d '"'""'"And Local ' r In COontytl< ' PART VI (To .. z 7 "/J') ' ~by f!RCS! ~~:;~~obto ' oo!O· mn o, .. ) Co<~~FR 858.$(c)) ,, ~ """"""'"" ...... 1, 578 .... ~.,., 30 7. 25 ?t: 789 S. Size ot PYesenlfa"" 1 >F01m••• 20 20 10 r POINTS 10 10 12 0 5 10 12 25 5 10 20 15 10 7 12 0 5 10 12 0 5 74 3 3 15 15 : 10 180 74 8 4 74 74 PART VII (Tob< . '011 Tolel • .,...., ' ••, V) ' l'ert VI ..... 01 ' 1oco1 $iiO I. 100 1.0 2.0 3 . . ... ot 8'6 A'/' !?7 ;pz_ 74 74 74 74 !£?> ;......, Convor!Cd by r,q~c;t: .... , ,...,, /~0 /.Yb /6/ """" I' · m O Arflona ' llvo~ m.2es 1302 "~·· ·~ '"'", .190,892' ... "''·""' '" · · · ;• ..,.,. '11 ll. ""''" ,..... •••• ''" .... ;3110 ~·· .._ 'Fol : 811 787 813 787 PART rv (To bo nmpJ.hUI by NRC$) l.• nd Cv•flllllon ln!omwtlon .,..,,.,.,.,..,.,. A T""' Jl<en'a'll~fll Steve Smarlk uo 0 267,295 " NA 302 1 AA'IQ.ll'll 01 farml&nd M De-fined in t-..-1, JuliSdiction 267,295 Ac-res: 4.5 190,782 Alter native Corri dor For Westem 213110 5 fnstcro Spctin ps El 783 150 Tol~l AC1'9s In Corridor 78 150 Pri~ And Unrqve F~rm ~nd 783 150 B. To.!al N:n~s $ 1Qto"id o An<.! I oc'Ojlld -116 24 pan~!) Acreage equal to tess tilan 5 perOMt ol tile acres directly converted by lha pr*'et - 0 points Does lha Site have avaiar:.e adequate supJ:Iy ol farm supportsei'Yioes and mal1tets, i.e ., !ann sup~rs. equ ~nt dealers, (7) JX"ooessil.g and s torage facilities and fa f'T1"19(s ma11tets? ~ l requ i'ed S81'Yioes a re a va!ar:.e -5 pdnts Some requi'ed S81'Yioesa re a vaiar:.e - 4 to 1 point(s) No requi'ed S81'Yioesa re avaiar:.e - 0 points PART VII (To be completed by F.~def'31 A~ncy) Relati ~ Va!uQ; Of Farml;and (From P¥t V) ~SSG&.5ment) TO TA L POINTS ( TOMI Of 1 vomoor ::.electecal go..emment pJiicies or programs to p-oteet farrntand or covertd by private p-ograms to p-oteet fa tT'Iiand? Site is p-otacted -20 pJilts Site is not protected- 0 pJilts ~b J.l.1)Cimum Point$ TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINT$ Total COrTidor A~~n~,~nl (From ~r1 VI above ora local S;.~e ( 2) How muoh o l lha p!ri'neter ol the Site txlrdarson land il noni.Xban use? ,.,-tor e than 90 percent -10 points 90 t o 20 percent- 9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent- 0 pJilts Mor elhan 00 p..-oonl •20 pcinl< 90 to 20 percenl· 191o 1 poi11(s) Less than 20 percent- 0 pJilts 22 20 25 10 9. Elfetl!l Of Conversion On ~arm Suppon ServwcGs rad!usof 1.0 mle !rom where tile prcjeet iS iltendad? 10 yeam? PART IV (To b~ compl~t~d by NRCS) f.otnd Evaluation Information Gcwt use wllhil a 90 to 20 percenl· 14 1o 1 poi11(s) Less than 20 percent- 0 pJilts (3) B. Total Acres To Be ConVo~Jrted Indirectly, Or To ReceiVe Services A. To:alh;u'.,; %4.5 10. Oat~ l and Ev;,twllon R<:tumeUld like to thank you and o~r Gila River Indian Ccmnunity (GRIC) staff for providing Arizona Departnent of Transportation (AOO:r) with GRIC Staff .Access Desires to the Southeast curl Sou~st Loop and infonning .AIXJI' of GIUC access con- Dear Governor Rhodes: cerns. On behalf of the people of Arizona, I want to express my enthusiastic support for lhc discussions that have ocCLD!Icd tills week regarding potential partnership between the State and the Gila River Indian Community on the issue of development of the South Mountain Freeway. Tre following is my understanding of GRIC access desires from our May 13, 1986 neeting: INr.ffiCHANGES AT 51st Avenue, 19th Avenue, 7th Avenue, 32nd Street, 40th Street, Kyrene, arrl McClintock Drive. rpledge the full engagement of the Arizona Department of Transportation in working with you to consider the opportnnitie~ that may exist with the economic development potential oftbis much-needed transportation corridor. GRADE SEPARATIOOS AT 48th Street and 56th Street While there is much work still to be done regarding final alignment of the route, r run pleased to know that your team is part of the conversation and that there is a path forward for ongoing talks about bow the Community might consider getting involved. It is also my understanding that GRIC feels access via Interchanges at Kyrene and McClintock Drive as \\ell as the Grade Separation at 56th Street is essential for their proposed develoi;ment of the .Meioorial Air Park area. Please do not hesitate to call on me or my team if there is anything we can do to help further your consjderation of thls very criticaJ regional project. GRIC staff also feels that it could help facilitate the purchase of land (allotnent and tribal) that would be necessary for the McClintcx:::k interchange. Please let ne kna..r if any of the. above is incorrect. JU./la 17oo WEs'l· WASJ-ITNGTON STRl!:ET, Puon J.X, ARlZONA B5oo7 602-54-2--4Hl • FAX 602.-542-7602 HiGHWAYS AEI'IONAUTICS · oR VEHICLE PUBLIC TRANSIT AOMINISTRA TIVE. SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Appendix 1-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ( Feb~~a~y P. Mickelson GRIC conce~ns February 5, 1987 ?age -2- Robe~t OFFICE MEMO ( 5, 1987 The following access points have been discussed in meetings with the GRIC and City of Chandler: TO: ROBERT P. MICKELSON Depu~y State Engineer FROM: JOHN LOUIS \LO£:) Corridor L~n ~ngineer Urban Highway Section RE: Southeast Loop & Southwest Loop GRIC concerns Grade Separation at 56th Street TI at Kyrene Road TI or Grade Separation at McClintock Road There has been a general concurrence, but no firm commitment, on these access points. The consultant has pointed o~t that a ........ l..l. at McClintock Road may require R/W from GRIC and may not work a_t all due to the proximity to the Price I Southeast Loop TI. Access to Pima - Chandler Industrial Park All concepts being considered for the I-10 TI maintain existing access to Maricopa Road and Chandler Blvd. A new additional TI is anticipated at Kyrene Road. We believe that access to the Pima - Chandler Industrial Park will be enhanced. The letter form the GRIC dated December 2, 1986 identifies the following as issues of concern: 1. 2. 3. 4. ( Location and type of local access points. Access to Pima - Chandler Industrial Park. Access to ?rice Road south of Pecos Road. Access to GRIC where freeway is offset reservation boundary. Access to Price Road South of Pecos Road from the These issues have been addressed in various coordination meetings involving the GRIC. The following is a summary of our re.s ponse to these issues: ( Directional TI concepts are being developed which allow for a direct through movement of the Price facility to the south. Projected development in this area, some of which should be reflected in the new MAG forecasts, suggests that such a connection may be desirable. It also seems logical from a continuity standpoint and would be beneficial if, at some future date, Price Expressway needed to be extended south. Location and Tyoe of Access Points Access to GRIC where Freewav is offset from Reservation Boundary following access points have been agreed upon by both the GRIC and the City of Phoenix. These were again confirmed in a December 9 meeting with GRIC representatives. ~he TI at TI in TI at TI at TI at TI at TI at Grade 51st Avenue vicinity of 35th Avenue 19th Avenue 7th Avenue 7th Street 24th Street 40th Street Separation at 48th Street In meetings with the GRIC, we have pointed out that MAG funds can not be expended on arterial streets. Chandler has indicated in these meetings that they intend to construct the arterials to the reservation boundary. This is the first positive piece of correspondence received from Governor Antone; it might be appropriate to recommend a meeting with him to show our interest. To this point their staff has not indicated any desire o~ ability to help solve any access or drainage problem by obtaining R/W & granting it to us. JLL:ca t·B-9590 2/75 \ . ORME.RLY 8-954) • A51 A52 • Appendix 1-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue 206 South Seventeenth Avenue .Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ROSE MOFFORD Governor CHARLES l. MILLER Director THOMAS A. BRYANT, II Slate Engineer September 28, 1989 TRANSPORTATION BOARD ROSE MOFFORD Governor Jim Patterson Chairman CHARLES l. MILLER Director Governor Thomas R. White Gila River Indian Community P. 0. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Andrew M. Federhar VIce Chairman larry E. Chavez Donald D. Denton Harold "Hank" Glatz Verne 0 . Seidel James A. Solo October 5, 1989 Dear Governor White: Charles Miller, Director Arizona Department of Transportation 206 s. 17th Avenue Phoenix, Az. 85007 This letter is to update you on the status of the utilization of storm water runoff as an irrigation and recreation water resource in relation to the Gila Drain. Dear Charlie: Salt River Project has been requested to provide any information they have regarding the quality and quantity of water flowing in the Gila Drain. SRP has agreed to provide what information is available but to date, our consultant has not received this information a~d SRP has been unable to provide a date as to when they will have this information. Thought you would be interested in the Conceptual Master Plan of the Gila River Indian Reservation area,,· south of the South Mountain San Tan Freeways. Specifically this indicates what they have in mind for their floodway greenbelts, golf course, . reservoirs, etc., in that particular area, and it could possibly be a great use for additional waters in the Gila Drain. I have instructed the Urban Highway staff to keep Ms. Dorothy Hallock of your planning staff informed on the progress of this study. Again, I think this is a project for this water that Chandler, ADOT and others with a common interest should be working very closely with the Tribe. :it;~&~ Sincerely, GARY K. ROBINSON Chief Deputy State Engineer Highway Division GKR:GEW:vlb bee: Jim Patterson George Wallace cc: HIGHWAYS HIGHWAYS • AERONAUTICES • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Gary AERONAUTICS MOTOR VEHICLE PUBLIC mANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Appendix 1-1 t' ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 October 30, 1989 ROSE MOFFORD Governor CHARLES L. MILLER Director THOMAS A. BRYANT , II State Engineer Mr. James H. Matteson, P.E. Street Transportation Director City of Phoenix 125 E. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85004 CIIJ of Pllo•nla- Subject: South Mountain Freeway/7th Avenue Interchange Dear Mr. Matteson: This letter is in response to your October 13, 1989 letter to Mr. Charles Miller regarding the removal of the 7th Avenue Interchange at South Mountain Freeway from the Department plans. Since the referenced T. I. was included in the Design Concept plans at the request of the City, the Department has no objection to its elimination. In order to accomplish this, however, two conditions must be met: Dedication of right-of-way for 7th Avenue and the well site near 24th Street will be required. These areas were excluded from the area purchased from the Foothills in 1988. These are highlighted on the attached drawing. GILA BORDERLANDS A letter to the Department from the Gila River Indian Community stating their concurrence with the UDC proposal. Although they have indicated their position to UDC, numerous statements regarding restriction of access to G.R.I.C. lands made during the location study makes it necessary that they formalize their position in writing to the Department. 4 8,0 00 ACR£S u.noc~ ...... ...,..,.,.._'- &CRU ~,~- AGJIC&J..NI&L A.OOOWU,CllaNBILf AQU ...: ~i '"'"'·~~ 1 _ . Conceptual Mas}er -'Pian ; ~ 0 T•aot "'• 1Hte4 &.eall U••• ld.l •c.t 't• C::l'l aw• ·,.'--! _ .....,.. LEGEND · \:·<~~;~--.-<-·--·-~\ . '-.. '. . /\ ( .... -"· '· .... \ /\ -N _ _, ·.. .. - .......... J. Upon receipt of these two items and review by our Urban Highway Section, the Department can concur with your request to eliminate the interchange from the plans. -·-- -·~ : --.... GILA RIVER INDIAN. COMMUNITY ..._ __. ,_ ..,..._,....... _ ,_ : .- Please contact George Wallace of the Urban Highway Section if you have questions regarding this matter. any Sincerely, /'-~ ~ .-;~~ ~··"'' ;J(: et~~ ROSENDO GUTIERREZ Urban Highway Engineer / RG:GEW:nb Attachment cc: HIGHWAYS • Charles Miller Thomas Bryant, II AERONAUTICES • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • A53 A54 • Appendix 1-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue ROSE MOFFORD Gove rnor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 February 16, 1990 THOMAS A. BRYANT. II State Engineer CHARLES L. MILLER Director Governor Thomas R. White Gila River Indian Community P. o. Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 . Dear Governor White: As we discussed at our meeting January 11, 1990 1 am enclosing a copy of the Final Gila Drain Alternative Study for your use. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. s;g~2? - ib~~NDO Engin~ GUTIERREZ Urban Highway Urban Highway Section RG:GEW:mc Enclosure HIGHWAYS • AERONAUTICES • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Appendix 1-1 • ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION HIGHWAYS DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue ROSE MOFFORO Governor 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ROSE MOFFORD XXXX>OOVM~XXXX , March 21, 1990 CHARLES l. MILLER Director THOMAS 1\ llflY 1\N 1.11 Sl;otc Enr~inccr CHAm_~~ ILLER THOMAS A. BRYANT,!! State Engineer October 19, 1990 Director James S. Creedon Acting Director Mr. Cecil Antone Program Administrator Gila Indian River Community P. 0. Box 398 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Mr. Lucius Kyyitan, Chairman Natural Resources Committee Gila River Indian Community P. 0. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 RE: Price/Santan Freeways TRACS No. H2222 OlD Dear Mr. Antone: Gila Borderlands Concept Greenbelt Channel Proposal The Arizona Department of Transportation respectfully requests to be placed on the agenda for the April 4, 1990 meeting of the Tribal Council. SUBJECT: The agenda item will be a presentation of the General Plan for the Santan Freeway between the vicinity of 56th Street and Dobson Road, and Price Expressway from Pecos Road to Ray Road. Dear Mr. Kyyitan: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) respectfully requests to be placed on the agenda for the October 30, 1990 meeting of the Natural Resources Committee. The Department's consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc., has refined the highway design that was developed in the August 1988 design concept report. There is no significant change from the design concept report, however, the design has been improved. The agenda i tern wi 11 be a propos a 1 to implement a portion of the planned "greenbelt" channel shown in the Gila Borderlands Conceptual Master Plan by utilizing the channel as a borrow source for construction of the South Mountain Freeway. This proposal would be under essentially the same terms as the agreement the Community currently has with Pinal County for the Maricopa Road project. As a part of this proposal, ADOT will also request permission to discharge stormwater collected along the future Price Expressway and Santan Freeway into the improved "greenbelt" channel. Access to the Santan Freeway from the Gila River Indian Community continues to be provided at Kyrene Road, McClintock Drive and Country Club Way. ADOT will also have representatives from HDR at the meeting to respond to any questions. Please call me at 255-7545 to advise of the time we should be present for the meeting. Also, per your request at our staff ptesentation on Tuesday, March 20, 1990 I am enclosing one copy of Volume I - Main Report of the Hydrology Study performed by HDR Engineering, Inc., and one blueline copy each of sheets 4 of 5 and 5 of 5 of the study depicting approximate detention basin locations, sizes, depths, etc., along Price Expressway and the Santan Freeway between Price Road and approximately 56th Street. The Department's consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc. has investigated the use of the Gila Floodway (the location of the "greenbelt" channel) as a potential stormwater outfall for the Price and Santan Freeways. The Gila Floodway is the historical path this water takes to the Gila River. We propose to use the excavated floodway to maintain the historical outfall of this runoff and convey this water to the proposed marshland and reservoir shown in the Gila Borderlands plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J:JJ~'JY f::(~Jzl/€'< r.~/ GEORGE E. WALLACE, P. E. Corridor Engineer Urban Highway Section \!?;JI EncJosures tiiGHWAVS • AERONAUTICES fmill.ff\ • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUnt.tC lf1ANSIT • ADMINISlRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HIGHWAYS • AERONAUTICES • MOTOR VEHICLE •· PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING A55 A56 • Appendix 1-1 Mr. Lucius Kyyitan October 19, 1990 Page 2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue - Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Our consultants will make a brief presentation to your committee and answer any questions you may have. Please ca 11 me at 255-7545 to advise of the time we should be present for the meeting. FIFE SYMINGTON Governor GARY K. ROBINSON Slate Engineer CHARLES E. COWAN Director Januarr 20, 1992 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, - · /~ c:c~"/a.Lta~.Q/ GEORGE E. WALLACE, P.E. Corridor Engineer Urban Highways Section Mr. Cecil Antone Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 398 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Mr. Antone: GEW:mj cc: 0745p Cecil Antone, GRIC Land Planning Enclosed find one fully executed copy of ADOT Joint Project Agreement 91-99 regarding the Arizona State University Study of the Gila Floodway, for your information The GRIC will be kept informed of the status of the Development of this project. Please feel free to contact me or Steve Martin at 255-7545 if you need any additional information. Sincerely, ~oe~~ GEORGE E. WALLACE Corridor Engineer Urban Highway Section .GEW'! km 0059p Attachment cc: HIGHWAYS Lynn Acree, ADOT-ECS AERONAUTICS MOTOR VEHICLE PUBLIC TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Appendix 1-1 SAMPLE • A57 A58 • Appendix 1-1 Federal Regl :/Vol. 66, No. 77/Friday, April 20, 2l ./Notices a recommended alternative was selected and an accompanying Design Concept Report was complt;~ted in September 1988. Due to the elapsed time and changed conditions tha~ have occurred since completion ofthese documents, new studies are reqllired. Jacldyn J. Stephenson, Letters describi.Dg the proposad action Senior Manager, Enterprise Operations and soliciting comments will be sent to Information Services. appropriate Federal, State and local [FR Doc. 01-9817 Filed 4-B-01; 8:45 am] agencies incl~(:)_ing the Envifonmental BILUNO CODE 8120-08-P Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indillll Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Game & Fish Federal Highway Administration Department, City of Phoenix, Town ?f Laveen, City of Avondale, and the Gila Environmental Impact Statement; River Indian Tribe. Letters will also be Maricopa County, Arizona sent to interested parties including; the AGENCY: Federal Highway Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Administration (FHWA), DOT. Committee, Laveen Village Planning Committee and Estrella Village Plaiming ACnoN: Notice of intent. Committee. SUMMARY: The FHW A is issuing this A series of public meetings will be notice to advise the public that an held in the communities within the individual impact statement will be proposed study area. In addition, a prepared for a proposed highway project public hearing ~11 be h?l~. Public . within Maricopa County, Arizona. notice will be given adVJSmg of the time FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and place of the meetings and hearing. Kenneth H. Davis, District Engineer, A fonnal seeping meeting is planned Federal Highway Administration, 234 between Federal, State, city and Tribal North Central Avenue, Suite 330, stakeholders. Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) To insure that the full range of issues 379-3646. related to this proposed action are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The addressed and all significant issues FHW A, in cooperation with the Arizona identified, comments, and suggestions Department of Transportation (ADOT), are invited from all interested parties. will prepare an environmental impact Comments or question.S concerning this statement (EIS) to study the proposed proposed action and the EIS should be South Mountain Corridor in Maricopa directed to the FHWA at the address County, Arizona. The proposed project provided above. will involve construction of a new (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance multilane freeway in the metropolitan Program Number 20.20S, Highway Planning Phoenix area extending approximately and Construction. The regulations 25 miles from I-10 west of Phoenix to implementing Executive Order 12372 • I-10 southeast of Phoenix to form a regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this southwest loop. The proposed project progmm.) . . will evaluate potential impacts to mountain preserve land, residential and Kenneth H. Davis, commercial development, Tribal lands, District Engineer, Phoenix. cultural resources, historic roads and [FR Doc. 01-9782 Filed 4--1!Hl1; 8:45am] canals, Endangered Species, BIWNG CODE 491~ jurisdictional water of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste. Improvements to the corridor are DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. A Federal Motor Carrier Safety full range of reasonable alternatives will Administration be considered including (1) taking no action; (2) using alternate travel modes; [Docket No. FMCSA-97..ZW1] (3) limited access parkway; (4) major urban arterial with transportation Parts and Accessories Necessary for system management improvements; and Safe OPeration; Manufactured Home (5) a freeway. Tires A Final State Environmental Assessment was completed for the AGENCY: federal Motor Carrier Safety South Mountain Corridor. At that time, Administration (FMCSA), DOT. facilities they used and the services they received. The information collected will be used to evaluate current maintenance, facility, and service practices and policies and to identify new opportunities for improvements. 20345 ACTION: Notice of intent to deny petitions for rulemaking; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its intent to deny petitions for rulemaking from the Manufactured Housing Institute (Mill) and Multinational Legal Services, PLLC (Multinational) concerning overloading of tires used for the transportation of manufactured homes. Currently, these tires may be loaded up to 18 percent over the load rating marked on the sidewall of the tires, or in the absence of such a marking, 18 percent above the load rating specified in publications of certain organizations specializing in tires. The termination date of the rule allowing 18-percent overloading of these tires was originally set for November 20, 2000, but was delayed until December 31, 2001, to provide the agency time to complete its review of the MHI's petition to allow 18 percent overloading on a permanent basis. The agency has now completed its review of the MHI's data and believes that there should be no further delay in the termination date. The agency has also completed its analysis of Multinational's petition to rescind the final rule which delayed the termination date until December31, 2001, and determined on a preliminary basis that the petition should be denied. Denial of both petitions would result in trallSporters of manufactured homes being prohibited from operating such units on overloaded t;ires on or after January 1, 2002. DATES: We must receive your comments by May 21, 2001. We will consider comments received after the comment closing date to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: You can niail, fax, hand deliver or electronically submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 205900001, FAX (202) 493-2251, on-line at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. You must include the docket n11JDber that appears in the heading of this document in your comment. You can eXamine and copy all comments at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e:t. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you warit us to notify you that we received you comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or postcard. FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, M~SV, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh South Mounta in Corridor Map ~ ·E Relidentiol ..9 Commerdol/lndustriol ~ • • • 1988 AdoptedAlignment ~ · Scaleof Miles Appendix 1-1 ( ( flA ::·, those segments from the sy~t~ 'Ih,e South MoUl1~Cor.ridotis designated for potential development as a tdilroad. · ' ACCT • 1996 -A con~ortium of private companies proposes to build the South Mountain Freeway as a toll road. The consortium would later withdraw its proposal, saying the project"\Va~ ~ot financiallyfeasible. The South Mountain Corridor remains a part of the MAG regiOnal Freeway System. out is designated as ' \mfunded." • 1999- ADOT .announces plans to accderate completion of the entire RegiOnal Freeway System by seven years to 2007. The accderation plan includes an unspecified portion of the South Mountain Corridor, which remains largdy unfunded. • 2000- In anticipation of initial construction of the South Mountain Freeway, the city of Phoenix conducts a local study of Ahwatukee/Foothills area transportation needs that includes an assessment of freeway options. • 2001 - ADOT begins preparation of a new Location/Design Concept Report and Envirorunental Impact Statement to examine a broad range of alternatives to the 1988 South Mountain Freeway concept. South Mountain CQrridor Study Facts, Questions and Answers OVERVIEW A South Mountain Freeway was included in the Regional Freeway System plan that was approved by Maricopa County voters in 1985. A conceptual design and state-levd Envirorunental Assessment (EA) were completed in 1988. As presented in the ~ the freeway would connect Interstate 10 south of Phoenix with Interstate 10 west of the city, following an east-west alignment along Pecos Road, through the western tip of South Mountain Park, then north to Interstate 10 between 55th and 63rd avenues. The north-south leg of the freeway would pass near the conununity of Laveen and through agricultural lands within the city of Phoenix. After it passed South Mountain Park and turned to the east, the freeway would pass through the Ahwatukee/Foothills community, following an aligrunent along Pecos Road. ISSUES The first thing the EIS will be considering will be three questions posed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are conducting a new engineering and environmental study- known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - that will examine a full range of alternatives to the concept presented in the 1988 EA. The potential social, economic and envirorunental impacts of each reasonable alternative will be studied, along with ways to lessen those impacts. 1. Why? What is the basic problem or deficiency with the existing situation and why is this a problem? 2. Why here? Why is this problem or deficiency occuniog here and why is it important? 3. Why now? Why does the problem need to be addressed now? What could happen if the problem was not addressed now? CHRONOLOGY If a need is found to exist for a major transportation improvement in this cor#dor, the study then will move forward to consider all reasonable solutions, including the original freeway concept from the 1988 EA. A brief history of the South Mountain Corridor, from its inception to the present is listed below. • 1983 -The Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) prepares planning studies for the Phoenix metropolitan area that identify corridors for an integrated freeway network. The South Mountain Freeway corridor is defined as a roughly two-mile wide corridor from I-1 0 near 51st Avenue, around South Mountain, to I-1 0 near Chandler Boulevard • 1985 -Maricopa County voters approve a half-cent sales tax to fund construction of the MAG Regional Freeway System. including a 22-mile free\vay connecting I-10 in Chandler with I -10 in west Phoenix. • 1988 -A state-levd Location/Design Concept Report and an Environmental Assessment are completed for the South Mountain Freeway, designating an alignment along Pecos Road and the Gila River Indian Community border and north to I-10 between 55th and 63rd avenues. This refined copjdor is adopted by the State Transportation Board QUESTIONS AND .ANSWERS The South Mountain Corridor Team has attempted to anticipate and answer as many questions ·as possible i:egarding this study and the future of the corridor. Some questions cannot be fully answered until later in the study process. This document will be updated as new questions are asked and new infonnation becomes available. Has an alignment along Pecos Road already been depided? No. AlthOugh an alignment along Pecos Road was identified as a result of the 1988 EA, this study will start from the beginning and will consider all reasonable alternatives. Why is .ADOT conduCting a serorid environmental study? • 1994- Due to a funding shortfall, the Arizona Department ofTmnsportation (AD01) identifies 76 miles of planned freeways as ''uri.funded segments" and later drops some of South Mountoln Comdor Study South Mountain Conidot' Stluly FllCis, Questions andAnswers (9120AJI) I FllCIS, Queslions and Answers (9120AJI) 2 • A59 A60 • Appendix 1-1 ( Much has changed in this area since the 1988 EA was completed. The new study is being conducted in light of new develbpment in the area as well as changes in design standards and envirorunental regulations and to qualify for federal funds. Will anything other than a freeway be considered? ,· Yes, other alternatives will be considered. Among other things, the study will consider improving existing facilities, improving or expanding other travel modes and strategies to reduce travel demand. Tills study will examine not only the potential impacts of a new freeway, but also the consequences of building nothing. If the Pecos Road alignment is not a foregone conclusion, then why has ADOTpurchased right-of-way along that alignment? ADOT began purchasing right-of-way in the corridor at a time when a specific alignment along Pecos Road had been identified and adopted. ADOT began acqlliring right-of-way to preserve the viability of the corridor and to minimize future relocation of homes and businesses. Should another alternative be adopted as a result of this study, ADOT can dispose of the land that has been acquired but is no longer needed. Is it PQSsible that nothing will be built? Yes. That is one of the options that will be studied. Would air, noise and visual quality be impacted by construction ofa new road or freeway? Will the filet that ADOT already owns right-of-way in this corridor influence the final decision? A major purpose of this study is to determine the potential impacts on air, noise and visual quality and to look for ways to lessen those impacts. FHWA regulations do not allow the ownership of right-of-way to be a factor in the decision regarding the adoption of an alternative. Will existing and planned trails be accommodated? Will ail alignment on the Gila River Indian Community be considered? Yes, to the extent possible. ADOT has historically made every effort possible to accommodate recreational trails. Yes. The Gila River Indian Community is an active participant in this process. As long as the Community is receptive to alignments that might cross Indian lands, those alignments will be considered. However, if it were clearly indicated that the Community does not want and will not accept an alignment across its lands, consideration of such an alternative would no longer be considered viable Of productive. \ How might South Mountain Park be affected? Any impact on South Mountain Park would be subject to restrictions in federal law, which essentially says that no parkland can be used unless it can be shown that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives. What !actors will be coL·sidercd in choosing an altemative? How long wiD this study take to complete? Many factors will be studied, including whether there is a need for a major transportation improvement in this area and the degree to which the original freeway concept or any alternatives would address that need. Other factors that will be considered include social, economic and environmental impacts, environmental regulations, relocating of existing homes and businesses, traffic projections, safety, constructability, cost and public concerns and preferences. Approximately three years. Ultimately, however, that will be detennined by issues and impacts that are discovered during the course of the study. When is something likely to be built? One of the factors that will be considered in this study is the amount of truck traffic that would be genernted and its potential impact on the surrounding community. It is conceivable that construction could begin as early as a year after conclusion of the study. The actual timing of construction is dependent on the availability of funding and the priority assignment to the corridor by local, regional and state officials once the EIS has been eotnpleted. WiD the public have a voice in choosing an altemative? Is fUnding available for a Inajor transportation improvement in this area? Yes. An extensive effort has been developed to keep the public informed of the progress of the study and to dicit public comment. Problems, concerns and preferences expressed by citizens will be factors in the ultimate decision whether to build or not to build a new facility, what should be built and where it should be located. Some money is cw:rendy available, but ADOT has not identified a source for the remainder of the funding that would be needed for a major transportation improvement. What about truck trallic that might be generated by a new highway? Why was the toO roadproposal dropped? The toll road proposal was dropped for several reasons, including public opposition to the toll road concept and questions concerning the financial feasibility of the proposal. South Mountain Corridor Study FIICIS, {lul!sdons and Answers (9/20AJJ) 3 South MountJlin Conidor Study Facts, Questions tmdAnswers (9110/01) 4 Appendix 1-1 Where would the corridor join I-10 to the west ofPhoenix? fll The corridor would likely join I-10 somewhere between 43rd Avenue and 107th Avenue. A major putpose of this study is to look at other potential locations. ADCJT Is it likely that construction ofa new road or freeway would require the acquisition ofexisting homes or businesses? It is highly unlikely that a major transportation improvement could be completed in this area without acquiring some existing homes and/ or businesses. One putpose of this study is to determine the extent of new right-of-way that would be needed for each possible alternative. December 15.2001 Isn ,t the real purpose ofa South Mountain Freeway simply to act as a bypass to divert trucks from downtown Phoenix? :Mr. Anthony Villareal, Chairman Gila River Indian Community District 6 P.O. Box 54 Lave~ Arizona 85339 The Phoenix Regional Freeway System was conceived to improve mobility in the region by increasing capacity and providing alternatives to allow traffic, including truck traffic, to bypass already congested routes. Dear Mr. Villareal. How will planned improvements to State Route 85 affect this project? h you suggested. I am submitting this letter as a. foonal request for you to allow our team to present an update on the South Mountain Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at the next District 6 Community Meeting. or at your earliest convenience. The effects of all planned improvements, including the upgrade of SR85, will be considered in the traffic analysis to be conducted as part of this study. The Arizona. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration have given us the task of conducting an EIS in an area of the south and southwest Valley to explore the purpose and need and alternatives for possible transportation improvements in the area. The details of this study are explained in greater detail in an attached newsletter that has been distributed to approximately 75,000 people in the study atea. This project is in no way associated with the past toll road study in the area, the 51 ot Avenue widening study conducted by Maricopa County. or the Truck Bypass Study conducted by Maricopa County. Our presentation and any questions that tnay follow should take no more than 30 minutes. How is an EIS different .from the EA. that was conducted in 1988? The 1988 EA was prepared in order to satisfy state requirements only. In order to make any resulting project eligible for federal funding, the new study will satisfy federal requirements and will have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, an EIS is required for this project due to the potential of substantial impacts on the environment and surrounding communities. An EIS is different from an EA in that it will address in detail a number of alternatives to satisfy the transportation needs in the corridor. Our team meets monthly with a Gila Rivet Indian Conununity (GRIC) Task Force assigned to monito.t this project led by Sandra Shade. Director of the GRIC Department of Transportation. For More Information on the South Mountain Corridor Study: Over the past several weeks our team has made presentations and answered questions at community meetings in Districts 4 and 7, the Elderly Concerns Group, the &rderland.s Task Force. and the I10/Pecos Road Landowners Association. Project Information Line: 602-712-7006 Also, as we discussed, I am requesting your assistance in selecting someone who does not hold elective office to represent District 6 on a citizen's advisory group that we are assembling to help guide our wOtk on this project. And as we discussed, I hope that you will be able to recommend a candidate to us within the next two weeks. I would wdcome an opportunity to talk with you in greater detail about the purpose of this group at your earliest convenience. Website: www.dot.state.az.us Email: SouthMountain@dot.state.az.us Address: HDR Engineering, Inc., 2141 E. Highland Avenue, Suite 250 Phoenix AZ 85016 ......... HDR Engineering, Inc. South Mountllln Corridor Study Facts, Quesdons and Answers (9120101) 5 2141 E. Highland Ave., Sle. 250 Phoenbe AZ. 850115 ~ • A61 A62 • Appendix 1-1 ,fA Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue /.\DOT Villareal Letter Page2 Dick Wright State Engineer Jane Dee Hull Governor If you have any questions about this please call me. Th.a.ok you very much for your time, Mr. Victor M. Mendez Director V.tllareal. Phoenix, Arizona 85007 April 26, 2002 Mr. David Folts Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 3 407 East Cedarwood Lane Phoenix, Arizona 85048 cc: Dear Mr. Folts: Sandra Shade Thank you for your letter dated March 25, 2002, concerning several air quality and health questions that the Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 (Families) would like addressed in the South Mountain Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Victor Mendez has asked me to respond on his behalf. Mary Viparina Ralph Ellis Steve Martin Jack Allen It is important to note that the Arizona Department of Transportation's (ADOT) South Mountain Corridor Study is in the early stages of development. ADOT and other stakeholders are evaluating the purpose and need to determine what transportation improvements within the study area are needed. Preliminary analyses indicate that a freeway option should be considered and alternative alignments are just now being developed. Further analyses and refinement of alternatives will be ongoing for another year or more. The twelve questions posed in your letter are very specific regarding data parameters such as, distance from the freeway, exposure time periods, and percentages of impacts to distinct groups, such as, "children" or the "average person". The project team will continue to research available literature and utilize any applicable studies related to freeway air quality that are geared to the highly specific parameters identified in your questions. We cannot, however, guarantee that ADOT will be able to provide definitive answers to your questions. --------------· ···-··-·- ··-·· "J!j 'flit' 2001 Award Recipient Appendix 1-1 ( C1 Mr. David Folts April 26, 2002 Page 2 Project Information: 602·71?£711~·" ' Website: www.dot.state.az.us /.\DDT Typically, pollutants in vehicle exhaust are lighter than air and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. This also tends to be true for air pollutants from other sources. For this reason, vehicle exhaust is typically viewed as a part of a larger regional air quality problem and health effects are evaluated on a regional basis. The air quality analysis performed for the EIS evaluates the potential contribution of pollutants a proposed freeway makes to the regional air quality. The exception is carbon monoxide which is also evaluated for local impacts and this analysis will be presented in the EIS. Information regarding the health effects related to regional air quality in Maricopa County may be obtained from the Maricopa Association of Governments at (602) 2546300, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality at (602) 207-2347 and the Maricopa County Department ofEnvironmental Health Services at (602) 506-6712. Sincerely, , '1VlacLj lfL{XlLLt/J!O Mary Viparina Senior Project Manager ADOT Valley Transportation MV/ta c. Victor Mendez William Vachon, FHWA Thor Anderson July 12, 2002 Chief Harold Hurtt City of Phoenix Police Department 620 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Dear Chief Hurtt: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Design Concept Report (DCR) for the previously proposed South Mountain leg of the Valley's Loop 202 freeway segment. A consulting team led by HDR Engineering, Inc. has been hired to conduct this study. As part of an extensive public involvement effort we are working with a Citizens Advisory Team (CAT) to help guide this effort. This CAT comprised of citizens from throughout the south and southwestern parts of the Valley as well as the Gila River Indian Community. Based on the recommendation of City of Phoenix planning staff I spoke with Assistant Chief Silverio Ontiveros earlier this week and asked him to join this group to help us in this endeavor as a representative of the Laveen Village Planning Committee. He has expressed his initial willingness to do so but asked that I also forward this request to you to help ensure that there would be no apparent conflicts. This group meets on the fourth Thursday of each month in the evening. Meetings are generally · held at Vee Quiva on the Gila River Indian Community near Laveen. Assistant Chief Ontiveros' participation and perspective would be extremely valuable, both as a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee and as a senior member of the Phoenix Police Department. If you have any questions about this request or Chief Ontiveros' role in this matter, please feel free to call me at 602.266.5556, Mary Viparina at ADOT at 602.712.7643, Thor Anderson at ADOT at 602.712.8637, or Bill Vachon at FHWA at 602.379.3646, extension 118. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2141 E. Highland Ave., Ste. 250 Phoenix AZ 85016 • A63 A64 ., • Appendix 1-1 ( .. South Mountain Citizen's Advisory Team Letter July 12, 2002 Page2 ''l Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue /.\DOT Dick Wright State Engineer Jane Dee Hull Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007 October 3, 2002 Governor Donald R. Antone, Sr. Lieutenant Governor Richard N arcia Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 Re: South Mountain Corridor Study Availability for Information Update - District 6 Dear Governor Antone and Lieutenant Governor Narcia: CC: Assistant Chief Silverio Ontiveras Mary Viparina Thor Anderson Bill Vachon Amy Edwards The South Mountain Corridor Study Team wants to keep you apprised of all Gila River Indian Community coordination and information sharing activities concerning this project. We have provided District 6 with a letter, copy enclosed, advising them of our availability to present information on status and activities of the South Mountain Study and we look forward to receiving their invitation. Sincerely, '~~CS~~~in~pcwW Project Manager Arizona Department of Transportation c: Mary Thomas Anthony Villareal Sandra Shade Project File Enclosure IJ ~zona •' 2001 Award Recipient Appendix 1-1 ,t;t Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 .400T ~DOT Dick Wright State Engineer Jane Dee Hull Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director February 5, 2003 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Debra R. Brisk Deputy Director Mayor Ron Drake City of Avondale 525 North Central Avenue Avondale, AZ 85323-1999 RE: South Mountain EIS and L/DCR Dear Mr. Drake: Information on the South Mountain Corridor Study Dear Mr. Pablo: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is progressing on the South Mountain Corridor Study. Coordination and information sharing with the Gila River Indian Community is a high priority for both the Federal Highway Administration and ADOT. If desired, we are prepared to provide an information update of study activities to the District 6 Council and others as you may wish to invite. Our study team can provide information on the project history, recent activities and developments, as well as the next steps in the environmental review process. We would be prepared to present to you at the October 21,2002 Council Meeting or at your convenience. Please let me know if the council would be interested in such a presentation. I can be reached at 602-712-7643. Sincerely, 206 South Seventeenth Avenue October 3, 2002 Mr. Albert Pablo Chairman, St. John's Community Council District 6 Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 54 Laveen, AZ 85339 Re: fli1 Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division Thank you for your letter of January 27, 2003, regarding the proposed alternatives to be studied for the South Mountain Environmental Impact Statement and Location/Design Concept Report. As you may be aware, we are completing the data gathering efforts for the corridor alternative development. Included in this effort was requesting suggested routes for the corridor from the public, the Citizens Advisory Team, potentially affected jurisdictions as well as from the technical team. This effort was undertaken per the National Environmental Policy Act and requires review of all reasonable and feasible alternatives. During the first few months of the project, we gathered suggested routes from the public. We compiled these routes and reviewed them, looking for similarities in intent as well as ability to meet the purpose and need of the project, which is improved regional mobility. Once we had reviewed the suggested routes, it was determined they represented eight corridor alternatives. We presented these corridor alternatives to the Citizens Advisory Team and the potentially affected jurisdictions during October and November of2002, including a meeting with staff members from the City of Avondale. During this series of meetings, a corridor alternative along lOih Avenue was suggested for review. The technical team considered this corridor alternative and determined to include it during this phase of the analysis. The project team is currently involved in gathering impact data for each of the corridors presented. Part of the impact data being considered includes compatibility with adopted general plans, impact on existing and proposed residential, industrial and commercial developments, and public/political acceptability. The basis for the public/political acceptability impact is the information shared by your staff during the jurisdictional meeting as well as the information presented by yourself in the referenced letter. Like the City of Avondale, other jurisdictions have expressed their concern related to certain corridor alternatives and all of this information, as well as other environmental and technical data, will be used during the corridor alternatives screening process. At the completion of this phase, the stakeholders, FHWA, and ADOT will determine which corridor alternatives will be carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIS. . ~lf¢i;~n~Lp (l))Jucu Project Manager Arizona Department of Transportation c: Mary Thomas Sandra Shade Anthony Villareal Project File - 2001 Award Recipient • A65 A66 • Appendix 1-1 2 Q~ ~ ..I.\ DC T ~(IDQJJffiUIDnill eonidor team Project Information: 602-712-7006 Website: www.dol.state.az.us Email: SouthMountain@dolstate.az.us May27, 2003 . Marcp 21, 2003 Arizona Sta DcpartmeDt ofTran:sportation A'lTN: :Mr. Bill Hayden, Special.Amstaut State ~s 01l1ob 206 S. 1'1* Avenue Ms. Jeanette Yannata Gila River Telecommunications Inc. Box 5015, 7065 W. Allison Drive Chandler, Arizona 85226 Room lOlA Phocmx, Arizo.aa ViaFacsimile: 520.796.7534 RE: 85007 South MolmtaiD. Tn.nsponation Corridor Altemativc Screening Report. VetSion and Comments 2.0/Mardl2~ Review Dear Ms. Yarmata: .DearMr.H~ As per our telephone conversation I am seeking information to be used as part of the South Mountain Corridor Environmental Impact Statement study. We need to identifY the specific locations and addresses for existing and currently planned Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Fire Department stations, Police Department stations, Public and Private/Parochial Schools, and Hospitals. The GRIC Executive Offices referred me to you as the person who could provide us with this information. Please call me ifyou have any questions about this issue, or if there is someone else that I should contact, or if there is anything else that I can do to expedite this request. Thank you very much for your help 2141 E. Highland Ave., Ste. 250 9 bsioJWiy speaking, I ackaowledgc tbc .aced for • but~ a1so Jagisti;ally placed. hol~WS'V'Cr., t1:xn altgnmr:nt that DOt cmly moves lXaf6c are sta,ific:ant cakuza1, fin;mciat a:ar.t saciai .issues aud :IXJ"«!dal ud;aDcel eJanears that, :lo my opiajoo. mal:e A]leaM'tives #tl mS 1#3 DOJl·~ within oar cily QOipo&G limits. A£ you wDl Rid.mtbiJ lcsUor, ~ 1#2 aDd f3 are.. IIIII will be. vebeJDeatbr oppoted. by TollcsoD.. ToJJeson stnmJlY Rm*'I'IGS dull 1bc South Mouatain l'nx:way be located at its ori,pa11y p'lam:IDd locatiou, Alt=m~ #1. The Tollcsan C!""""micy would ODCC apia be' ~>' prejadiced by tbD exteas"'Jl of b South ::Moum:ain Freeway from Loop 101 U:ma ~ G ot «3. M ,au ate ·~ ToJlcaon is • san Ql!IAI@Dity ~ of six squap: ral1a. WtO mlk:s of which are carrent1y bisectm by 1-10. TbB GitbJrJDI of Tolleson are pre~ >mtra:ty H"~ eamiDg Jess m.n the awrap median iDcomD. Obvioasly, giw:a lbc ebD:;ats of our City aDd b citizcs. you can aec our asoliic:es ate· li1lzbd. The City' a ablJity to effecdvely protese the proposed alignments or of its citizens ta !ght t.bc ming of aDO~ freeway m their bac:kyards is also iimitccl Clearly., TollosoD ml its p:oud population bave beeD tbe victims of prcvio1ls hf&hway CODSilaedon. ToJJesoa.•& cidzeDS were the 1ut group to get a IOua4 wall aud the mbc prod;uc:iDg· eicvm:d ~of I-10 11114 Loop 101 JD Tollt.son are receDE examplca of this b1ataat ase of the~ Wbllo rc:nne on tbc couocil aR claiming rhe shing of tbe South Mounrahl Freewny In Tolleson cc: Amy Edwards, HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. OA bchaltofb Tolleson .Ma,ar a Couucil11t0Wd like to tbaDk you and rhc South . l&nmrain Tran!p)ltation Coiricbr Tem~. for t:IJdD&·tbe timD to visit Tolleson OSl MatW. 19 20Q310r the purpose of a1lowiag Tolk:loA an oppottuaiiy ra mmment em tbc . proposed aJn:matiw:s for the South Mountain !'leeway. PhoeniX AZ 85016 Appendix 1-1 _~ -· t. T.bc proxinmy of .Akemadw:s 412 aod f3 to tbc resitle!!Ti•l area. ta:Jmecliatttly east of the proposed alignnems would ~ ~ existing uoise pollumn lavcls stemmin& from me stack at 99* Aveoac mad I-10. Virtually, all of chc residential c:onmmi1y 'betwcell 91 111 IDd ~ A vezme DOnh 1md south of Vm Bllran will bo efFectrd by the p:oposed aligul"f''C'DU The fJ14' Avea= aJipment would abo bave a dcotdmaotal effect OD the DCigbboriD; Tolleson VuioD High SdDol Altemati'Ye Campus. whic;h Jks within a few feet cast of the proposed aljgnnw:;at Ftlrtherrooie. lDcreased traffic wm ~y impec:t air quality wkhin the .:ljacent ~ ueighbo:tblod. Jl\XQXII'OUS ~ msm.ses would require IUOUting due ro tht: proposed alignrnt!!Jt akma grj6 A~ ad obv»ualy some of the same tnJc'k traffic wiD cve.m:ually end up on ToJJesoa•s maiD stn:ct. iD search of the path of~ rcsistmr::c- tbc fewer left tmnS. The stady peparul by the c:ongujuee coi:Dp.ldcly jpotes ~ .tloodplain c:arucd by tbc raiJmal tracts IIXl the CODJ01IDidiJ:ts of the floodplaiD•s problc=ms caaaed by the Altcmad'YeS. The existmg floodpJ.a!n located·wilbin tho City aud designwd as Catepy A FloodplBin will teqUire major m:uti6catioD& ~ of cit:ber .Ahc;a:wiw #2 or t3 witbout -. DaCUr:a1 flow will iucz:casc the gcosrapbi=l. size of tbe floocl plain.. It ~ Hes south of Je:ffox30n Street, aDd auy major bmicr .ut affect the plain, possibly as fat I30rtb u VJSD 1\'arezl. Aitcmmw:s lf1. aDd #3 n:pn:aem ToJlcroD.•s biggest tbRat m fiaam:ia1 nain. Both atigunsms ~ ~ CCODOmlc fmpcts that will .last m asmity. FJiminaticm of jobs, ofp.rimaiy popcny tax JeYCm~CS aor1 &ecoadl1'1 tu~ that fmad city and s:bools capiEal bcmd. JXOjcds. n:dw:don of cuneut sales tax reveuucs as well u projcc;ted Gczx:ral PJan xetail sc:rvice dtM:Jopmeats. and most impoot taatly. Joss of davelopmcnt aad buiJdiDg pcawia:iDg Aes geuaab:d as a result of consttw:don baYC lmge badJct implicatkms F.nml • servk:e deJi\U)' pcnpective., the City of TollcsoJJ wouJr:l haw to reduce dMS Geoera1 Fund opc:zau:hc bGdget in order tom= tbe cuma!ative loa ~ by the cousrruc:don of tbe South MolUOID ~ throagh the heat of Tolksm's coJDIDClcial ad iDdastria1 dew1;pD:at coaidot. PrliDe c:o11411L0ZCial aud tzriascdallaad aDd accompanyiag bprovromeur.s would bo affected by the South Moamaia :F.R=cway. The adwac 1Dilltipljcf implact is u:atDovtn lloweYer; h would·touc:h em all of tbe elaDcuta meDfiannd above. »ss . would perpetuate the institutional racism Tolleson and its citizens have suffered fn the put. this letter is . WTit.Um vrirh tlle request that the sitini not be the result of what rome offers the least resistance. If tbe Loop lOl/South MO'Q:Dtain Freeway emzm. ~'ath into To.l1esan four of Tolleson's six square mila would be adversely impacted by freeways. EcoDomically valuablo p!opcrty wq tbc City' & maiD iDdusu:lal and m:ail cor.ridor (99* A venue) would be COJrJPl=!Y de$uoyed or sevcaly ctimfn;sbed Afler tbe Soarh MountaiD meway ~siou. JmJ on tbe east Ale of99'* A"VeDUC (ToUeson property) would be totally tabn or ou1y shallow deve'JapmD:at parcels would temaiD.. Tteflie em 99* Awrmo fn Tollesou, oace a clynamic roadway. would be m awkwenl IOadwa.y uo kmgcr ICfVi1lg businesseS on· both fioDtages. ·f'com a GcD:tal Plan aD:l LaDd U.se pczspccQYC IDd folbwing a lfmDir pazrern with the c::oustftl(:tion ofl-10 IDd Loop 101. both Altemativcs 12 ad tl3 tc:qllR a takiDg of 1ar:gc piE'(C1s of uodevU>ped land m Tollesoa. Based em a paiQQ<iCC of incorporated a1uarc miles ToJJeson bas provided 1M most ptcpetty for &eeways dariug dJe past 15 ~ When tb6 101 YIIS c:osmcc:tedto 1·10 1iam lM DOrt;b. prime COJl2IDerda1 and Dldustdal property along McDowell was tak= fw retaltion and deteudon of waras flowiDg south !rom Glendak: aud Pbo=ix. Additi.oual fnseway takiDp wW ouly add to the altcady lllgh rarlo of freewa.y dedicated land versus that developed or tl) be developed. Both .Altemadves drasdr:ally impact tbc ability of Tolleson 1D serve water t.o iU RSidential and COipOrat& citizus. Two wells serve all of Tolloson's water needs. Altcmativcs #2 and '13 wipe out Tolleson's ODly two wau:rproduction w~ We hope you are awaR that ~ is a massive pollution plmne comprised primarily of TCB cUrectly east of Tolleson G3d o~ tbe teeem past hu contitwcd its wesavll'd flow to Tolleeou. '1bs plamc's wcst1:m edge Jl .c To~'s east bordtr.. Tho City ba II= dowu its eastem most wells ad hiS had to ldocate its two woJJa in watem ToDoson. Tliese weDs &~~: now Ill rhe parh of~ 12 -ad .:3. ·Totlcton bu .ao land in its bo~s ear of!J9111 Awmre ad smth of Van Burc:u., ill ~batt if 101 is e.xteiJded mUib fD Tollc$on, Tollcson would lese its wfdls and would have to move :its wen. back east, back towards the polN.don plamD. In adc:lldon to tb: wells aDCl .:ljoimq ltDrqe fiu:ilitics, each well has water ~ fac:Uities that provido the z=casary p:arificat:icm. to tbe water. ToDctcm epeat milHoDI of donars on the facilities. The electro dialysis ~Vc::nal (ED~ systems lll'e ~for tbc trcat'aleDt IDII pmific::a~im of wa.t.er, iDcJadiDg Wl!el' used by Pepsk:o lbr their procbx:dDn ofGarmade Tbe podw:tinL weDI, boosccr paqJS, eJeccrbl pmels, stm!-by oaanl ps c:ldw:A dielel eagiae, metel'bl& ad pro r!t111:km equipu ot aud 'htfldillg as well as tbe twelve mch (12") mtJor tran'D'klioa ...,_. lilies JadiDI to IDd 6om the podactioll weDs would pabaps requhe retocadon aodfor abendnmrwmt. A permBI1CD1 or tt:oilflOl1IIY c:urtaUmcut wau:r produiCdon ~. a severe .,ater *rtaJe In the cily, fbr rJz average daily usc is ~:ilinately .3.0 million gallocs of water. An.y redlJ.;tion in. water production would bring about a crisis 1br 'both COfJ1meltda1 (Gatorade aDd milk fadlities at Pry'$) and residential users u wen u severely inhiD.iting fire supptasion c:apabfUtics. or 4 •m • A67 A68 • Appendix 1-1 ADO! will be required to pay for the complete repW:ement of these impoxtant water utility f'acilidcs. Mr. Ha)dm1. it Is quite c:vidc::nt that tbe Cily ofTollescm is w:rJ distwbe4 .t tbc aoQou. of haviDg Altltmadws #2, 13 ar f.9 COIIStiUCted .in Tolleson. As I l'"'"tloued ~usly. I A~vea #fl. ed #13 would have a tignific:m& impact Olllocal alldn:gionBI zwa lines. Four major sewer tines sc:rviD8 the Tolleson aDd tbc Pboc:Dix Sewage Treazmem f'ac::Diti.es 1111 rest in tbe path of both a1tematives. Cum:mly, a 66" JSeWer main runs in 99 A'Vemlc. Tb1s major trunk liDc senes the Jl02th:i:a ~ paxtieslcities and would Tcquire relocation and m¥x" moditinttinns at ~· Avemle aDd McDowe.ltload as weD as major ~u of ths d.iversiou srructure facilky at 99• A'VI:1DlA cd Van BIIN12. A:Ay aistma or 1Uture businesses fioutiua ~ A vem.e would be distupred duo to tbe iDa.bJHty ro pro'Yidc sewa: scrvia::e.. loss or operadons would result in reduaion of ~ve basmess operatiug profits m! loss of city sales tax. StJO.D&.Iy agree tblt we need a tqim'll allgnnJcnt fOr the South Mo\lDtlill F.reeway. ODe tba lJX)YeS · b'3ffic and is not as dcYBStadng to a city's cultare or ecoDOJDY sudl u tba: Alternatives discussed above.. The sewer &.c.- f:lr, 48" aDd 42"~ 11m east au.enix and Tolle$0u. Any below grade iiaway would obviously desttoy me regioaal ttaDsmission grid. Ally stoppag~ in sewer flows wouid ~ a ~.a. in efflueDt biriDg discharged by Tolleson, pursunt co a contraCt, into a 53" Uoe coDDeCted to tbe Palo Verde Nuclear ~ PlaDI wbcrc the war.cr is used10 coolnuckar geDenl:iDg system turbines. Failure 1D m::ct COlllnlr.:CUa1 obJiptlom between ArizoDa Pablic Service win 1mst defiuirely taUlt in lidgukJD epiDit lbe City ofTone.on. . • A&lin. tbanlc you iOr yovr visits sud your inrt:test in our community. .Please feel free call m&:: if you have ey questions regarding tbis lcuet. 10 S~y. Ralph Velez City Mana&e: . CC! Amy S. Edward$, JIDR TnospoitatioA :en,inecr Bill Vacbou, PBWA, Sc:ldOr Area Fugineer Floyd Rocbril:h.Ir., ADOI', SeDior Project Manlgcr W'Dh rmpect to llteriaJ stteets ad pmpom httea-=tion impm~ Akcrnati:ves #2 . · 8Dd 113 will aeare majar modifbdoDS to the existiaa iatasec:ticm at 99• A_. ad Vill,!ll Bara~. ..S c~ lad 1o Wlla' aac1 .eewc:r Jines cU.tplecaDem IJJd/or reJoc:adon. '1m ~ •lipmmr would require a bllf ot faD dianJ)ud )Dtacbaup 10mrowhere bet•eeu fJll- ad W'- AftllUC:I. 'l'hDie impro•tm:ua would iDc:rasc aaftia ill .tiJe ii'I1J'IWilam ~ auf vltimwtdy lune 111 adv.:sc .traffic impact Oil TollcsoD's Ddor strec:cs. Vlll Bulat sad fJ9"' Aveaze.. Local traffic C01dcl :ao Jcm..ou ~ kM:al streets for through cratfic. Obvi?usly, tbo iacr r = in tnftic wm affect tJ. service Je"Wel af Van .Buren Street, Tollaaoa' adawnttrwl\ main screet.. EuvhonmentaUy, tbe proposed.~ #11. aDd t#3 fail to 1CCXJiDh:e both die pollution plume nfettecl to eartit:r md the bazazdaas site .t app:oximatcly ~ Ansme and Bar!Uon Street. ~ site, t'lmJlina from rn• Avenue westerly to approximar.ely 150 feet east of ~ Aw:mlC. has be= ablmdoae4 tor ,ears, 8Dd at last ~ the lice is boiDg remediab!d to the air by.~ device. 3 5 Appendix 1-1 'ilt Arizona Department of Transportation .4DCJT lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Debra Brisk Deputy Director Ms. Elaine Blackwater Gila River Indian Community August 27, 2003 Page 2 At this time, the study team will not be performing any field surveys for data. However, as the study continues, it will be necessary to make field surveys for specific data. At that time, your office will be notified of our schedule for performing these functions. VIctor M. Mendez Director August 27, 2003 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 602-712-7643. Sincerely, Ms. Elaine Blackwater Land Use Ordinance Officer Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 8524 7 ~f/vdJf Floyd P. Roehrich, Jr., PE Senior Project Manager Valley Project Management Group 205 S. 17th Ave. , MD 614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 RE: South Mountain Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Blackwater: Over the past two years, the Arizona Department of Transportation along with the Federal Highway Administration have been studying the South Mountain Freeway Corridor. As part of this study, we have met regularly with technical staff from the Gila River Indian Community, including representatives from your office, and have met periodically with the Executive Office. As such, in accordance with Governor Narcia's letter of April 11, 2003 (see attached), the study team is developing potential alignments within the Community in the established study area (see attached). Part of the effort required for developing potential alignments is acquiring data regarding existing social and environmental conditions. At this time, the study team is performing literature and database reviews of any known information pertinent for an environmental study. To facilitate this effort, representatives of the study team will be in contact with your office to work with you in determining what information is necessary at this point of the study and how we can acquire it. The study team will be contacting representatives of the Department ofTransportation, Department of Economic Development, Department of Land Use Planning and Zoning, Cultural Resource Management Program, the Community Manager and the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project. • 2001 llilald Recipient cc: Bill Vachon, FHWA Amy Edwards, HDR Attachments Governor Narcia' s Letter- April 11, 2003 South Mountain Study Area within GRIC • A69 A70 • Appendix 1-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Urban Giff, Gila River Indian Community, Community Manager Ms. Pat Mariella, Gila River Indian Community, Department of environmental Quality Mr. John Ravesloot, Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program Appendix 1-1 Robert E. Hollis April 11, 2003 Page 2 At this time, we feel that you have a corridor to study alignments. Any alignments for consideration must be ultimately approved by our Community Council. Richard P. N arcia Governor cc: Mary V. Thomas, Lt. Governor Community Council , GRIC Victor Mendez, Director, ADOT attachments: Correspondence dated January 10,2002 to ADOT Director Correspondence dated April 25, 2002 to FHWA Division Administrator N br.lnB.rt3 A~ 2 e ; Pro, tclto'$..tt~~''t11t"C Pe!~C_PGftni.OI!01r'Uill 4 Miles • A71 A72 I • Appendix 1-1 tfA Arizona Department of Transportation 4DCT lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Debra Brisk Deputy Director Victor M. Mendez Director Ms. Sandra Shade Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation August 27, 2003 Page2 At this time, the study team will not be performing any field surveys for data. However, as the study continues, it will be necessary to make field surveys for specific data. At that time, your office will be notified of our schedule for performing these functions. August 27, 2003 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 602-712-7643. Sincerely, Ms. Sandra Shade, Director Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation 315 W. Casa Blanca Rd., P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 F~i~! Senior Project Manager Valley Project Management Group 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 RE: South Mountain Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Shade: Over the past two years, the Arizona Department of Transportation along with the Federal Highway Administration have been studying the South Mountain Freeway Corridor. As part ofthis study, we have met regularly with technical staff from the Gila River Indian Community, including representatives from your office, and have met periodically with the Executive Office. As such, in accordance with Governor Narcia's letter of April 11, 2003 (see attached), the study team is developing potential alignments within the Community in the established study area (see attached). Part of the effort required for developing potential alignments is acquiring data regarding existing social and environmental conditions. At this time, the study team is performing literature and database reviews of any known information pertinent for an environmental study. To facilitate this effort, representatives of the study team will be in contact with your office to work with you in determining what information is necessary at this point of the study and how we can acquire it. The study team will be contacting representatives of the Department of Transportation, Department of Economic Development, Department ofLand Use Planning and Zoning, Cultural Resource Management Program, the Community Manager and the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project. • 2001 Award Recipient cc: Bill Vachon, FHWA Amy Edwards, HDR Attachments Governor Narcia's Letter- April 11, 2003 South Mountain Study Area within GRIC Appendix 1-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Lee Thompson, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Dean Weatherly, Director of Economic Development, Gila River Indian Community • A73 A74 • Appendix 1-1 ~ Arizona Cepartment of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue /.\DOT Janet Napolitano Governor March 24, 2004 Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Bill Higgins State Engineer Mr . Mark Schlappi Maricopa Association of Governments 302 North 1st Avenue , Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study Subject: South Mountain Corridor L/DCR & EIS MAG Model Traffic Forecast Request Dear Mr. Schlappi: N A The ADOT South Mountain Freeway corridor study team has identified 3 preliminary alignments that will be evaluated further to determine the preferred roadway alignment alternative. Four scenarios using these alignments will be evaluated using as base the 2025 RTP network and the newly adopted 2025 MAG socioeconomic data. The networks will be coded by Lima & Associates to include the alternative networks and will be provided to MAG in EMME2 format via e-mail or CD. Forecasted traffic volumes for the 24-hour and am and pm peak hour conditions will include the following alternatives: Aon•l Pho1 ograpll~ Dolo: Fal 2001 DRAFT&OO • • • • Alt. Tl South ·Mountain alignment along 59th Avenue as per the RTP with the I-10 Reliever Alt. T1A South Mountain alignment along 59th Avenue as per the RTP without the 1-10 Reliever Alt. T6 South Mountain alignment with 1-10 Western termini between 75m and 83rd A venue with the I-10 Reliever Alt T2A South Mountain alignment with 1-10 Western termini at Loop 101 and the 1-10 Reliever We would like to request that all EMME/2 files be provided to us in shape file format or EMME2 text file format , and be sent via e-mail, if possible, to Ms Patrizia Gonella-Ramos at pramos@Iimainc.com. If you need further clarifications, please contact Ms Gonella-Ramos at 602.331.0600. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. I •~e.~.-.@~~~~~~~!!~;~~rr~ .·.:.- . fir < s ' 2001 Award Recipient Appendix 1-1 Sincerely, ~ wr-~~ Floyd Roehrich, Jr., PE Senior Project Manager Valley Project Management Group 205 S. 17th Ave., MD614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division ~DOT Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3713 Debra R. Brisk Deputy Director March 29, 2004 cc : Amy Edwards, HDR Patrizia Gonella-Ramos, Lima & Associates Sandra Shade, Director Department of Transportation Gila River Indian Community 315 West Casa Blanca Road Sacaton, AZ 85247 Dear Ms. Shade: Enclosed for your review and distribution are 125 copies of the South Mountain Freeway Study videos with attachments. Preparation of the video was in response to District 4's Community Council's request to provide an informational video for those Community members who had not previously been involved in or aware of ADOT's Environmental Study. The video provides a brief overview of the study and a status update regarding freeway alternative alignments currently being evaluated. Response cards are provided for Community members who view the video, as we are very interested in their comments and suggestions. As discussed, a thirty-day period will be provided for Community members to review the video. · We will of course provide you with all input received from their review. As requested the South Mountain Corridor Study Team will present the video and provide a status update of the Study to the Tribal Administration and the Tribal Council prior to scheduling meetings in Districts 4, 6 and 7. We are most appreciative of your and your staff's support and involvement in the preparation of this important activity and look forward to meeting with the involved Districts' residents and landowners to discuss all issues associated with the Study. Please contact me if you have questions regarding the video or its distribution. The Study team will be coordinating future presentations to the Administration and Tribal Council with you as soon as feasible . • . F 2001 !\ward Recipent • • 2001 !\ward Recipent • A75 A76 • Appendix 1-1 fll /.\DOT Sincerely, Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor B;%L~ Victor M. Mendez Director William "Bill" Hayden Special Assist. Regional Freeway System Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3713 June 30, 2004 Debra R. Brisk Deputy Director Ms. Sandra Shade Director of the Department of Transportation Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton. AZ 85247 Enclosures: Cc: Ken Davis, FHWA Bill Vachon, FHWA Dave Anderson, HDR Amy Edwards, HDR John Godac, Godac & Assoc. Thressa Gunn, Godac & Assoc. Dan Lance, ADOT Steve Jimenez, ADOT Floyd Roehrich, ADOT RE: South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Draft Public Involvement Plan for Gila River Indian Community As we continue moving forward with the South Mountain Freeway EIS & L!DCR project, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your staff in determining the best approach for providing information and gathering input with Gila River Indian Community members. With the distribution of the project video within GRIC, it is now time to consider the details of the next phase ofpublic involvement. As such, we are providing a brief history of where we have been and draft plan of how to proceed for your review. If possible, we would like to meet with you and your representatives to discuss these issues prior to our next Coordination Team meeting scheduled for July 9, 2004. History From 2001 through mid-2003, public meetings were held on a regular basis with GRIC districts and key organizations. Members of GRIC districts and other GRIC stakeholders have participated continually in the South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team (SMCAT). Project newsletters have been distributed in the Community and reprinted in the Gila River Indian Community Newspaper (GRIN). In June of2003 a meeting was held with key GRIC officials from Districts 4, 6 and 7 as well as other tribal stakeholders. At that meeting GRIC council members requested that ADOT, FHWA and consulting team members not meet with GRIC citizens until a video compilation of the project could be produced and distributed within the Community. Few meetings were held with GRIC members other than tribal leaders. officials and SMCAT members during the nearly year-long video production. Plan A proactive, transparent and on-going public involvement program must be reinitiated with GRIC members as soon as GRIC tribal officials agree ADOT, FHWA and the consulting team members should meet with residents in their CommunitY.. This project must be presented to Community residents so it is completely understood. ,. 2001 Award Recipent • ;2001 Award ReciJ;ient Appendix 1-1 Implementation Options Keeping the intent of the plan in mind, we suggest the following actions be taken during the timeframes indicated: • It is recommended that a newsletter update be written and produced to explain the historv of the project, activity to date, promote the availability of the video, and invite members to me~tings to share their comments and concerns about the project.. We recommend that the newsletter be written with the cooperation of tribal officials and made available to Community members at distribution points on the Community. Where appropriate, we will also work with tribal officials and the GRIN to enable copy from the newsletter to be used and published in newsstories off the Community. We recommend that this action commence immediately. • We will design and produce an informational poster to be used and displayed in the districts in the Community to encourage members to learn more about the project and give us their feedback. We recommend that this action commence immediately. • We will also work with each GRIC district to meet with residents as often as possible to answer questions about the project and present updates on the progress ofthe study. We suggest meeting with District 4, 6 and 7 residents monthly. We recommend beginning this coordination effort immediately with the intent to be included in district meeting schedules during the month of August. We intend to promote each district meeting \Vith displays on District signboards. Cc: Doug Torres, GRIC Gary Bohnee, GRIC Bill Vachon, FHWA Amy Edwards, HDR Dan Lance, ADOT Shannon Wilhelmsen, ADOT William Hayden, ADOT Additional steps could be taken to support communication efforts with Community member. We look to you for your guidance on the potential need to implement the following actions: • We will work to find a GRIC member to work with the consulting team on a part time or interim basis to help guide the public information/involvement effort, and to host meetings and presentations. • We will work to the goal of co-hosting a joint District 4, 6 and 7 public meeting to get feedback from GRIC residents on the study process, impacts and hopefully, a preferred alignment. Any suggestions you have regarding the plan as presented or possible improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your on-going assistance on this project. We look forward to meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss the details of this plan. Please contact me at 602-712-7643 at your earliest convenience to coordinate a meeting time. Sincerely, Wf/UJ)- Floyd Roehrich, Jr., P.E. Senior Project Manager ADOT Valley Project Management Group 205 S. 17 111 Ave., MD614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 • . r 2001 Award Redper.t • A77 A78 • Appendix 1-1 . I .. Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007~3713 /.\COT Janet Napolitano Debra R. Brisk Deputy Director Governor B. Elaine Blackwater July 16, 2004 Page2 July 16, 2004 Victor M. Mendez Director Our staff will advise you prior to their research activities. Please contact me directly at (602) 712-7524 if you require additional information to approve our Right of Entry request. Thank you for your assistance. Ms. B. Elaine Blackwater Land Use Planning and Zoning Director Gila River Indian Community P.O.BoxE Sacaton, AZ 85247 RE: Sincerely, South Mountain Freeway DCRJEIS Study ROE Permit Request William "Bill" Hayden Special Assistant to the Regional Freeway System Dear Ms. Blackwater: The referenced study, being conducted by HDR Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), was initiated July 9, 2001. Our study will evaluate transportation improvement alternatives, including construction of a new freeway, around South Mountain between the southeast valley and the northwest valley. Refer to attached Regional Freeway System map. The study will require entry onto GRIC lands during the study duration of three years from August 2004 through August 2007 for a variety of information collection project tasks.- We are requesting a blanket Right of Entry permit for the project team to enter GRIC lands for the project duration to include the following general types of work: 1. To perfonn land surveying and temporary aerial target construction. 2. To conduct field investigations for a variety of non-disturbing environmental surveys including drainage, biological, cultural, land use, socio-economic, transportation, geological, visual, noise, air quality, utilities and other environmental considerations. · Attachments C: Lt. Governor Mary Thomas Sandra Shade Doug Torrez John Roberts Floyd Roehrich Amy Edwards File Attached is a map showing the general GRIC geographic limits to be included in the study. Also attached is a list of personnel and a list vehicles makes, models, and license plate numbers that may enter GRIC lands periodically during the study phase of the project. • 2001 Award Reci!)ent • 2001 Award Reci!)enl Appendix 1-1 ~ • Potential for job loss at the local and regional level. • Impacts of the alterna~ives to overall economic activity at the local and regional level. 2. Determine and evaluate road user benefits associated with each alternative. These will be in terms of time savings, travel cost savings and safety. The project team will develop this information utilizing the MAG travel model. 3. Develop and evaluate land use changes that could occur as a result of each alternative and identify positive and negative changes in property value and in distribution of growth. The project team will utilize the MAG land use model as a starting point, then a sp;cial allocation model to capture impacts on local communities in terms of land values, employment and other factors. This analysis would only be developed for comparison purposes between alternative locations with and without the freeway and the No Build alternative. The project team will develop the necessary data with input from your staff. Consensus will be reached prior to data collection on the appropriate allocation software to be used in the analysis. 4. The results of the previous steps would be utilized to develop appropriate mitigation measures that could reduce or reverse negative impacts. Consensus will be reached among all jurisdictions regarding the proposed mitigation measures and their anticipated affect. Arizona Cepartment of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division ADOT 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director 4 August 2004 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Debra Brisk Deputy Director Mr. Eric Anderson Maricopa Association of Governments 302 N. 1st A venue, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85003 RE: ADOT' s South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Economic Impacts Analysis Dear Mr. Anderson: The Arizona Department of Transportation's South Mountain Freeway Environmental Impact Statement and Location/Design Concept Report project is entering the detailed impacts analysis phase. Over the past three years, the project team has acquired preliminary data regarding a variety of potential impacts, including economic impacts. As the team moves forward in the analysis of all impacts, we \vould like to work with each of the affected jurisdictions on the approach that will be used. At this time, the project team is proposing the following multi-step approach to the economic impacts development and analysis. Each step within this process requires close coordination with each of the potentially affected jurisdictions. As such, we would be looking to you and your staff to assist where you feel it is appropriate. The efforts detailed below would be initiated with a coordination meeting including all potentially affected jurisdictions. The intent of this meeting would be to agree upon the process to be followed, the modeling software to be used, the input and output data required and the source of the data. It is anticipated that each jurisdiction would assist to the extent possible in gathering and developing the necessary input data. However, this would be discussed and agreed upon in the initial coordination meeting. The proposed steps in the process and the anticipated jurisdictional staff involvement are detailed in the following: 1. Determine and evaluate direct and indirect impacts of residential, commercial and industrial displacements (existing and planned). Determine which properties are displaced and direct impacts in net loss of property value, wages and tax revenue. Secondary and induced impacts will be evaluated by use of a pre-approved. vvidely accepted input output economic model. The project team will work closely with your staff in identifying existing and planned direct and indirect impacts, property value impacts, wage impacts and tax revenu~ impacts. Impacts evaluation will look at: • Impacts of the alternatives to specific industrial sectors at the local and regional levels (including but not limited to trucking, auto dealerships and light industry). • Potential for loss of tax revenue at the local and regional level. Throughout the implementation of this economic impacts analysis, the project team will not only coordinate with the potentially affected jurisdictions, but also \vith key stakeholders in the public. We would be looking to your staff to assist in determining who these stakeholders should be \Yithin your jurisdiction. As we move forward with the implementation of this analysis process, we will be contacting you or your designated representative to set up the initial coordination meeting. We anticipate this meeting to occur within the month of August. If you have any questions regarding the process as presented or would like to suggest additional contact and coordination people, please do not hesitate to contact either myself at 602-712-7643 or Amy Edwards ofHDR at 602-522-7755. Sincerely, F!(!ZC.,f:L!/ Senior Project Manager ADOT - Valley Project Management Group 205 S. 1i 11 Ave., MD614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 cc: Dan Lance, ADOT Shannon Wilhelmsen, ADOT Bill Vachon. FHW A Amy Edwards, HDR • A79 A80 • Appendix 1-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Bob Woodring, Maricopa Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Fairman, CED, Economic Development Director, City of Avondale Mr. Robert, Franco, Acting Community and Economic Development Director, City of Phoenix Mr. Ralph Velez, City of Tolleson Appendix 1-1 Please let me know how best to accommodate the interests of Glendale in our on-going study process. If you have any questions or \vould like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 602712-7643 or Amy Edwards ofHDR at 602-522-7755. Sincerely, !::iLh~J Senior Project Manager ADOT- Valley Project Management 205 S. 171h Ave., MD 614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 cc: Amy Edwards, HDR, Inc. ,fA Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue /.\DOT Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Debra Brisk Deputy Director Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director October 21, 2004 Ms. Cecilia Martinez Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services Bureau of Indian Affairs Pima Agency P.O.Box8· Sacaton, Arizona 85247 RE: South Mountain Freeway Environmen~al Impact Statement & Location/Design Concept Study Dear Ms. Martinez: The referenced study, being conducted by HDR Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and in cooperation with Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), was initiated July 9, 2001. This study will evaluate potential transportation imprOvements, including a potential new freeway, around South Mountain between the southeast valley and the northwest valley. The study will require entry onto . allottee lands within GRIC for a variety non-destructive project tasks. We are requesting authorization from your agency to begin coordination with the landowners and to access the land for the following specific project tasks. L 2. To perform iand surveying and temporary aerial target construction. To conduct field investigations for a variety of non-disturbing environmental surveys including drainage~ biological, cultural, land use, socio-economic, transportation, geological, visual, noise, air quality, utilities: and other environmental considerations. Attached is a map showing the general GRIC limits expected to be included in the. study. Also attached is a list of personnel, and a list of vehicle makes, models, and license plates that may enter GRIC lands during the project. • 2001 Award Recipient • A81 A82 • Appendix 1-1 Ms. Cecilia Martinez Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services Bureauoflndian Affairs Page2. . 10/2112004 tTA Arizona Department of Transportation 4DDT lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor It is our intent to continue to coordinate with your agency regarding all matters of the study. Please advise if there is anything else you need for approval of this request. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~of.~ Shannon L. Wilhelmsen Director of Communication and Community Partnerships . Arizona Department of Transportation Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Debra Brisk Deputy Director Victor M. Mendez Director November 29, 2004 Mr. DanielL. Brown Assistant City Attorney City of Phoenix 200 West Washington Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, AZ 85002-1611 RE: South Mountain Freeway Environmental Impact Statement & Location/Design Concept Study ADOT Tracs No. H 5764 OIL Attachments: . Map Personnel List Dear Mr. Brown: cc: As a follow up to the recent South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Status Meeting held on November 4, 2004, I have enclosed the additional information you requested regarding the project. Enclosed, you will find the following information: Lt. Governor Thomas Sandra Shade, GRIC DOT Bm ·vachon, FHw A Amy Edwards, HDR Project File · • • • • General EIS Topics, Responsible Author and Firm Federal Register Notice of Intent Public Scoping Report- Includes comments acquired during initial scoping effort Alternatives Screening Report- Includes basis of analysis in screening initial 9 corridors to 3 corridors for further study Thank you for your interest in this study. I look forward to working with you and other City of Phoenix staff as the study continues. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (602) 712-7356. Sincerely, g~~.w~ Shannon L. Wilhelmsen Director of Communication and Community Partnerships CC: Steve Jimenez, ADOT Bill Vachon, FHWA Amy Edwards, HDR Project File • 2001 Award Recipient Appendix 1-1 ·. ttl Arizona Department of Transportation Office of the Director 206 South Seventeenth Avenue /.\DOT Janet Napolitano Governor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 If you honor this request, you may send the information in the form you deem most convenient (i.e., hard copy, electronic- spreadsheet, GIS, etc.), to the following address: Shannon L. Wilhelmsen 206 S. 17th Avenue Mail Drop 118A Phoenix, AZ 85007 SWilhelmsen@dot.state.az.us Debra Brisk Deputy Director Victor M. Mendez (Jirector December 3, 2004 I look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff as this project moves forward. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or the study in general, please do not hesitate to contact me at (602) 712-7356. Ms. Cecilia Martinez Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services Bureau of Indian Affairs Pima Agency P.O. Box 8 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 RE: Sincerely, South Mountain Freeway Environmental Impact Statement & Location/Design Concept Study ADOT Tracs No. H 5764 OlL Shannon L. Wilhelmsen, Director Communication and Community Partnerships CC: Dear Ms. Martinez: As you are aware, part of the on-going public involvement efforts by the Arizona Department of Transportation and HDR, Inc. (engineering consultant to ADOT), on the South Mountain Freeway project, is an on-going dialogue with Community members. Throughout the life of the project, we have periodically met with Community members through District update meetings and occasional landowner meetings. As we move forward on the project we would like to reach out to more of the landowners within this area of the Community. This letter is to request your assistance, as the repository of landowner records, in providing the name and addresses of the parcel owners within the freeway study's affected area. This information will be used to notify landowners of upcoming meetings and to invite their input into the study process. Enclosed, we are providing the realty group of the Pima Agency with a map developed by HDR that delineates parcels within the Community that we believe may be affected by this study. If you would like, we will use our resources to send the landowner notices. We are very aware of the sensitivity of this information and the high level of confidentiality that must be maintained upon receipt of this documentation. Therefore, any records we receive will only be used to generate a mailing list for its intended purpose of notifying landowners of upcoming meetings and inviting their input into the study process . • 2001 Award Recipient Governor Narcia, GRIC Lt. Governor Thomas, GRIC Sandra Shade, GRIC DOT Bill Vachon, FHWA Mike Bruder, ADOT Amy Edwards, HDR Project File • A83 A84 • Appendix 1-1 Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director March 21, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Michael J. Ortega State Engineer After this review, a comment resolution meeting will be held to discuss and resolve comments on the document. Once the Draft EIS is completed and approved by FHWA, the document will be available for public review. The anticipated public hearings (still to be established) will be announced with the publication of the Draft EIS. After the public hearings, an additional cooperating agency comment resolution meeting will be held to discuss the comments received from the public involvement process. After ADOT EEG reviews the pre-final EIS, the final document will be reviewed by FHWA and the cooperating agencies. To finalize the EIS process, FHWA will request BIA provide them a letter stating their agreement with the findings of the EIS. Mr. Pete Overton Environmental Preservation Specialist The Bureau of Indian Affairs Pima Agency P.O. Box 8; Sacaton, AZ 85247 Re: Mr. Overton Page2 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me as noted below. Project Name: South Mountain Freeway ADOT TRACS No: 202 MA 054 H5764 OIL Project No: RAM-202-C-(200) Respectively, Dear Mr. Overton: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is a cooperating agency with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the South Mountain Freeway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Per our phone conversation on February 2, 2005, I am, submitting on behalf of FHWA this letter requesting that BIA formally comment on the EIS document format, requirements, review process and timeframes. These comments, as they relate to BIA's needs, will allow ADOT to ensure that they are reflected in the FHWA document. If BIA requires additional sections be included in the EIS, please inform me and I will forward to FHWA for they review. After your review, I would like to set up a meeting, if you consider it appropriate, between FHWA, ADOT and yourself, so we discuss in detail your review comments. Please let me know of the date, location and time that are appropriate for you. EIS review process After ADOT Environmental & Enhancement Group (BEG) reviews and incorporates comments of the Working Draft EIS, it will be submitted to FHWA for initial review (the document will include line numbers). It is also anticipated that FHWA, and BIA will review the Draft and Final documents concurrently and that a quick tum around review time for each submittal will be required. Please let me lmow how many bound and/or unbound copies of each document you will need for your review. • 2001 Award Recipent Maria A. Deeb-Roberge, PE, MEP 205 S. 171h Ave. Room 213E, MD 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ADOT NEP A Planner & Valley Team Leader Environmental & Enhancement Group, Planning Section 602.712.8641 (Direct phone number) 602.712.3352 (Direct fax number) 602.712.3600 (Main Office fax number) • Enclosures c. c. Steve Thomas, FHWA Mike Bruder, ADOT Valley Project Management Ralph Ellis, ADOT Environmental & Enhancement Group Amy Edwards, HDR, Inc Jack Allen, HDR, Inc Project file II=~ ~~ 2001 Award Reci>ient Appendix 1-1 Mr. Overton Page 3 RE: South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Table of Contents. Dear Mr. Overton: Please complete as appropriate, 1. Does BIA require additional sections be included in the EIS? (yes or no) If yes, please inform me and I will forward to FHWA for they review. 2. After your review, do you consider appropriate, to set up a meeting between FHWA, ADOT and yourself, so we discuss in detail your review comments? (yes or no) If yes, please let me know of the date, location and time that are appropriate for you. 3. BIA will review the Draft and Final documents and a quick tum around review time for each submittal will be required. Please let me know how many bound and/or unbound copies of each document you will need for your review. Upon completion please forward to: Maria A. Deeb-Roberge, PE, MEP 205 S. 171h Ave. Room 213E, MD 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ADOT NEP A Planner & Valley Team Leader Environmental & Enhancement Group, Planning Section 602.712.8641 (Direct phone number) 602.712.3352 (Direct fax number) 602.712.3600 (Main Office fax number) - 2001 Award Recip ent Summary Introduction Purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement Description ofthe Approach Used to Prepare the Draft EIS Coordination Undertaken to Date Status ofthe Project Description & the Preferred Alternative at the Draft EIS Stage Purpose of and Need ofthe Proposed Action Other Government Actions and Permits Required Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act Section 401, Water Quality Certification, Clean Water Act Section 402, NPDES Permit, Clean Water Act Application for Earth Moving Permit, Demolition, and Dust Control Plan Floodplain? Incidental Take Permit, Section 7, Endangered Species Act ? Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Memorandum of Agreement Change of Access Report Various Utility Relocations Farmlands Form AD-1 006? Government-to-Government Agreements Tribal Council Resolution Other Governmental Agreements Others??? Summary of Environmental Consequences Areas of Concern (Unresolved Issues) and expected date of resolution, ifknown Mitigation Measures to Avoid, Reduce, or Otherwise Mitigate Adverse Effects How Draft EIS Comments Will Be Reviewed and Responded To Independent Evaluation of the Draft EIS Purpose ofthe Draft EIS Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Introduction Project Location, Description, and Status ADOT Mission Statement Regional Transportation Planning Freeways Transit Streets Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management Need for the Proposed Action Social Demands and Economic Development Historical Population Growth, Projections, and Housing Projections Economic Development • 2001 Award Recipent • A85 A86 • Appendix 1-1 {'__. -~stem Section Eastern Section Chandler Boulevard Alignment Baseline Road (US60 Extension) Alignment South Mountain Park Section Tunnel Alternative Bridge Alternative? Alternatives Studied in Detail No-Action Alternative Action Alternatives Renaming of Alternatives for the Draft EIS Creation of Western and Eastern Sections for the Draft EIS Conch{ n Transportation Demand and Capacity Methodology Existing Conditions 2025 Conditions without South Mountain Freeway 2025 Conditions with South Mountain Freeway Purposes for the Proposed Action System Linkage Legislation-Regional and Local Planning Regional Planning Context Local Planning Context Proposed Action Within the Context of Interstate Travel Chapter 2 Gila River Indian Community Coordination Introduction District Coordination Council Coordination Governmental Department Coordination Citizens' Advisory Team Coordination GRlC Public Involvement Status ofGRIC Alignments at Time ofDEIS Issuance Treatment of Impacts on GRlC Land Treatment of Section 4(f) Resources Future Coordination Context of Coordination in Relation to Environmental Justice Executive Order Chapter 3 Alternatives Project Termini and Why They Are Logical Alternatives Considered Status of Alternatives Concurrence to Historical Context Western Section Alternatives Eastern Section Alternatives Treatment of Section 4(f) at the Draft EIS Stage (South Mountain Park) Alternatives Screening Process Screening Process Described Creation and Screening of Corridors Creation and Screening of Alignments Screening Western Section Alignments Screening Eastern Section Alignments Beneficial Effects of Screening Process Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Study Non-Freeway Alternatives TSM and TDM Alternatives Transit Alternatives Arterial Road Network Expansion Alternatives Land Use Alternatives Freeway/Light Rail Combination Alternatives Freeway Alignment Alternatives Horizontal and Vertical Alignments Described for Action Alternatives Western Section 59 1h Avenue Alternative 71st Avenue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative and Options Eastern Section Pecos Road Alternative Traffic Interchange Configuration Assumptions System-to-System Interchanges (I-10 Connections) Service Interchanges Right-of-Way Requirements Described for Action Alternatives Major Design Features Common to Action Alternatives Design Criteria Typical Mainline Freeway Sections Auxiliary Lanes TSM/TDM Strategies Traffic Control Devices and Illumination Utilities Principal Items (Earthwork) Drainage Pavement Treatment Planning-Level Construction Costs Construction Sequencing, Schedule, & Traffic Control Enhancement Opportunities Traffic Analysis Operational Characteristics Mainline Characteristics I-1 0 Operations Western Section Eastern Section Anticipated Traffic Mix Once in Operation Identification of Preferred Alternative Compliance with Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines • 2001 Award Red~ ent ., 2001 Award Red pent Appendix 1-1 Chapter 4 Affected Envif nent, Consequences, and Mitigation t. Introduction Statement of Negative Declaration (if applicable) Land Use Affected Environment Existing Land Use Western Section Eastern Section Plans and Policies for Future Land Use Development General Plans . Maricopa County City of Phoenix Avondale Tolleson Glendale Chandler Zoning Ordinances Other Plans Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives, Western and Eastern Sections (Land Use Conversion) Western Section Alternatives Im~acts Associated with Western Section Alternatives 1 59 Avenue Alignment Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan Consistency 71 st A venue Alignment Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan Consistency 99th A venue Alignment (Including Options) Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan Consistency Eastern Section Alternative (Pecos Road Alternative) Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan Consistency No-Action Alternative Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan Consistency Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Social Conditions Affected Environment Demographic Characteristics Regional Characteristics Western Section Eastern Section • 2001 Award Recipent y Facilities and Services Western Section Schools Parks and Recreational Areas Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Equestrian Facilities Medical Facilities Police and Fire Facilities Utilities Eastern Section Schools Parks and Recreational Areas Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Equestrian Facilities Medical Facilities Police and Fire Facilities Utilities Projected Growth Western Section Eastern Section Environmental Consequences Community Character and Cohesion Social Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives (W/E) Travel Patterns and Accessibility Public Facilities Regional and Community Growth Social Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives 5ih A venue Alternative 71 st A venue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Social Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Title VI and Environmental Justice Western Section Alternatives 5ih Avenue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 1 99 h Avenue Alternative (and Options) Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Displacements and Relocations Commf • 2001 Award Recipent • A87 A88 • Appendix 1-1 ( -- ·aer Revenues t Local Jurisdiction Assessments of Economic Impacts No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Regional Economy Ridership Benefits Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Impact( ;sociated with All Action Alternative( ! IE) Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives 5ih Avenue Alternative 71 st A venue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Air Quality Affected Environment Relevant Pollutants Air Quality Regulations and Planning Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Federal Attainment Status and Implementation Plans National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Regional Overview Project Level Analysis Air Quality Regulation Trends (to address recent trends) Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives (W/E) Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Noise Affected Environment Noise Criteria Existing Noise Levels Unique Characteristics (Truck Stack, Night Readings, Bowl Effect) Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with the Operation of All Action Alternatives Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives sih Avenue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Water Resources Affected Environment Surface Water Economics Affected Environment Primary Industrial Sectors Sales Tax Generation Property Tax Other Revenues Overall Regional Economic Assessment Environmental Consequences (State, County, Local) Impacts Associated with All Western Section Alternatives Conversion ofPrivate Lands to Transportation Use Primary Industrial Sectors Sales Tax Generation Property Tax Other Revenues Impacts Associated with 57th Avenue Alternative Conversion of Private Lands to Transportation Use Primary Industrial Sectors Sales Tax Generation Property Tax Other Revenues Impacts Associated with 71 st Avenue Alternative Conversion ofPrivate Lands to Transportation Use Primary Industrial Sectors Sales Tax Generation Property Tax Other Revenues Impacts Associated with 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Conversion of Private Lands to Transportation Use Primary Industrial Sectors Sales Tax Generation Property Tax Other Revenues Impacts Associated with All Eastern Section Alternative Conversion of Private Lands to Transportation Use Primary Industrial Sectors Sales Tax Generation Property Tax - 2001 Award Redpent • 2001 Award Redpent Appendix 1-1 ·1ttershed Description and Flow Chara~ sties Surface Water Quality Water Supply Trends(?) Groundwater Groundwater Setting and Development Groundwater Quality Environmental Consequences Operational Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives Operational Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives sih Avenue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 99th A venue Alternative (and Options) Operational Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Floodplains Affected Environment Existing Conditions Water Course Description Summary of Flooding History Factors Affecting Flooding Risks Environmental Consequences Operational Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives Risks Associated with the Action Impacts on Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values Support of Incompatible Floodplain Development Measures to Minimize Floodplain Impacts Measures to Restore Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values Alternatives to Encroachments Potential for Significant Encroaclunent No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation A voidance Measures Minimization Measures Jurisdictional Waters of the United States Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Topography, Geology and Soils Affected Envif ment Soils arid Topography Geology Land Subsidence Earth Fissures Seismic Activity Mining Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives ·No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with All Action Alternatives Mitigation A voidance Measures Minimization Measures Biological Resources Affected Environment Biological Resources Regulations Federal State Description of Ecosystem Threatened and Endangered Species/Arizona Species of Concern Arizona Native Plant Law Species Invasive Species Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives 5ih A venue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 99th A venue Alternative (and Options) Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Cultural Resources Affected Environment Cultural Resource Regulations Conditions Environmental Consequences Archaeological Resource Impacts -Western Section Archaeological Resource Impacts - Eastern Section Historic Resource Impacts -Western Section Historic Resource Impacts - Eastern Section Impacts on Traditional Cultural Properties No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation • 2001 Award Recipent • 2001 Award Recipent • A89 A90 • Appendix 1-1 (\ r)idance Measures ' Minimization Measures Minin{ ,·on Alternatives Energy Hazardous Materials Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives Impacts Associated with Western Section Alternatives . Sih Avenue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Impacts Associated with Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Measures Minimization Measures Visual Resources Affected Environment Pertinent Regulations and Guidance Local Setting Visual Character and Quality Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with Operation of All Action Alternatives Western Section Alternatives sih Avenue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Alternatives Minimization Alternatives Farmlands Affected Environment Existing Prime and Unique Farmlands Planned Designations Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives Western Section Alternatives sih Avenue Alternative 71 st Avenue Alternative 99th Avenue Alternative (and Options) Eastern Section Alternative No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Alternatives Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation A voidance Alternatives Minimization Alternatives Temporary Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives Air Quality Noise Water Resources Socioeconomic Conditions Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic Utilities Visual Resources No-Action Alternative Beneficial Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives Mitigation Avoidance Alternatives Minimization Alternatives Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Relationship Between Short-Term Uses ofthe Environment and Long-Term Productivity Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Introduction Purpose and Regulatory Basis FHWA and CEQ Guidance Secondary Impacts Cumulative Impacts Methodology Overview ofHistoric, Existing, and Future Conditions Demographics Population Growth Income and Minority Status Land Use and Ownership Analysis ofPotential Impacts Statement ofNegative Declarations Elements Analyzed Topography Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Vegetation/Native Plants Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Water Resources - 2001 Award Red pent - 2001 Award ReciJ) ent Appendix 1-1 ( Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Noise Levels Analysis of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Visual Resources Analysis of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Land Ownership, Right-of-Way Acquisition Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Potential Relocations and Other Conversions Analysis of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Traffic Conditions and Access Routes Analysis of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Community Character and Cohesion Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Public Service Facilities Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Population Trends Analysis ofPotential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Economic Conditions Analysis of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Responsibility Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation Introduction Definition of Section 4(f) Status ofGRIC Alternatives within Section 4(f) Context Description of Section 4(f) Resources in the Western Section, Impacts, & Measures to Minimize Harm Property No. 1 Description Direct Impacts Proximity Impacts Measures to Minimize Harm Property No. 2 Description Direct Impacts Proximity Impacts Measures to Minimize Harm Property No. 3 Description Direct Impacts ,. 2001 Award Red pent j Proxin( i I : 1 .W101CPR I I I!J wt01EFR I 2 / I / f~--- - - E1 1 I I 1 ··W101WFR N o I I n11~ I, I <' - : - 1 --- - --~-- •II ADr:te:01105 Aerial Photograp;y Date:Summer, 2004 I I ~ I "= 1 I I I I I I ACCESSCON!Rit JiO FEET FAOMRAMPRADIUSAETURH ~ I '~I ~ F EEl I ACCESSCONl ACl FEI>CE - ~::::--- - I Potential Interchanges: West: Bas~ine Road Dobbins Road Elliot Road ,1 I I I ·, !l. East: 51st Avenue I I I '• E:'flrqedsWJOTISo.rl'~m~n¢,6_22_a&inet.sa.~il.mxd l:fl l ll lll l l llll ll lll l llld:l I ---~----- - ---------- - -- - · ----~ fmW! ACCESSCONTA11 300 FEEl FADMAAif AAOIUS AEllliN I I I I I I I I II II II II II II II -- \ --- - - 1 i j_ II II II II II II II 1 II I I I -- __________________________ I LIMITS OF ADOT PREFERRED ACCESS CONTROL ALONG ART ERIAL STREETS AT TRAF FICINTERCHANGELOCPT IONS. I! 25th Avenue 17th Avenue Desert Foothills Parkway I ,,II 24th Street ;12ndS1reet 40th Street ADOT ACCESS CONTROL POLICY 'SEC1JON506 OF THE ROAO\jAY ENGINEERINGGROUP 'ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES'IS REVISED AS FOLLO\jS: THE ACCESS CONTROL LIMITS ALONG ANURBAN INTERCHANGE CROSSROAD OF A FULLY ACCESS CONTROLLEDFREEfiAY SHALL EXTEND AMINIMUM OF 300 FEET BEYOND THE RAMPRAIOUS RETURNS ON THECROSSROAD. THIS ISREVISED FROMTHE 30M OR 100 FEET PREVIOUSL YREQUIRED INURBAN AREAS. THIS CHANGE MAKES THE ACCESS CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ON INTERCHANGE CROSSROADS THE SAME FOR URBAN AND RURAL APPLICATIONS. viHEN THE CROSSROAD IS SKEfiEO, IT IS DESIRABLE TO SET THE ACCESS CONTROL LIMITS OPPOSITE AT THESAMECROSSROAD STATION \11TH THEUNIT FURTHEREST FROM THE MAINLINE AS THE CONTROL. THE ACCESS CONTROL LIMITSSHALL BE SHOWN ON THE ROADWAY PLANS.' ASSiSTANT STATEENGINEER,ROADWAYENGmEERiNG GROUP, JULY30,2001 ~ ADOT conidarltOm South Mountain Transportation C;rridor TRACS No. 101l ~~ 054 H5764 Oil FHIVAFeder ai ProjectNo.NH·101-DII SOUTH MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ARTERIAL STREET ACCESS CONTROL AT TRAFFIC INTERCHANGES PER ADOT POLICY FIGURE 2 • A105 A106 • Appendix 1-1 South Mountain Transportation Corridor lRACSNo. 101lLIA054H57G401l fHl/AFederai ProjectNo.NH-101·011 SOUTH MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT SHIFT TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO SECTION 4(~ RESOURCE PHOENIX SOUTH MOUNTAIN PARK /PRESERVE OPTION 1- 51ST AVENUE SPUR FIGURE 3 South Mountain Transporidtion COrridor TRACS No. 101l MA054 H5764 OIL FHI!A Federal Project No. NH·202·0 II SOUTH MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AliGNMENT SHIFT TO MINIMIZE IMPAQ TO SECTION 4(~ RESOURCE PHOENIX SOUTH MOUNTAIN PARK /PRESERVE OPTION 2 - REAliGN 51ST AVENUE FIGURE 4 Appendix 1-1 ·• ~ Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue ACOT Janet Napolitano Governor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Sam Ellers State Engineer October 7, 2005 Victor M. Mendez Director The Honorable Richard Narcia Governor, Gila River Indian Community POBox 97 Sacaton, AZ 8524 7 Dear Governor Narcia, On August 24, 2005, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) forwarded a letter to Gila River Community management and staff outlining potential interchange locations on the South Mountain Freeway and presenting three options for a 51 st Avenue Traffic Interchange (TI). An error was noted in the text listing the potential interchange locations. The correct locations are, from east to west: • 40th Street • 32"d Street • 25th Avenue • 51st Avenue • • • • • 24th Street Desert Foothills Parkway 17th Avenue • Elliot Road Dobbins Road Baseline Road The original letter indicated a potential interchange location at 27th A venue. The actual proposed location is 25th Avenue and is accurately listed on Figure 1 attached to the original letter. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this oversight may have caused. Community input is requested by October 31, 2005 on these very important matters. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 602-712-8274. We look forward to continuing to work with you, Sandra Shade and the Community on these matters. ~Jk South Mountain Transportdtion Corridor TRACSNo. 101LI.IA054H51640\L fHWA federdl Project No, NH·ZOZ-0 II SOUTH MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AliGNMENT SHIFT TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO SECTION 4(~ RESOURCE PHOENIX SOUTH MOUNTAIN PARK /PRESERVE OPTION 3 - ESTREllA DRIVE INTeRCHANGE Daniel S. Lance Deputy State Engineer Valley Transportation FIGURE 5 • 2001 Award Redj)ent • A107 A108 • Appendix 1-1 ,r:. The Honorable Richard Narcia October 7, 2005 Page Two Arizona Cepartrnent of Transportation Office of the Director 206 South S~venteenth Avenue ADOT David P. Jankofsky Deputy Director Janet Napolitano Governor c: GRIC Lt. Governor Thomas GRIC Tribal Council Shannon Wilhelmsen, ADOT VMichael Bruder, ADOT Bill Vachon, FHW A Project File Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 November 7, 2005 Victor M·. Mendez Director The Honorable Richard Narcia Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, A.Z 8524 7 Dear Governor Narcia:. Thank you for continuing to communicate your concerns with ADOT. In response, I offer the following information. 1. :fn regards to Resolution GR-119-05, ADOT is still in the process of evaluating and assessing the Gila Rive:r Indian CoDllilunity's requests. In the meantime, ADOT remain committed to_ working with you and will be ready -to initiate -· negotiations with the Gila River Indian Community in the near future. 2. In r(fference to communication protocol With the Gila River Indian Community, ADOT is reviewing the available options and a contact person will be designated in the near future. . · 3~ fj 1ifif Finally, in relation to SR 347, ADOT's understanding of needs and potential improvements are outlined below: • SR 347 at CasaBlanca Road: A dtaft· Traffic Warrants Study has been completed by the Tucson District and a complete Accident History Report has been requested from the Gila , River Indian Community to further analyze and update the Draft Study. ADOT is still awaiting the Accident Report Data, which could change the outcome of the Draft Study. Further discussion and coordination is expected to occur between the Tucson District and the Gila River Indian Community to finalize this issue. • SR 347 at Rinker Sand and Gravel Plant: The Tucson District has received and reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and it indicates that a traffic signal is not warranted at this lqcation based on current conditions. However, a traffic signal will be warranted if the Rmker Sand and Gravel Plant compietes the proposed . .. 2001 Award Recipent 2001 Award Recipient Appendix 1-1 Governor Richard Narcia November 7, 2005 Page Two expa.n.Sion of their oper~tion. In that case, as .with all new development impacts throughout the state, Rinker will be expected to pay for the traffic signaL In the meantime, ADOT will coordinate with Rinker under a cost sharing agreement to add an acceleration lane in the SB direction on SR _347 as an interim improvement and could possibly inciude it in an upcoming pavement preservation project in this area. • SR 347 at Old Maricopa Road: It is not clear to ADOT what the specific traffic concerns are at this location. However, the Phoenix Maintenance District has identified some signing improvements that consist -~fupgrading the stop sign at Maricopa Road to a 60-inch and the warning signs to 48 X 48 mch signs. The District is also considering adding a right turn acceleration lane and taper from the Maricopa Road to the SR 347. We believe these i.ITiprovements will enhance the functionality and efficiency of this intersection. Future development w1ll have significant impact on the operation of this intersection. ADOT remains committed to working with you and will require the necessary Traffic Impact Analysis .to ensure adequate improvements are identified and constructed by such future development. Should you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, ~/f~j/ Victor M. Mendez cc: The Honorable Governor-Janet Napolitano Mary v. Thomas, Lt. Governor, GRIC Gary Bohnee, Chief of Staff, GRIC Sandra Shade, Director, GRIC DOT ' David Snider, Supervisor, Pinal Coimty Board of Supervisors GRIC Community Council Robert Hollis, Division Administrator, FHWA :OavidJankofsky, Deputy Director,'ADOT Sam Elters, State Engineer, ADOT ·Dan Lance, Deputy State Engineer, Valley Transportation, ADOT Dennis Alvarez, Tucson District Engineer, ADOT John Hauskins, Phoenix Maintenance Engineer, ADOT Shann~m Wilhelnl,sen, Director, Commuiric<;ltions arid Community Partnerships, ADOT Richard P. Narcia MARY GovERNOR • v. THOMAS I.JEUTENANT GovERNOR Gila River Indian Community & LIEUTENANT EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GOVERNOR October 12, 2005 Mr. Victor Mendez. Director :=~~!~~~~~0:,~~-J·i;:#_;_ -~t~::f:?;' c~i~~~~~- ._. A request from th~· Gila)Uver Iridian Cori:nnunitv was sent to yoi:fr~offici;"d'ated March 15 · 2005 regardingJI~ffl~·.®d saf~ij~~Q.P,cerns ~t tlJ.e~inters.ection ofst'aiii{o{It;2 347 and Cas~ ~~~~~~~!~ft~\llli~~~~ ··• ··: ~~~f.u-11 report would be comple~~.d, _ yyithj£iJL~Q, 4~ys. · It is my ~derstanding ~~~_11 ,.,. ,•.t{8~g~-u~, o~gU?i~~' and that !,he Cm~-1tl~f1~.9.f4y learned of a 'Draft Traffic Sig9-.~)~:Vi[Hg!J,Sm document, aft~r t,he study)l!id::_~~~~~y been completed. within 30 day"' =~:7=~~~~~!~~~~it~J!~~:~e~~~~ our August correspondence. It was uiider~t6bcr':froiD: om July 2005. Community Couricil meeting with your staff, that ADOT was committed to taking a rpore proactive approach in working with our Community and keeping us updated as to the transport~tion projects and activities within and surrounding our CommurJty that fall within ADOT' s j~sdicti~~. · _.. . ,, Qn ~--s~~k)n..~it~~ ·¢t.[k#¥ · ~ _s-~p~~¥:stliciy:·cQ~du·et~d' fbr:~~ni·~i obi trihai_intities'b}r Lee 'Eiigfu.'eerillg for a traffic. signci.f on $tatb··Rout6 ~47'£ria· ihe; Rmker! Sand mid.bhiv~l 1 Pl~t.r9r.\vp.icha .re~p9.n,~e has _:Q.9t l:>~~Dxec;~iv~d~ . .. -·: : .. : · .......... ; -; :·, . : .-: _ · ... . · ~· ·-· ~ ~~ ·~ ~ !, ~ · " '~ ·-> :..::. ;. ~ ~ : · = ~ i .· T:·.·. · ~ --:~.;.. ·· •· Attachment ~ 15 TELEPHONE: Wm CASA BLANCA RoAD • PoST OFF!CE Box 97 • 5ACATON ARIZONA 85247 (~20) 562-6000 • FAX: (520) 562-6010 • EMAIL: executivemail@gric.nsn.us 1 !1 A109 A110 • Appendix 1-1 We also have. a traffic safety concern at the intersection of Queen Creek Road (SR 347) and "Old" Maricopa Road that we feel should also be studied by ADOT. I am again requesting that an updated Traffic Signal Evaluation document be sent directly to my office with a courtesy copy to Ms. Sandra Shade, Director for our Community's Department of Transportation. Upon our review, we would like to meet with you regarding this matt~r. We would also appreciate a status update on the study conducted by Lee Engineering. Richard P Narda MARY GOVERNOR · Gila River Indian Co.mmunlty EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR & LiEUTENANT GOVERNOR October 14, 2005 Please feel free to contact my office if you have any questions. ~;?//~ Richard P. Narcia, Govenior Gila River Indian Community ~~~f% .. :.j\.~f~. \./~Ct(r;:- ?\1e~._:.lez, Di!"~cto:r . . . ,. .~' .:.: ,..· · ·~····. ;,. .. ...'~. ··' Arizona Depar1ment of Trans.pqrta.tf9n ; ~~::rri~,e~t~~~;7~~2~ff(:;,. ~ ;::'::?:,}:;~·..· ······t.•."" ; ; . Dear Director MendeZ:~ cc: Lt. Governor Mary V. Thoma:s GRIC Con:imunity Council GaryBohnee,-Chief of Staff San9,Ta "Shade, Director, GRIC DOT . SuperV:i;;or David Snider, Pinal County Board of Supervisors ~z~~:a~;~~~~ib~~~~ft~}~: ;~;i~;~~~;:~:ti!: · (FHWA) for takiiigj]ie time td ·me~t to ~. 4i"si:'t:!.s.s important transpQii:a.ti.dn:Ts'sues that face our respectivt3~~:fRf'~~)t~~~,~~~£~'S[i~-~:~;~-;~\ d;t~~jt~: . . As such, .r b6,H~V:~';. t[~ key to Q.~lding, .~ su~c;essful partnership i§· :turces In re84rd to tlre CAT meetmg, Mr. Lewrs and I will consider attending on August 28~ pendmg avar labrhty 111 our schedules, but we will not prepare a fonnal presenwion or ask to be plac..>d on tlre agenda. We appreciate your invitation and look fOfWard ro a future opportunity to speak to theCAT. If you ha"e any questions please call me at (520) 562-6824 or (480) 784-n21 [cell]. Sincerely, 1?L4 .. / J /~ AndrcwDilrling ~/ Coordinator ec: Jennifer Allison-Ray, Lt Governor, G tla River Indian Community Doug Ton-es, Oiroctor, Department of Tmnspnnation, Gila River Indian Community Davrd ~rtc, Com~unity Manaier, Gila River Indian Cornmuuity Alta Mrusonetlc, Du-ector, Public lnfonnation Oflicc, Gila River Indian Community Wlmf are Culfural ResQurces ~ Culm-ral resou!."ceS arc Lhe pr~bistoric and his£ol'ic sites, sn·ucaures, places, landS:cSpcs, aod objects lhat are important to a culrure.or communi!)' for histori~ scientific, traditioJlu.l, religious, or orh.er rnsoos. They are a non--renewable r~urce that Unk:s us with our pasl and defines our heritage and sooiaJ identity atlhe loca), state, and national levels, Examples of wlrurel resOUJry, and are-important in main£aining me continuing cui£U{ai identity of•he community. Often, TCPs ate places on the landscape that are irnponant culruraHy, but may 1101 be distinsuished by pbysjcsl 1ntt.nifestntio-ns resulting ffom human aclivity. For example, TCPs could inc:ll1-de a location associated wirh the traditjooaJ beliefs of a Native American group about it'S origins ur its et.altural hlstory, or a tocatjou where Native American communities have historically gone, 8tld are-known ro go todil)', lo perform tradi1ional cultural practices. U.11y study c.uhtm1! resourees ;, lite Em·ironmemullmpact Srorem(J.Jtl (EJS) ? Cultural resources hold an intrinsic value in that they provide us wim a direcr fink to tJle past) aud Mlp people defi ne and undersland their own heritage, as well as the he.rirage of others. Cultwal resourees can afford opportunities to S1udy and leam how and why our culmres alld societies h1we developed ov~r time. Both the federal government and dte State of Arizona ackno,vledge tbGimportance ofArizona's cultural herita&e t.o its citizens Md recognize that physical links to O\lr past should be preserw.d for future g,enerations. Where preservation is oot possible, the mitigation of effecL<: to O.ese resouret:.s is warranted. The South Mountai:n 'fransportation Corridor s.tudy is a federal undertaking r.::quiring reg.ulatory com.pliaocc with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 or theNHPA n~quires federal agencies to take jnto account the effects of their ac.t ivitics and programs on cultural resources elig,ibJe for the National Register ofHistO'J'ic Places (Niu-fr). Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties, whjcb primarily implement Section 106, were rnost recently an1ended in 20()4 (36 CFR SOO). These rcgu(ations defme a process for responsible federal agencies to cons-ult with. the-State or Tribal AZ Dept of Transportallon Office ol Environmental ServiOOs AUG uwoa Appendix 1-1 Hisluncil on Historic Prestl'Vtltion jo Washfltgtoo D.C. tl) ensore cullural resources are duly considered a~ fo:lf:1'.tl projects are. ptanned and ilnplcmemtd. To be delcnuined eligible for the NRHP. p1·opcrtics must be-important iu American hi$10t)', arehitocwre, IW<:hi!eo)ogy, cng.ineering. or whurc. They also •nns1 1)0$$£$$ integrity of location-. OOsit n. settings, materials, wodtm;mshiP> feeling. and association, nnd must meet at least one of the follo"'ing fow· crilel'ia: a. Are Associated with events tllat OOve o•36e·a sianillcant oonttibutlon 10 tbe tll'(lad patte•ns of c-ur hiSiory: b. Are as.~iat:ed with the lh-e:s (I( persons significar.t in ow pllSI; c. l!mbody the distincti~,oe charactel'i:Stics of a type, period, w· melbod <>l«,nStrucLioo CK' tbtt represent the work of a master, or lh!U possen }!lgh anlst.ic values, or tbe.1 1-epresem 3 $lg:•)it1cant dlscinguisMbJe rntlty whose oompoDCnts may lsclt ir.dividua! distincti<>n; d. Ha"~ )';elded,.or ma>• be Likely to yie-ld, infonu:uiou imp<>rt.Mlt i.n prthistory or hiStOry (36 CFR 60.4). Propcnies may be nal i111JX)fl&11t e. Arthseologkal Resources Affected, Aetloo Alfc.mativcs Action Alte.rn.atives -·-- - - Numbel.' o(Sites Affected Wc!>tern Section W55 W7 1 WIO I W~tem Optio:n . WIOI. Ceno-al Ootio>Jl WIOl Eastern oetKm Easrem Section El 6 - Site Type Mitigation Eligibility Required N)l}TP -- Criterion 4 1 villa.e.e $ite· 5 habitation siles 2 village sites; 2 habitation Si{eS 3 '2 village sites; l habitation sire 2 2 village sites 2 2 village sites 8 ~ artifact seanor (limited Activity site); 2 lithic quarries; I oetroruvoh site· 4 tr~tes D Yes D Yes What kind of lmpacct would Otcur/Mm ~ltttrutfiOil? Direct iOlJ)fiCtS on C\lltura1 resources &-om construction could resull in their partial or t()¢l!l destruction. QJJturaJ resmu'Ces $UC·h as :uchaeologl<:al sites and historic buiktings are 110n· ~new11ble resources that ooce destroyed ure- 1 ~ fMever. lly taw. ad\'t.r$e impl'lClS oo culturaheiOuroes tl.at art de1em1ined eligible to the NRUJ} J)lli$1 be mitipred.. Direct impncts from constl\ltlioo 011 ¢ulwra) resources deemed ofreligious or traditicmal cultural impwtMce by Nati\oe American groups or Others ooukl rt:$U.It in de9eCTaliOo ofa sacred place.. A I)Olential jl)diJ-~l impa-:.:t might be the loss of access by Na1ive AmcriC'iSn groups to culrurally impol1an-t phlce$ M a result of construction restrictions. Jlo w (/() tlu: (l/(emaJhoe alizmmmts differ'" NRHP-Eligible Flistoric Pro1>ertits (non-TCP) Affected, Aetion AlteJ•natlves Aetloh Alternati~e$ NRW' Eligibility Criltrlon - Western Section W55 t:()t/.Strltr:t!Qn~relflt(Jl/ lttiJJiiCt$? All action aitemntiws would hnpse1 J)f'tbJs•orie aOO his«oric ~ullftral resources as s.llowo tn die tables. All but one orthe prehistoric sites are C()nsidered eli,eible to 1he NRHP al'ld WO'Jkl rcqoil'e mitie-ation if affoctocl by conmuetion. Although the El Allcrna'live has the highest numbers M pJcltjsw••ic $iteS. d:ley are typically snail sites representioga l imit~d set ola ctivi l i~ such as roc-k 11t1 ~nd resburro coHecliJJg are:as. ln oontrnSl, wbHe che Wes1em S&<:t~n Altemr.tives would affect fewe-r shes. tbey include tbe.retnaht$ of br,&e prehistoric villages 'Yr'ilh e:'Ctensivc archaeo1ogtcal deposits, some measuring oYCr 0.5 n1ile in diameter. Simill!rly, all the alto.IYiatiVf:S wot~kl a('fb¢l hiStOI'ic sites. Most of the historic shes are n<>t eligible for the NRHP. All the. alt~nativcs would CJO$S the $it~ Miette~ Roosevelt Canal Historic Southem J>acific Railroad Roosevelt Canal W71 WJO I Western O~liOn W!Ol Cenlral Ontion WJO I Ees.tern Option Eas(em Sec.tion El HistOric Soothem Pacific Railroad Historic Southern Yes Cri~rion No A As;oci~lcd with c\'tll!S tbnt 1101\-:: mllt contdbute to the canal's eligibility because tltey are m.odern realignmenrs. :-~·;.•;,:· ~t '.·.· ~til • ~h:.:...l..:-•ili.:..t.-':.:'.!" 111\t:.~.L ;-~\·1~L~!.l'.'•'''~ .LJji'\~~:.~.J! . 11 y:;i~__m.'..!-J ;-..,t~,li. ;i., ~. l•:.._:j,f; ;j, · f~. . &;L._ 1j: !.~Ji:~:;~:i· l w·;1~t'.1:1L,:;.:.. '"'Ht ! .... .h:..~".t:·.hi ;)~ ~ ... it: II ! i!, \-.~~ .!...\.\:!.!.U~.&'-~;~ '~(1 !t(I\.-J1f!t f h \' L:tt.;,_.fJ. .L<~·:.lt ·t'; ... ~t;:,~y_,~~g__---~? · · ~.:·.-'·".:-~-.,_,ti_,:j_ '·\; JJC~: r~~;m:·~·L'"lh' ,:,_w,l,·,•ltd ;,· •l ~.£1it: .li-.1 .J.~ :·1~., ·1~Ll~1h.':..l~l.t:.,t"' .~c·_:. l,Jtl.t..~. ~ tf!:ill.~rj" ·~ ~ ~; i'-"" _..1..;Hif•.'"S.'J...£:i.. r.!J.:.'j·_:- ill~• ·,: ;. . \\~fJ.::J.i!.l.)ii,,b.J.~ ;.·- .;~· •- ';··it' n~ ~·~1i i:-"t ~ ' ,·~QI-- ,•,. . ,,. ·j.~ 'I ""'J• ".;: .. ,-.• ,.,•..•., , .... , ... .-j:· ··.:o:t·o ! "':•·,, ... ,, -· '"t·• O• ' ..... · ·• ;,A\, t..._,~,,;_~~~~.:!..=:..:...!h.~;,.._ ~:.~ .~.-'--='-"N ~~~!. !.2L'i.:..Ji~"< n'~'"~:· " Wllat kin d 1U£ks;!.iJs5£...;~.f.:J.t 'i!',~Llf1~5. .::f ::-;.:U!!.::~~l l'e~1+.:~·~.tl' ;;<.:- h1 r!:~· d~Y<>h:r-a·tilllu!:'.UJ tnrr·ulnl~iuJl:.G~~w].J~~~tiot::ulr ..?it·ng_~~.l~.m;~.b.,.J.~k :~: ;lK g.xill:·Jli_~~ltt'L~lllim1J!i!.'},~~£w?.:':. h.;o ;;(!_~4li.Htt l:<'IS._llJr.;:!_!~ b~{·;J <"f•t:Hl':.tCi-1'd. _'f.i:;.~Mft£1.~ ;.f,;:t ·~-~7ll.r.-:,m:.;:;;~.lrJll.l:,;.g._~~S'U:ti.\...~'!::c'~!! b~ ..:1:r£.\'!.&\. tO.Il·~~nRti.!)n diH·t!b m;~ h:.~.ir¢S:~!\Jw.ih k.:Jli;"~ll:ii..!~TiQr~ s.~i&;.r ~\!J..:i !~l.}ifi.;:..;i~ e i~.LD;: ilr;;-:-~.:hj,!!s_ i;::U?SJ::.J•f nfi!d ;;n nt zJlis e:u:~nili-ii1~o~:•. S~..tl:-.~~:nm.:K: :;;!1,!.\i·~i nt (~;~).tr.il!.~t;::.rc:~o·t[\_2~:k.ufJ;.ill'f.:..!~i~ljl:!.iil£Hi.l~\i!riliJ!!;.:ikm.~m~.4n:· ,:;,~~ ~!f~·.•;~diilf.'. <:-=>m:nur,i1it·s. Are there things lluu could bt' df mitigation. although some local governments have ordinances thilt offer SQmc protection to culturai 1'0SOUrces. Culmral resourros in protected arttiS, sucl1 as the South Moumaim Park/Preserve, would be presen•ed. i ..:ndcn·•~·~ d \•JJ.rr.;'~li-J;WJI).L>~~:eJ:~£1~~~.~~=.t!5itt;:(in-:z ~\J 1hs:J..!l:.!!s.,.. !:!~.?.;o: i~:.m~:;.~;.t~Wi..~.illsmb..tift't~Js.ui~~w~t ;:Q:::;ut~'il.J.G.:.l~ :j!"~1i:;tt i::.:.¥.:~2::;..~;rg~llihs.:.: J~IL!.\D~t:mhjw;..;:..Q;,:rl ·l\ )l :':0-~~;JJ.w.mL·s? :n·tJSJ!.._.l.~tU .\.J.:l.::.J. ;:J" r$..:1;.::~?-h.ie- <'r throughout the Study Ami. For example, adjustmttJIS 10 tbe WSS, W7 J, and W JO J ahemarives 1\a..-e been made to avoid i!Xh resources. However, i1 appears 1b:n not a11 cultural shes could be avoided by tbeaaion alternatives.. There are a range of ac:tivities ADOT could undenal;mcu during cottWUction and operation oCtltc freeway. Below are sol'lte measures AOOT c:ould undertake. Measures wm be ptesented in the OraJI ElS and Ouall>.cd during the final deo!gn process after tbe EJS proce.s is completed. The degree of lmpoct on cullt.nl re>ources could be reduced by minimizing the constnJclion footprint to tho greatest extenr possible. Impacts on hismr'c buildings CQU!d be reduced tl•rougb rdoeation of the structures. Impacts on cultural J~:SOW"ed that describe research queStions, methods" and excavation smu.cgy that will be used for site cxca\lation. In addition. a burial agreement with Ari:.cona Stale Museum aud concerned NativeAmerican tribes is deve-lopod tbat ourJines the procedures for proper and respectful J"(!_mmval. treatment, and reburial of any human remajns and associated funer-ary objeccs that might be encountered. Tbe mitigation field work is typically performed in L\W) phil$¢$. The first phase involves conducting tes~ excavations of a sample ofa sile fo assess the type, oonditior.l, and distribution offearure-s present below the ground surface, 1t0d in tum, to determine ir there is a need for tl mor~ ex.-~miv¢ program of data n:~ov~1y excavations., TI1i-s is typically accomplished in the PJ1oenb: area by excavating a series of bacldloe trenches sometimes coupled with some limited excavation units dug b}' hand (see Photo 1). If warmnted. a sec.ond. phase involvt:S data recovery excavations where large excavation unif$ areopen<:d up over targeted features (see Photo 2). Sediments overlayh1g features are sometimes stripped away mechanically. The-features are then exca.va1cd by band in horiwnta11evels. Photo J: Phase I a rchaeological cesting. Photo courtesy of AI:Chaeological Constllling Services Ud. Mitigation straregies for historic cult-ural resources can be varied. for his.toric anifact depos.its, such as an historic trasb dump, where. the eolturnl material is below ground, a phased m i tigati~n strategy is used similar [() lhat of prehistoric sites. Mitigatjon for buildings typically involve$ a combination ofarcltitectural assessments, historical research., and an:h.ival q uality photogra.(>bic documtnlation. Mitigation for historic structures, such as can.als and bridges, involve a similar appr~b, usuaiJy with the preparation of an Historic American EJJgineering Reoord (HAER) which foUows the Secretary of the Interior's STandards and Guidelines for Architectural and l!n;gineeting OOC'Umenlati on~ r-boto 2: P'hase 11 Data Reco,·ery Excavation4 Photo by Adriel !Ieisey • A123 A124 • Appendix 1-1 A re tltt! COJJclu$iOIIS pr!!lltmit!d llllllls SJtmmary fout/1 The conclusions fu this summary are nor final. Consulta1i011 with Native AmeriCy tb.e Federal Highway A dministration, tile Arizona sure Historic J>re$c;rvulion Office, the Arizona Dcpartmcm ofTransponction, tile Salt Rivc;r Project, tile M aricopa Depaltmcnt or'lranspomtion, the Flood Control District of Mericopa Courrty, the City of Phoenix, die Arizona State M useum, the Fort McDo\vell Yavapai Nasion, the Tonto Apaclle Tribe, and Y a\'8)l aiApache N ation. me Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 John McGee Executlve Dfrector for Planning & Policy Representative John McComish House of Representatives Arizona State Legislature 1700 W . Washington Street. Room 217 Phoenix, AZ. 85007 Re: Proposed South Mountain Freeway Dear Representative McCamish, A If a ftH!Itlber of tile Cltlte1rs Advisory Team, how Cllfl ~u tl!l•ielfl tile emire teclmic(l/ Feport? Tbe cultural rcsour«:S technical reports are conlldential due to rile culhlral importance and ~nsitivil)' ofdleir·conrem.lt1 accordance with su.ue and federal law, these reports are not available for public review. On behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation {ADOT), I would like to provide you with a brief overview of the ongoing study for the proposed Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway: Study Process As part of the proposed South Mountain Freeway Study, ADOT is following the federal process. as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA} , by completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Draft EIS will present Information about the study's purpose and need; alternatives developed and studied in detail; potential impacts to the social, economic and natural environment, including measures to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate impacts; Section 4(f} evaluation'; and pubnc and agency outreach. ADOT is currently revising the Administrative Draft EIS; to Include analysis of the Maricopa Association of Government's (MAG) proposed changes to the Regional Transportation Plan. These changes include reducing the overall "footprint" of the freeway to eight lanes (three general-purpose lanes and one High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lane in each direction) and evaluating a proposed modification to the 1-10 connection in the West Valley at 59 111 Avenue . Upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIS. the document will be reviewed by FHWA and other governmental agencies. ADOT's timeline for release of the Draft EIS and the associated public hearing is largely based on this review process. At this time, ADOT anticipates publication of the Draft EIS and the public hearing will occur in summer 2010, with an associated 90-day public comment period (twice the federal requirement). The Final EIS will be available for public review during a 60-day comment period. After considering any comments received on the Final EIS, FHWA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will identify t he selected alternative for the proposed action. If a build alternative Is selected, MAG will allocate funding While potential impacts associated with the proposed freeway, such as The Foothills' well, are disclosed In the Draft and Final EIS, mitigation measures presented would become formal ADOT commitments (if a build alternative is selected) when published as part of the ROD. 1 Section -'CO ofthe U.S. Department orTransportalion Act prohxts the usc of public rc:cn:ationaJ land. historic rc.~ources and lraditional culturul properties (TCPs). 1 his includes an evnluarion of Seer ion 4(1) resources. a derenninarion ofimpacrs and on ~aJuali On or ffil:aSUn:$ O.V't\ilablc: 10 min1mizc impacts. when wrunmled. Appendix 1-1 GOVERIIlun JANE DEE HULL COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN, DENNIS D. MANNING, ALPINE MICHAEL M . GOUGHTI.Y, FLAGSTAFF JOE CARTER, SAFFORD SuSAN E. CHILTON, ARI\IACA W. HAYS GiLSTRAP, PHOENIX Ms. Viparina 11/07/01 2 DIRECTOR DUANE L SHROUFE DEPUTY DIRECTOR STEvE K. FERRELL Mesa Office, 7200 E. University, Mesa, Arizona 85207 (602) 981-9400 October 31, 2001 Mary Viparina, P.E. Project Manager HDR Engineering 2141E. Highland Ave., Suite 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Re: Seeping for South Mountain Corridor Location/Design Concept Report and Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Viparina, Thank you for inviting us to the Agency Seeping and Field Review Workshop held on October 30 and 31: We are providing our initial comments herein. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17 gives the Arizona Game and Fish Department the authority for wildlife management in Arizona, except on Indian Reservations. We also have authorities under the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to provide federal agencies recommendations to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats that may result from federal projects that relate to water. This Act comes into play in this project due to the necessity of the highway to cross washes and the Salt River. Although the Endangered Species Act mandates certain considerations for federally protected species which are also managed by the state, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act mandates that consideration be given to all other fish and wildlife species. The following information on special status species that may be present in the project vicinity is from our Heritage Information System Database. Please consider these species, as well as all state wildlife in planning your project. Keep in mind that this information is based on past occurrence records in the general vicinity of the proposed project. Some of these species may not be affected by the proposed project. However, other special status species not listed here may be present. To better assess whether your project would impact special status wildlife or other species, more current and thorough surveys at the proper time of year need to be conducted in the project area. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AGENCY Special Status Species in the area of Proposed 1-10 Loop NAME COMMON NAME ESA USFS BLM WSCA NPL ATHENE CUNICULARIA HYPUGAEA WESTERN BURROWING OWL COCCVZUS AMERICANUS YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO sc c s DENDROCYGNA AUTUMNALlS BLACK-BELLIED WHISTLING-DUCK IXOBRYCHUS EX/LIS HESPERIS WESTERN LEAST BITTERN sc RALLUS LONG/ROSTRIS YUMANENS/S YUMA CLAPPER RAIL LE s we we we we No Critical Habitats within Project Area Arizona Game and Fish Department, Heritage Data Management System, November 6, 2001 . The most significant wildlife and habitat resources that exist within the study area are in the riparian and wetland zones along the Salt River. As the Salt flows west the amount of water in the river, and thus the amount of wetland and riparian habitat, increases. The Salt River on the western end of the study area supports some highly developed riparian habitat. that is habitat for many species of fish and wildlife. The broadleaf riparian and m~sqmte bosque communities along the Salt River support a diverse community of m1grato~ songbirds. The Yuma clapper rail is a federally listed Endangered species that occurs m the emergent vegetation habitats along the Salt River. Other high priority species in the area include the yellow-billed cuckoo (federal candidate species), the black-crowned night heron, and the osprey. Xeririparian habitats (desert washes) also have high value to many species of wildlife not only due to the vegetation, but as movement corridors. Burrowing owls may be present in open upland areas along proposed highway alignments. If these areas are to be disturbed, the Department recommends that the owls be captured and relocated by experienced personnel. The following is a summary of the issues of concern to the Department: Riparian and other Habitat: The Department would support an alternative that minimizes impacts to the riparian habitats along the Salt River. Crossing locations over the Salt River on the eastern end of the project study area would minimize disturbance to these key riparian areas. The Department would prefer an alignment that utilizes previously disturbed areas, existing highway corridors or farmland. The Department wishes that the NEPA analysis quantifies and compares the relative impact of the alternatives under consideration to riparian habitats. This would be best presented with a matrix showing the relative quantity and quality of habitat that would be disturbed by the alternatives under consideration. Habitat Loss Replacement: The Department wishes to ensure that all habitat losses are replaced per the Department policy I2.3 (enclosed). Through the 404 permitting process the Corps of Engineers usually requires replacement of habitat within the waters of the United States. Our compensation policy, as well as that of the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, seek replacement of upland habitat as well. The Department would prefer that • A125 A126 • Appendix 1-1 Ms. Viparina Ms. Viparina 11/07/01 3 11/07/01 4 habitat losses be replaced either through improvement of existing habitat through fencing or other projects, or by acquisition and preservation of lands that are destined for development. RH:rh cc: Wildlife Movement Corridors: The proposed project has the potential to cut off wildlife's access to water and interrupt wildlife movement corridors. The Department would like to meet with the project planners to identify key movement areas and ensure that drainage crossing are adequately sized to accommodate wildlife movement where necessary. Further, we would like to identify areas where the highway may cut off access to water. In such situations if water is provided on both sides of the road, this would eliminate wildlife crossings and vehicle/wildlife collisions. Wildlife Fencing Specifications: The Department's wildlife fencing specification are enclosed. These specifications are designed to prevent livestock from crossing the fence, while ensuring that deer and other wildlife can cross without becoming entangled in the fence. Access: The Department wishes that access to roads onto public lands and State trust lands be maintained for hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, off-highway vehicle users and other users of these lands. If access is cut off, it is likely that historical users will cut fences to access these roads, and this will result in livestock getting on the highway creating severe safety hazards. We would like to meet with the project planners to specifically identify key access points to maintain and develop. safe and sensible designs to provide access from the new highway or other points. Non-interruption of Flows: The Department wishes to ensure that highway construction does not cut off or divert flows that currently support native wash vegetation downstream. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the planning of this highway. Please contact me at (480)981-9400 X 222 to set a time to discuss in more detail issues we have identified. We are looking forward to working with you and the agencies involved in the development of this highway. Sincerely, ;fl~//-/. x7k~1~ Russell A. Haughey Habitat Program Manager, Region VI Rod Lucas, Region VI Supervisor Bob Broscheid, Habitat Branch Josh Hurst, Wildlife Manager Appendix 1-1 Arizona Game and Fislr Department Operating Manual ~ _________:..:A::-n.;;:·z:.::;o.=:;n;;;;a~G:=:a~m~e::a~n:::d~F.~is=lr:;-;D7:ep"-a;;.;rtm~~e~n;.;.I:-=O;.~:p~e~rati=:.,:.:.~·8:t..:.:.M.:.:a=n:.:u=::a=l:.._ ________,;._ Section 1: WUdlife, Habitat and the Environment Chapter 2: Habitat and the Enviro,nment ~ Section I: W"rldlife, Habitat and the Environment Chapter 2: Habitat and the Environment . habitat resource category designations. See Co~sion Policy A1.16. Department Policy: The Game and Fish Department will closely scrutinize and assist in regulation and control, where possible, of those activities involving all,;.terrain motor powered vehicles that may affect wildlife or create conflicts among competing users of the land resource. Procedures: While recognizing a segment of the population accrues enjoyment from involvement in road/trail races, rallies, endures, and similar events, organized or otherwise, the Department's primary concern is protection of wildlife resources and habitat. Department employees are requested to be alert to such activities and inform managemeD,t. Where these activities involve public lands, the Department requests that the agency or group involved limit such activities primarily to washes and established roads and that the use of trails be minimal and confined to trails where no habitat damage will result Further, the Department requests that it be no tilled of the planned activities and offered an opportunity to review the route, comment and advise on any effects that the activity may have on-wildlife and irs habitat with reference to the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Compensation Policy and Procedure, and recommend alternate routes-if considered necessary. 12.2 National Environmental Act Compliance EffeCtive: f1i~oi-:.9J Department Policy: The Arizona Game and Fish Department will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This requires that every proposed Federal Aid (Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson) project be examined objectively to determine the effects it 'Will have on the environment in accordance with NEPA in Federal Aid NEP A Guidelines. Further, the Department will comply with the objectives ofNEPA on any other project or program that may have an effect on the environment. (Contact the Habitat Branch for procedures and guidelines for ~PA compliance.) 12.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Compensation Effoctive: 06-04-91 Department Policy: It shall be the policy of the Department to develop adequate compensation plans for actual or potential habitat losses resulting from land and water projects in accordance with State and Federal laws. Habitat compensation plans will seek compensation at a 100% level, where feasible, and will be developed using Authority: The Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department is authorized under A.R.S. Title 17-211, Subsection D, to perform the netessary administrative tasks required to manage the wildlife resources of the .State of Arizona. Pursuant to those duties and in accordance with federal environmental laws and resource management acts, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Endangered Species Act, the Director is further charged with cooperating -in the determination of potential impacts to Arizona's wildlife resources resulting from federally funded land and water projects. In addition, a Commission M.O.U. assigns similar responsibilities for evaluating proposed projects on lands administered by the State Land Department. An integral part of this process is the development of adequate compensation measures aimed at eliminating or reducing project-associated impacts. Procedure: Criteria used to identify general compensation goals are as follows : A. Resource Category I. 1. Designation Criteria. Habitat in this category are of the highest value to Arizona wildlife species. and are unique and/or irreplaceable on a statewide or ecoregion basis. · 2. Compensation Goal. No loss of existing in-kind habitat value. 3. Guideline. The Department will recommend that all potential losses of existing habitat values be prevented. Insignificant changes that would not result in adverse impacts to habitat values may be acceptable provided they will have no significant cumulative impact. 4. Habitat Types. Habitat types associated with Resource Category I shall include, but not limited to the following examples: a. Perennial Stream Habitats. b. W estlands and Riparian habitats of at least one acre in size which are associated with perennial waters. Biotic communities included in this classification follow descriptions provided in Brown (1982) and Henderson and Minckley (1984). c. Key utilization areas for species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Threatened or Endangered and Endangered State Threatened Native Wildlife species. B. Resource Category ll. 1. Designation Criteria. Habitats in this category are of high value for ~ona wildlife species and are i. relatively ~ or becoming scarce on a statewide or etoregion basis. 2. Compensation GoaJ. No net loss of existing habitat value, while minimizing loss of in-kind value. 3. GuideUne. The Depar:tment will retommend that all potential losses · of Resource Category II habitat values be avoided or minimized. If significant losses are likely to occur, the Departmen~ will recommend alternatives to immediately rectify, reduce, or eliminate these losses over time. · 4. Habitat Types. Habitat types associated with Resource Category II shall include, but not limited to, the following examples: a. Key utilization areas for antelope and bighorn sheep. b. Key utilization areas for Threatened and Candidate State Threatened· Native Wildlife species, candidate species for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered (Categories 1 an_d 2). c_ Actual or potential reintroduction sites for species that are listed as Extirpated or Endangered on the State Threatened Native Wildlife list. d. Blue ribbon flshing areas (i.e., Lee's Ferry and Becker Lake). e. Isolated mountain ranges providing Subalpineconiferous forest habitats (i.e., Pinaleno Mountains). f. State and federally operated game preserves, refuges or wildlife areas. g. Montane meadows. C. Resource Category 1. Designation Criteria. Habitats in this category are of high to medium value for Arizona wildlife species, and are relatively abundant on-a statewide basis. 2. Mitigation Goai. No net loss of habitat value. 3. Guidelines. The Department will recommend ways to minimize or avoid habitat losses. Anticipated losses will be compensated by replacement ofhabitat · values in-kind, or by substirution of high value habitat types, or by increased management of replacement habitats, so that no net loss occurs. 4. Habitat Typeli Involved. Habitats in this category are of a natural, undisturbed condition or they involve bodies of water of economic importance and shall include, but not be limited to, the following examples: a. Chihuahua, Great Basin. ~ohave. and Sonoran Desert habitat types. b. Desert-grasslands and Chaparral zones. c. Oak and coniferous woodlands and coniferous forests. d. Res~;rvoir habitats. m. D. Resource Category IV. 1. Designation Criteria. Habitats in this category are ofm~um to low value for Arizona wildlife species, due to proximity to urban developments or low productivitY associated with these lands. 2. Mitigation GoaJ. Minimize loss ofhabitat value. 3. Guideline. The Department will retommend ways to avoid or m.inimke habitat losses. Should losses be unavoidable, the Department may ' make a recommendation for compensation, balied on the significance of the loss. 4. Habitat Types Involved. Habitat types associated with Resource Category N shall include, but not be limited to, the following examples: a. Agricultural Lands. b. Undeveloped urban areas (i.e., land proximal to waste water treatment facilities, municipal mountain preserves, and undeveloped lands in proximity to municipal and industrial areas). c. Habitats exhibiting low wildlife productivity as a result of man's influence. Stage List: A. Proposal Submittal. Conservation Supervisor (Habitat Branch) receives all lands protection propQsals on an open and continuous basis, whether they are generated internally or externally. Responsibilities: .Date stamp proposals on receipt; retain original proposals in files; send letters to proponents acknowledging receipt; and disttibute proposals and relevant information from the lands files (e.g. previous protection proposals for the same general area) to the Proposal Screening Committee. Time: 5 days from receipt for acknowledgement to proponent. · B. Proposal Screening Committee. Conservation Supervisor, chair; Development Branch Chief: Nongame Branch Chief, and Field Operations Coordinator. Responsibilities: Screen proposals on a monthly basis to determine adequacy and appropriateness; return inadequate proposals to proponents for remedy; Conservation Supervisor prepares State 3 briefing and routes adequate proposal(s) to Assistant Director, Wildlife Management Division (WMD). Time: Director's Office briefing presentation occurs the· TueS'day immediately following the monthly meeting; return to proponent (RTP) or forwarding to Assistant Director, WMD, to occur within 5 days of monthly meeting. C. Director's Office Briefing Presentation. Conservation Supervisor presents Stlil1JllaiY of which proposals were returned to proponents (and why they were returned) and which were routed for biological review. Chapter 1-2 Update 01/97 Page 1 of4 Page2 of -I Chttpter 1-2 Updllte 01/97 • A127 A128 • Appendix 1-1 AR..~..ZONA G.Al'f...E AND FISH STANDARD G.Al'f...E FL~CE DEPAR~~"T SPECIFI~~TIONS ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT ~ STANDARD GAME FENCE SPECIFICATIONS 12~ Gauge Barbless Wire I I I -1 ~" .. ~7 -~~"' ,. a r Standard AGFD Recommended Fence Specifications. l.. Wire l.st 2nd 3rd 4th 12" I I .. •J... ·~ .. '" ,,. -~ 12~ Gauge Barbed Wire i I I 42 11 Max. Height X X X X 1.2~ ground bottom wire second wire third wire Gauge Barbed Wire i 6" 1 J 1.2~ Gauge Barbless Wire 1r /r f .I II I 1 I Ground Level /,//ll//ll/////////ll////l//1/! - I I Specifications: • 20 - 25 feet • At least J equally spacad stays • Modifications to this design may be requested for fencing anticipated to be routinely encountered by elk, bighorn sheep or pronghorn. be~~een T-posts. be~~een Most Important Specifications: - total fence height height of bottom wire - space between 3rd and 4th wire. ~ fence stays and spacing between posts s:mooth bottom wire . :- ~ ~-..:: :-; :3 ~ ..:~Negotiable Points: - smooth top wire · .;~. - space between 2nd and 3rd wire - space bet'.ween l.st and 2nd wire -·total height up to 44 11 16" Min.im.u:m II I I l~.ddi tional barbed barbed smooth Position 16 11 above 611 above an above 1.211 above Additional Specifications: 20-25 feet between T-posts, least three equally spaced stays in between each past. x~~~x IIIII/II! smoot..~ Total Fence Height - 42M I X Tv"oe allo~ents 8" I I X The following are fenca specifications on cattle intended to facilitate safe movements by wildlife. each post. Rcvi=i 11/93 H.Uiitu Br=ch DLW:RAC:r.: ::. with at Appendix 1-1 ll..RIZONA GAME AND FISH DEP1l..RTMENT PVC FENCE CROSSING FOR ELK Fence Specifications in Bighorn Sheep Range Wire TV1:le smooth barbed smooth or barbed ~st 2nd 3rd April 11, 1994 Position 20 11 above ground 15" above bottom wire 4" above second wire I Total Fence Height - 39" II j} . .. .... -- --- ':?VC Burro Exclusion Fence Specifications in Bighorn Sheep Range Wire Tvoe ~st rail rail barbed barbed 2nd 3rd 4th Position 20" above 16" above 8" above 4" above ground bottom rail second rail third wire --- - -~ .. ... - . ~ -- - -- : ... - OR 1st 2nd 3rd 2 o11 above ground rail rail rail 16" above bottom rail 6 11 above second rail. Total ·Fence Height - 42 - 48"' -- ·---· · F~ce: _.?pecifications. for Pronghorn Habitat Wire l.st ~ SlD.Ooth 2nd barbed. 3:rd barbed ·- - - ' -- . ·___ __-,: .... ·:... Position 1.6" above ground 1.4" above bottom wire 1.2" above second wire Total Fence Height - 42" Additional Specification: Sixteen to thirty feet between posts; no fence stays be~*een posts that are less than 20 feet apart, only one stay bet"*een posts greater than 20 feet apart. Note: The AGFD standard recommended fence is an adequate alternative. However, stays should be omitted, or reduced in number i.f deer are generally absent from the area. ////////////////l///////1////////////l///////!!////l////Ground Level :;;Materials~-- . c-:1.0 ' •..Length 1?{." or -,Boundary :Fence 1.~"- ·pvc Wire CUtters Leather Gloves Instructions: 1.. Remove fe.nce stays between two primary fence posts. 2. Cut the top two wires approximately 1.8-24 inches from one of the primary posts. 3. Run both wires through the PVC. wires. 4. Use smooth wire to form wire stays that hold down the PVC to the bottom two wires. Notes: Then re-stretch and re.-tie both Time to install ~ 10-15 minutes. Cost ~ $2.50-$S.OO for PVC. Revised 4/1~/94 Habitat Branch BV :no • A129 A130 • Appendix 1-1 THE STATE OF ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 2221 AZ 85023-4399 (602) 942-3000 • WWW.AZGFD.COM WEST GREENWAY RoAD, PHOENIX, GOVERN. JANEDEEr . _ CoMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN, DENNIS D. M ANNING, ALPINE MICHAEL M . GOLIGHTLY, FLAGSTAFF JOE CARTER, SAFFORD SUSAN E. CHILTON, ARIVACA W. HAYSGILSTRI\P, PHOENIX Ms. Fiona Goodson January 18, 2002 2 DIRECTOR DUANE L. SHROUFE DEPUTY DIRECTOR STEVE K. FERRELL January 18, 2002 Ms. Fiona Goodson HDR 2141 E. Highland Ave. Suite 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4736 Re: Special Status Species Information for Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Sections 33-36; Township 2 North, Range 2 East Sections 31-34; Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Sections 1-36; Township 1 North, Range 2 East Sections 3-10, 15-22, 27-34; Township 1 South, Range 1 East Sections 1, 12; Township 1 South, Range 2 East Sections 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, 34, and 35; Township 1 South, Range 3 East, Sections 31-36; Township 1 South, Range 4 East Sections·31-33, ADOT South Mountain Corridor Study. The Department would appreciate the opportunity to provide an evaluation of impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitats associated with project activities occurring in the subject area, when specific details become available. If you have any questions regarding the attached species list, please contact me at (602) 789-3618. General status information and county distribution lists for special status species are also available on our web site at: http://www.azgfd.com/frames/fishwildlhdms site/Home.htm. Sincerely, hk/~ Sabra S. Schwartz Heritage Data Management System, Coordinator SSS:ss Attachment cc: Dear Ms. Goodson: The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed your request, dated January 10, 2002, regarding special status species information associated with the above-referenced project area. The Department's Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) has been accessed and current records show that the special status species listed on the attachment have been documented as occurring in the project area. In addition, this project does not occur in the vicinity of any proposed or designated Critical Habitats. The Department's HDMS data are not intended to include potential distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Making available this information does not substitute for the Department's review of project proposals, and should not decrease our opportunities to review and evaluate new project proposals and sites. The Department is also concerned about other resource values, such as other wildlife, including game species, and wildlife-related recreation. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REAS ONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AGENCY Bob Broscheid, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor Russ Haughey, Habitat Program Manager, Region VI AGFD #1-11-02(03) Appendix 1-1 STATUS DEFINITIONS ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT (AGFD) HERITAGE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (HDMS) Status Definitions Endangered Species Act ( 1973 as amended) US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (http :I I arizonaes. fws. gov) Listed ·'L E LT XN NPL Listed Endangered: imminent jeopardy of extinction. Listed Threatened: imminent jeopardy of becoming Endangered. Experimental Nonessential population. HR Critical Habitat (check with state or regional USFWS office for location details) Y Yes: Critical Habitat has been designated. P Proposed: Critical Habitat has been proposed. [ \N No Status: certain populations of this taxon do not have designated status (check with state or regional USFWS office for details about which populations have designated status)] . USFS US Forest Service (1999 Animals, 1999 Plants: corrected 2000) US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 3 (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/) Sensitive : those taxa occurring on National Forests in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Regional Forester. US Bureau of Land Management (2000 Animals, 2000 Plants) US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, (http :/ /azwww .az.blm. gov) S P Highly Safeguarded: no collection allowed. Salvage Restricted: collection only with permit. Export Restricted: transport out of State prohibited. Salvage Assessed: permits required to remove live trees. Harvest Restricted: permits required to remove plant by-products. WSCA Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (1996 in prep) Arizona Game and Fish Department (http://www.azgfd.com) Candidate (Notice of Review: 1999) C Candidate. Species for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list as Endangered or Threatened under ESA. However, proposed rules have not yet been issued because such actions are precluded at present by other listing activity. SC Species of Concern. The terms "Species of Concern" or "Species at Risk" should be considered as terms-of-art that describe the entire realm of taxa whose conservation status may be of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but neither term has official status (currently all former C2 species). BLM Arizona Native Plant Law (1999) Arizona Department of Agriculture (http :I I agriculture. state. az. us!PSD/ nativep Iants. htm) HS SR ER SA Proposed for Listing PE Proposed Endangered. PT Proposed Threatened. S AGFD, HDMS STATE STATUS FEDERAL US STATUS ESA 3 Arizona State Office Sensitive: those taxa occurring on BLM Field Office Lands in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Arizona State Office. Population: only those populations of Banded Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum) that occur north and west of the Colorado River, are considered sensitive by the Arizona State Office. WC Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Species whose occurrence in Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived threats or population declines, as described by the Arizona Game and Fish Department's listing of Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (WSCA, in prep). Species indicated on printouts as WC are currently the same as those in Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona (1988). Revised 10/3/01, AGFD HDMS J:\HDMS\DOCUMENT\NBOOKS\TEMPLATE\EORDEFS\STATDEF • A131 A132 • Appendix 1-1 THE STATE OF ARIZONA Special Status Species within .5 Miles of T2N,R1 E Sec 33-36; T2N,R2E Sec 31-34; T1N,R1E Sec 1-36; T1N,R2E Sec 3-10, 15-22, 27-34; T1S,R1E Sec 1, 12; T1S,R2E Sec 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, 34, 35; T1S,R3E Sec 31-36; T1S,R4E Sec 31-33 GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 2221 A7.. 85023-4399 (602) 942-3000 ° WWW.AZGFD.COM WEST GREENWAY ROAD, PHOENIX, GOVERN~ '. JANEDEE~,_ ! COMMISSitmO::RS CHAIRMAN, MICHAEL M. GOUGHTI.Y, FLAGSTAFF JOE CARTER, SAFFORD SUSAN E. CHILTON, ARIVACA W. HAYS GILSTRAP, PHOENIX JOE MELTON, YUMA DIRECTOR Arizona Game and Fish Department, Heritage Data Management System DUANE l. SHROUFE January 18, 2002 STEVE K. FERRELL Scientific Name Common Name DEPUTY DIRECTOR ESA USFS BLM WSCA NPL May 6, 2002 ATHENE CUNICULARIA HYPUGAEA WESTERN BURROWING OWL sc COCCYZUS AMERICANUS YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO c DENDROCYGNA AUTUMNALIS BlACK-BELLIED WHISTLING-DUCK GOPHERUS AGASSIZII (SONORAN POPULATION) SONORAN DESERT TORTOISE s s we we sc we Ms. Sirena Brownlee HDR Park One 2141 E . Highland Ave. Suite 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4736 No Critical Habitats in project area. AGFD #01-11-02(03), ADOT South Mountain Corridor Study. Re: Special Status Species Shapefiles for South Mountain Area Dear Ms. Brownlee: Enclosed is the information requested in your April 19, 2002, email for species shapefiles for the South Mountain area (shapefile provided by HDR Engineering). The data is provided in Arc View shapefiles in NAD 27, Zone 12 projection. It is my understanding that the information is to be used to identify areas of high biodiversity for project components. Per your request, enclosed is a diskette with a shapefile for species tracked by the Heritage Data Management System (HDMS). The HDMS focuses its efforts on special status or otherwise rare species. The data set are not intended to include potential locations, but are actual point observation or collections. The locations are one-mile radius polygons, but no names of the species are included. The areas are where special status species have been documented, The status information is included (i.e. listed endangered, BLM sensitive), but no other identifier is included, such as name or taxonomic group. These data are still considered to contain sensitive information that if used inappropriately could worsen the situation of already sensitive species. For this reason, please consider these data as property of the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department), and as such, are confidential. Consequently, the Department is providing the requested data with confirmation of your understanding and acceptance ofthe following conditions: • HDMS data provided by the Department will be used solely for the purpose of analyzing areas of high biodiversity, and no other project, and will be used solely by your office to conduct analysis. • HDMS data provided by the Department will not be distributed to other organizations, to individuals, or the public, or put on the Internet. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AGENCY Appendix 1-1 THE STATE OF ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 2221 AZ 85023·4399 (602) 942·3000 • AZGFD.COM WEsT GREENWAY RoAD, PHoENIX, Ms. Sirena Brownlee May6, 2002 2 • • No HDMS data provided by the Department will be retained after the completion of your analysis as hard or soft copy. HDMS data provided by the Department will be deleted from any and all computers used in this project and returned to the Department upon completion ofthe analysis. Site locality data will not be included in or as part of any product released to the public. The site data maps are to be used solely for internal planning efforts. Only correlation or statistics and interpretations will be made public. No maps or tables of point locations will be included in any product for external use. Any maps used for this project will be at such a scale as to cover a minimum of more than one square mile. • All 3rd party requests for access to this data will be referred to the HDMS at the Department. • The information being provided by the Department is for general planning purposes only, and is not to replace any future correspondence requesting special status species information for a specific project. Previous conduct of applicants is considered in processing requests for information. Because general release of site-specific data will negatively impact sensitive species, the Department will only release this information if it can assure adequate protection to the species. If the above agreed upon terms are violated, it will be considered a breach of agreement and you will be denied site specific level information in the future. Please feel free to contact me at (602) 789-3618 if you have any questions with the data being provided. A hard copy field definition list is also provided with the data. . Sincerely, lk/~ SabraS. Schwartz HDMS Coordinator SSS:ss Enclosure GOVERNOI JANET NAPt.~ .ANO COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN, SUSAN E. CHILTON, ARIVACA W. HAYS GILSTRAP, PHOENIX JOE MELTON, YUMA MICHAEL M . GOLIGHTLY, FLAGSTAFF WILLIAM H. MCLEAN, GOLD CANYON DIRECTOR DUANE L. SHROUFE DEPUTY DIRECTOR STEVE K. FERRELL October 12, 2004 Ms. Andrea Love HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 Re: South Mountain Transportation Corridor in Maricopa County, Draft Biological Technical Report, dated October 2003 Dear Ms. Love: The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the Draft Biological Technical Report for the South Mountain Transportation Corridor (Report). The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for the technical s~dy and looks_ forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) when It becomes available. The following specific comments are provided for your consideration: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Wildlife Resources: Page 3-6; The species list associated with the South Mountain Park/Preserve should include other nocturnal species such as owls and various species ofbats. Paragraph 3; the statement that the agricultural fields "have little value for native plants or wildlife", should be modified. Burrowing owls (state species of concern) are frequently located on the perimeter of agricultural fields utilizing fields for hunting and irrigation dikes for nesting. A brochure is enclosed for further information on burrowing owls. Last sentence; this pertains to the sand and gravel pits along the Salt River riverbed and their potential u~e as wildlife habitats. The Report states, " .... unlike natural ecosystems, the steep sides of the pits create less important zonal habitat that natural aquatic systems like rivers or lakes." If the gravel pits are non-active they could have their slopes modified to create shallow water habitats which would provide more suitable habitat to wildlife. Last paragraph; this section only addresses those washes that have been or will be directly impacted by the project. A description of intact washes, including their functionality and ability to support wildlife should be included in the Report. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AGEm;y--- - • A133 A134 • Appendix 1-1 Ms. Andrea Love October 12, 2004 2 Environmental Consequences: Impacts Associated with All Action Alternatives: Page 3-6 (last line on page); impacts are referenced as being largely restricted to a limited number of roadkills and disturbances caused by traffic noise (USDOT 2000). Roadkill and noise disturbances can result in major impacts to wildlife species. We recommend that any sections pertaining to road disturbances and how roads may be made more permeable for wildlife be expanded. Much research is being done nationwide (California, Florida, Colorado) regarding road design and their ability to support wildlife movement and the Department recommends that these studies be considered. Wildlife movement corridors between the South Mountain Park area and the Sierra Estrella Mountains should be elevated in importance within the document. The establishment ofwildlife crossings should be incorporated into the document in more detail and with a greater level of emphasis. This would allow for the potential dispersal of species between the two ranges despite the current level of degradation of the native habitats to prevent the establishment or further development of a "population sink" effect in habitats adjacent to the park. Potential lo.cations and designs for movement corridors should be provided in the DEIS and should be included in the Measures to Minimize Harm section of the Report. Measures to Minimize Harm: Paragraph 2; the Report states that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will landscape disturbed areas with native plants but does not indicate ifthere will be any monitoring to measure the success of the planting effort. Please indicate what steps will be taken to keep exotic species out of the revegetated areas and if there are any plans to replant if the revegetation is unsuccessful. Paragraph 3; plans should be included on how the equipment wash water will be disposed of to avoid dispersing nonnative seeds to another location. Paragraph 5; raised roadbeds (overpasses) allow for the maintenance of more natural vegetation, require less fill and have been demonstrated to have a higher rate of usage for more species than the standard drainage or box culvert crossing. This recommendation relates back to the above section regarding wildlife movement corridors. Threatened and Endangered Species: The Report should include a complete evaluation of all wildlife species, including special status species that are represented in the study area and within the 5-mile boundary. The DEIS should contain a thorough review, including potential impacts. and mitigation of impacts for all species located within the 5-mile boundary. The Department utilizes boundaries that extend beyond the study area to account for wildlife movement. An evaluation should be made regarding potential impacts to each species considering their range, habitat use, breeding periods, etc. Ms. Andrea Love October 12, 2004 3 All wildlife species identified are either diurnal or crepuscular in nature. Obligate nocturnal species should also be identified, such as bats, owls, etc. For any species where you are indicating that there are no current records, "current" should be defined. In addition, the state acronym for Wildlife Species of Concern is WSC, rather than WC. P. 3-13, paragraph 1; please indicate the WSC species that the Report refers to as being "documented in the vicinity of alternative T02 and options T02A and T02B. Environmental Consequences: Impacts Associated with All Build Alternatives: Page 3-13; states that, "Tres Rios is in the vicinity, less than 1 mile to the west, and it is likely that the birds would relocate to that area." An explanation of how Tres Rios can support the influx of displaced wildlife whether birds, or other species, should be provided. Cumulative Impacts The increase in non-native plants is identified, as well as the additional impacts associated with the species such as increases in non-native wildlife which are known to displace native species, e.g. European starling vs. Gila woodpecker. The document should provide potential alternatives for mitigating these foreseeable impacts to the environment. As non-native species become established in close proximity to relatively native habitat such as that in south Mountain Park, these native areas become increasingly stressed and therefore more susceptible to invasion by non-native species. This section should also address the cumulative impacts that may occur to Tres Rios in relation to all project activities. This description should include the influx of wildlife as previously discussed and the impacts of noise and disturbance to wildlife at Tres Rios. The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for this project and we would be interested in working with your team to address the comments provided herein as part of your range of alternatives and your preferred alternative. The Department is committed to partnering with agencies and managers to maintain wildlife permeability across the state of Arizona as habitat fragmentation is a serious issue that can cause species decline when important habitat components such as breeding sites or food sources can no longer be accessed. Populations can decline in the long term from lack of genetic variability that can eventually lead to species being federally listed as endangered or threatened. Appendix 1-1 THE STATE OF ARIZONA 0 Ms. Andrea Love October 12, 2004 ~~' is .\;;l GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 2221 WESTGREENWAYROAD, PHOENIX,A4,85023·4399 (602) 942·3000 • AZGFD.COM Sincerely, J~ . . ~---""0 ~ ~~rosche1d Habitat Branch Chief Enclosure cc: October 25, 2004 Ms. Andrea Love HDR Engineering, Inc. ·· 3200 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Re: BB:ea Rebecca Davidson, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor Russ Haughey, Habitat Program Manager, Region VI COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN, SUSAN E. CHILTON, ARIVACA W. HAYS GILSTRAP, PHOENIX JOE MELTON, YUMA MICHAEL M. GOUGHTLY, FLAGSTAFF WILUAM H . MCLEAN, GOLD CANYON DIRECTOR DUANE l. SHROUFE DEPUTY DIRECTOR STEVE K. FERRELL 4 The Department looks forward to coordinating with your planning team as needed, when identifying the locations of alternative wildlife crossings. Please coordinate with Rebecca Davidson, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor at (602) 789-3602, if you have any questions regarding these comments. GOVERNC. JANET NAPliuTANO Special Status Species Information for Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Section 3336; Township 2 North, Range 2 East, Section 31-34; Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Section 1-36; Township 1 North, Range 2 East, Section 3-10, 15-22, and 27-34; Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Section 1 and 12; Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Section 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, 34, and 35; Township 1 South, Range 3 East, Section 3136; Township 1 South, Range 4 East, Section 31-33: Proposed Freeway Connection. Dear Ms. Love: AGFD# 03-30-04 (01) The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed your request, dated October 6, 2004, regarding speCial status species information associated with the above-referenced project area. The Department's Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) has been accessed and current records show that the special status species listed on the attachment have been documented as occurring in the project vicinity (2-mile buffer). In addition this project does not occur in the vicinity of any Designated or Proposed Critical Habitats. The Department's HDMS data are not intended to include potential distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Making available this information does not substitute for the Department's review of project proposals, and should not decrease our opportunities to review and evaluate new project proposals and sites. The Department is also concerned about other resource values, such as other wildlife, including game species, and wildlife-related recreation. The Department would appreciate the opportunity to provide an evaluation of impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitats associated with project activities occurring in the subject area, when specific details become available. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AGENCY • A135 A136 • Appendix 1-1 Ms. Andrea Love October 25, 2004 2 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (602) 789-3619. General status information, county and watershed distribution lists and abstracts for some special status species are also available on our web site at http://www.azgfd.com/hdms. Special Status Species within 2 Miles of T2N, R1 E Sec. 33-36; T2N, R2E Sec. 31-34; T1N, R1E Sec. 1-36; T1N, R2E Sec. 3-10, 15-22, & 27-34; T1S, R1E Sec. 1 & 12; T1S, R2E Sec. 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, 34, & 35; T1S, R3E, Sec. 31-36; T1S, R4E Sec. 31-33 NAME Athene cunicu/aria hypugaea Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Dendrocygna autumnalis Gopherus agassizii (Sonoran Population) lxobrychus exilis Lasiurus blossevillii Ral/us /ongirostris yumanensis COMMON NAME Western Burrowing Owl Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Black-bellied Whistling-duck Sonoran Desert Tortoise Least Bittern Western Red Bat Yuma Clapper Rail ESA BLM sc c s sc LE Sincerely, cf. (?--~ADONALD R. ANTONE, SR. - GOVERNOR GILA RIVER I~DIAN COMMUNITY DRA/dh cc: Mr. James Stevens, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix Area Office Mr. Vernon Palmer, Acting Superintendent, Pima Agency Mr. Steven Martin, ADOT Mr. Eric Keen, Dames and Moore Mr. Bill Korf, HDR Infrastructure, Inc. • A141 A142 • Appendix 1-1 ~~ ~ QILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY ~ , ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SACATON, AZ. 85247 HIGHWAYS DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES P.O. Box 97 (602) 562·3311 or 963· 4323 AOSE MOFFOAO Governor CHARLES L. MILLER Director July 3, 1989 THOMAS A. BAYANT,II State Engineer July 12, 1989 Mr. Larry Landry Landry Associates 2 N. Central i1950 Phoenix, Arizona 8500~ Dear Mr. Landry, During our recent meeting discussing roads development plans on the reservation, you requested clarification of the Gila River Indian Community's north-south access points to the Southwest Loop freeway. We indicated that the tribe's master plan for the northern border area identifies 7th Street as critical and necessary to service existing and planned development. However, 7th Avenue is not needed for access to Community lands, as staff has made clear on a number of occasions during Technical Advisory Committee sessions with ADOT and its consultant, HDR, Inc. I hope this clarifies the tribe's position on 7th Street, rather than 7th Avenue, being the requested point of access. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Dorothy Hallock Comprehensive Planner Gila River Indian Community P. 0. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 RE: South Mountain Freeway Dear Dorothy: Recent statements made by Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) staff at various meetings indicate that there is some confusion regarding location of the South Mountain Freeway and access afforded the GRIC to the freeway. For your information, I have attached one depicting the alignment, design features right-of-way for the South Mountain Freeway. of our handouts and approximate I should point out that sheet 5 of 11 fails to show the proposed Estrella Drive grade separation which is part of the design concept. Otherwise, these handouts are consistent with the Design Concept Report, Design Concept Report Plans Set, and Final Environmental Assessment transmitted to GRIC July 27, 1988. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: CAntone, Land Use Planning DHallock, OP&E L. LOUIS Assistant Urban Highway Engineer Urban Highway Section JLL:SAM:vlb Attachment cc: Ed Wueste, FHWA Appendix 1-1 •f \ QILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY SACATON~ C~LeC"tioe (!)~ oJ tk. q~~.J!t.q~ 315 AZ 85247 The Honorable Mayor Skip Rimsza July 12, 1999 Page 2 Wed &ta ~ Road Pod Ofice &n 97 (520) 562-6000 tfku: (520) 562-60/0 July 12, 1999 Since the toll road concept has been abandoned, the Community has not pursued further discussions as to any alternative alignment(s) on our land. However, ADOT has recently requested the _,_Community's consideration on an alignment south of South Mountain. The Community's Gila --Borderlands Plan conveyed a conceptual plan for an alternative alignment if the toll road concept had proved feasible and advantageous to our Community. Dear Mayor Rimsza: We remain very concerned that your office did not commu.nicate its intent to circulate a plan of this nature, prior to distribution, given the -key role the Community would have in the proposed project. Ifa project of this magnitud·e were to occur, it would be on a government to government relationship. However, a planner within the City of Phoenix's Planning Department distributed it to two staff members of mine who are not directly involved in transportation planning issues. In the future, I strongly suggest that documents of this nature be provided directly to my office with copies to-Ms. Sandra Shade, Director of our Community's Department of Transportation via the Mayor's office. The Gila River Indian Community (the ((Community'') has received a draft copy of the South Mountain Parkway Specific Plan which was prepared by the City of Phoenix's Planning Department. Members of my staff have completed a preliminary review of this draft plan that proposes an alternative alignment through our Community. In closing, our Community has roadways within our respective areas which we consider to be a priority_ The dilemma currently confronted by the City of Phoenix is not a priority our Community desires to undertake at this time. Should the Community desire to entertain this matter further, we will contact your office. While this proposed plan would obviously benefit the City of Phoenix's limited access to the west valley, the Community does not see any benefits to having this alignment on our lands. We do not desire to see the proposed state highway proceed through any portion of South Mountain due to cultural and religious significance. However, there are several disadvantages to Alternative "B". Sincerely, The Honorable Mayor Skip Rimsza · City of Phoenix 200 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 There is no guaranteed access which would be provided to the Community through the development ofthis proposed highway. We would require access. The alignment, as proposed, is not eligible for the $85 million in parkway funds unless the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) approves the new alignment. Which entity would pursue parkway funds and the change of alignment? ADOT would be required to complete environmental studies in this area according to regulations. ADOT' s State Transportation Board would have to approve this alignment as a new state highway, and accoroing to ADOT, this would be a limited access highway. The plan discusses proposed noise and visual mitigation elements which would only benefit the residents of the Ahwatukee Foothills area. There appears to be no positive aesthetic enhancements for the Community. Therefore, the Community would be subject to negative noise and visual impacts from the proposed highway. This is not acceptable. The proposed alignment creates the potential for incompatible development opportunities for the Community's landowners in the area. Therefore, the proposed highway alignment may not meet mutual objectives. Our future development in this area would be limited. 'IJ/~V~ ~~~~ThJmas Governor MVT:ss cc: Cecil F. Antone, Lt. Governor, GRIC Community Council, GRIC I-10 & Pecos Landowners Association, GRIC Districts 6 & 7 Communities, GRIC Sandra Shade, Director, GRIC DOT Mary Peters, Director, ADOT Sal DiCiccio, Councilman, City ofPhoenix • A143 A144 • Appendix 1-1 (/I LA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Executive C!ifice qftlie Guvemor & Lieutenanr Governor DonaldR.AntoTt? Sr. Governor (520) 430-4780 FAX (520) 430-3224 DISTRICT 7 SERVICE CENTER RURAL ROUTE 4, BOX 186 LAVEEN, ARIZONA 85339 January 10, 2002 Memorandum To: Mr. John D. Godec South Mountain Corridor Team Leader Fr: Keith R. Fohrenkam, Chairperso~~ GRIC District Seven ' Date: December 11, 2001 Re: South Mountain Freeway Upon the District review of your presentation on the proposed routes for the South Mountain Freeway, it is the majority ruling of the District Seven Community members to write this letter in opposition of the Freeway coming through the District Seven Community. Ifyou should have any further questions, please call the telephone numbers listed above. Thankyou. xc: file • RidianfR Narda Lieutenant Governor . . . Mr. Victor Mendez, Director Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Re: Reduced Corridor Study for the South Mountain EIS Dear Mr. Mendez: The Gila River Indian Community (the "Community'') appreciates being included as a key stakeholder for the South Mountain Corridor EIS. As you know, this corridor has been the subject of several studies during the past fifteen years. Several of these studies considered freeway alignments on our Community's lands and these studies all concluded that freeway alignments more than a few miles south ofPecos Road are not feasible. The Community is not interested in revisiting alignments South of the Ocotillo Road section line, as referenced with the accompanying map to the Right ofEntryPennitNo. RE-02-01 that was granted by our Community Council on September 5, 2001. As recently as 1996, studies showed such alignments to be infeasible. In light of the above considerations, the Community Council has indicated that the study area on Community land be limited to the area North of the Ocotillo Road section line and North of the Gila River. We do not wish to preclude options, however, we do not believe there is value in studying alignments outside this area. We looked forward to a continued working relationship with the South Mountain EIS project team. Sincerely, c-:4~ cd~ / ( C::. ~ -~ Donald R. Antone, Sr. Governor 315 W. Cas a Blanca Road • Post Office Box 97 • Sacaton, Arizona 85247 • Telep_hone: (520) 562-6000 • . Fax: (520) 562-6010 Appendix 1-1 GILA RIVER INDIAN CoMMUNITY Victor Mendez, Director January 10, 2002 Page2 cc: Executive qfJlce o/tlie Governor & .Lieutenant Governor Reduced Corridor Study for the South Mountain EIS Richard P. Narcia, Lt. Governor Sandra Shade, Director, GRIC DOT Fred Ringlero, Director, GRIC LUP&Z Bill Hayden, Special Assistant to Director, ADOT Mary Viparini, Project Manager, ADOT Steve Martin, Project Manager, HDR Bill Vachon, Engineer, FHWA Davis Pecusa, Superintendent, BIA Pima Agency Dcmafd"R. Altto~ Sr. Governor .Ric/ian{P. Na.n:ia Lieutenant Governor April 25, 2002 Mr. Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 234 N . Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Re: Development ofAlternative Alignments for a South Mountain Transportation Corridor on Gila River Indian Community Lands Dear Mr. Hollis: As you are aware, stafffrom our Community have partnered with members of your st~ Arizona Department of Transportaticm, and the consultant team regarding the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Concept Report for the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study. In addition, we have initiated a Gila Borderlands Task Force that is currently working on updating development plans along our northern boundary which is adjacent to the proposed transportation corridor. Our Community Council adopted a resolution in August 2000 which in essence does not support any freeway alignment on Tribal land ~ith.in the proposed study area. The~efore, until such time that 0\.11' Council revisits this resolution and modifies or rescinds it, the Communitx can not ofFer any aligrunents for inclusion into the above study. The Gila Borderlands Task Force has had preliminary internal discussions regarding potential alignments which may be advantageous to the Commucity and allotted landowners. The Task Force, as a recommending body, will continue to discuss the matter at future meetings. Should the resolution issue be resolved and the alignments forwarded to our Natural Resources Standing Connnittee, the Committee will determine whether the proposed alignments have merit which warrant their support for a favorable recommendation to our Community Council. In the meantime, the Community appreciates your understanding that only the Community government has the right to designate alignment alternatives within its boundaries. - 315 W Casa Bla!"lta ~cad • Post Otfic;e 5ox 97 • Sacaton, Atizona 65247 • Telephone: {520) 56UIOOO • Fax: (520) 562-6010 • A145 A146 • Appendix 1-1 Riclia;rf.P Jlfar.d11 Ma;y V Tliomas GovER >-: OP. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Mr. Robert E. Hollis April 25, 2002 Page 2 Gila RiPet' It1!dlut~ Cornt1tiiiiity · EIS/DCR South Mountain Transportation Corridor Members of my staff will continue to work with your staff during this study process. We look forward to a continued mutually beneficial working relationship. ExECUTIVE OFFICE oF THE GovERNOR & LIEUTENANT Gov ERNOR Aprilll , 2003 Sincerely, ~~/~~A Donald R. Antone, Sr. Governor cc: Richard P. Narcia, Lt. Governor Victor Mendez, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation Davis Pecusa, Superintendent, BIA, Pima Agency Sandra Shade, Director, GRIC DOT Mr. Robert E. Hollis .... Division Administrator Federal Highway Administratiotl: Arizona Division One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ 85004-2285 ~e: HDA-AZ File·#: NH-202;D(ADY) Dear 'rvk Hoil.is: · .. This correspondence. is ili respo~e to your M~ch 6, "2003 letter ~ which.you have requested the Community to identify.a corridor for study -for the Environmental ImpactStat~ment Study for the South Mountain Corridor Sttidi . · ·· · · · ' As you will note from the ~tffiched lettertoADOT dated January 10.,2002 accompanying map to the Right of Entry Permit, a reduced ~orridor study wasoU:llined as the area North of the Ocotillo Road section line and North of the Glla River. and For the Community to offer an "alignment(s)" for study, we would have to undertake a similar ·· process that ADOT' s consultant, HDR is currently undergoing with regarding to the Environmental Impact Statement Study. If the. Community were to "dictate" an alignment for study, this might · defeat the purpose of the study. . . As also conveyed in a letter to FHWA dated April 25, 2002 our Community Council has adopted a resohition in August 2000 which in essence does not support any freeway alignment on Tribal land within the proposed study area. Until such time that our Council revisits this resolution, the Comniunity staff, as .a part of the monthly EIS meetings, cannot offer any alignments for consideration. 315 TELEPHONE : 97 (520) 562-6010 " WEST CASABLANCA ROAD o PoST OFFICE Box o SACATON, ARIZONA (520) 562-6000 EMAi l : o FAX : 85247 executi vemail@gric.nsn.us Appendix 1-1 Robert E. Hollis Aprilll , 2003 Page2 At this time, we feel that you have a corridor to study alignments. Any alignments for consideration must be ultimately approved by our Community Council. Richard P. N arcia Governor cc: Mary V. Thomas, Lt. Governor Community Council , GRIC Victor Mendez, Director, ADOT attachments: Correspondence dated January 10, 2002 to ADOT Director Correspondence dated April 25, 2002 to FHWA Division Administrator Dr1ftiM EJ'r~od>ISI>ultl.ill'llb;oiii\GRIC_I'vemor :rita River Community Council Members rban Giff~ Community Manager ary Bohnee, Executive Assistant, GRJC andra Shade, Di:feetot, GRIC DOT avis Pecusa, Superintendent, BIA Pima Agency ictor Mendez, Director, ADOT ill Hayden, Special A.Bsist.ant to Director, ADOT ~obe~ Hol~is, ])i visio?- A~strator, FHWA qeiUlls S1t11th, Executive Drrector, MAG i~ • A151 A152 • Appendix 1-1 e Richard P Narda GDVERNQR . - MARY •. . . Gila River Indian Community ExECUTIVE OFHCE oF rHE GovERNoR V T. LiEUTCNANT - & LIEUTENANT GovERNOR October 14, 2005 Mr. Victor Mendez, Director Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. Seventeenth A venue Phoenix, AZ 85007-321,3 Dear Director Mend~z: On behalf of the Gil.a River In:dian Community (the ••community''), I :appreciate the Arizona Department of Transportation (APOT) and the Federal Highway Administration . (FHWA) for taking the time to ·m eet to di.s cuss important trartsport~tion issues that face our respective organizations. As ·such, I believe the key to building a successful partnership is to develop a better communication process and protocol. Central to this effort is the need to identify a point of contact in our respective -organizations that is both knowledgeable aild capable of speaking in an offi.cial·capacity. For the Community, Ms. Sandra Shade, Director, Gila River Department of Transportation will continue to serve as the primacy contact. Consistent with our discussion, the Community would like to have Mr. Bill Hayden serve as the ADOT's primary liaison to the Community. As a part of your current team, Mr. Hayden brings to the bible the requisite experience in working with tribal governments. He has an established relationship with the Community Council, key staff, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Of equal importance are his experience, knowledge and respect for our tribal protocol. The Lieutenant Governor and I both feel strongly that Mr. Hayden has demonstrated the ability to work with our leadership in an effective manner and, _therefore, remain unyielding in our request that he serve as the key point of contact from ADOT to work with our Community on this project. We believe Mr. Hayden will move this project forward in a positive manner in the spirit of communication and cooperation with all stakeholders. Importantly, the Community recognizes the Interstate 10 (I-10) Widening Project is the number one statewide priority project for ADOT. As such, we feel strongly that ADOT ~ 15 I/Vrs1 (,\V• B t.<~~". l\ R.o"'r," Po~, 01 rocE Box 97 ,. S1KATON. AR1 ..:ors~. 8524 7 rELEI'Hor-~~ : (520j 562-6000 • Ft"'' (520) 562 ·601 0 .., EMAIL executlvemail@grir.nsn us G must bring an experienced and professional project management team who wil1 work closely with our key staff in moving this project forward . The Community Council adopted Resolution GR-119-05 ..on August 5, 2005 that identifies several priority areas regarding the alignment, improvement, operation and maintenance of, and access to Interstate 10 within the boundaries "of our Community. · A copy of this resolution has been provided to you and Mr. Robert Hollis ofFHWA so that your respective organizations may begin the review process while we concurrently move forward with a Community outreach program and additional input and participation. Again, it was a pleasure to have the opportunity to meet with you and Mr. Hollis and I look forward to a mutually beneficial working relationship. Your consideration of the Community's recommendations is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ~~-t~ Richard P. Narcia, Governor Gila River Indian Community cc: Lt. Governor Mary V. Thomas Gary Bohnee, Chief of Staff, GRJC Sandra Shade, Director, GRlC DOT Robert Ho11is, FHWA Division Administrator The Honorable Governor Janet Napolitano Appendix 1-1 .Ricnt?rtt.P. Nmda Ma'!J V. Tnoma.r GOVER I>; OR liEUTEN;',NT GOVERNOR Gila Ritter Iltdlatt Cotnr1tiiiilf!J EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR & LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Thomas Community Public Information Officer Gila River Indian Community (520) 562-6000 (520) 562-6030 Mr. Victor Mendez DU'eetor Executive Office of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor -- Media Advisory -- Arizona Department ofTnmsportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear .Director Mendez: .h.s you ~ aware, there bati Ie~;cnt:ly been considerabie public dobate on the future of the propok:d South Mo'lll'®bl ~ 202. In an effort to clarify the position of the Gila Rivc:r Indian Community (•"the Comnlunity'? on this issue please accept thjs letter to rea:ffinn that the Co:mmunity does not support any freeway alignment on tribal lands. Consistent witb a CenmnmityCouncil ~olution (GR-126-00) adopted in August 2000 and, more teeently, a motion that was adopted by the Council em DecCJnber 8, 2005 to reaffirm the August 2000 resolution, the Community remains steadfast in.its position on the proposed S~uth Mounwn Loop 202. Importantly, it is the authority of tbe Conununity Counoil to detennine the transportation policy of the Cmrinnmity. Thereft support or endorse any proposed alignment within the boundaries of the reservation. Comm~mity m appreciates being il key stakeholder the EnvirOilllleiltal Impact Statemen! (''EIS'? process to date, with the-heightened 1~1 of public debate on this issue it is important for the Community to oon-.rcr its position a& clr:::arly as pOssible. In any public forum it is our hope tbl: Community's position is enunciated accurately. Indeed, on behalf of the <:;ommunity we look; fotward to working with you oo other significant transporta-tion pwjects that are of con:unon interest. While ·the May 23,2006 Governor William R. Rhodes States The People of Gila River Indian Community Are Entitled to Vote on Loop 202 Issue Sacaton, Arizona - William R. Rhodes, Governor of the Gila River Indian Community, who in the past several weeks has raised speculation among offreseNation residents, politicians, and highway transportation officials that building the South Mountain Freeway on reseNation land may still be a possibility, despite past rejection of such a proposal by the Community Council, says his suggestion that the freeway issue should be decided by tribal members in a voter referendum is out of concern that all affected landowners and community residents be heard on the matter. Rhodes said he acknowledges that the community's District Six council passed district legislation opposing building the freeway on district land, and that Please do not l)esito.te to contact me if you have any questiOIJi. ~~t-~~ R.iohard P. Narcia Govdnor c;:c: Community Council, GRIC Robert Holfu;, Division Administrator, ffiWA Sandta Shade, Direot.()f, GRICDOT ·· Ce(:ilia Martine:, ~ Supe.rintQndent, BIA, Pima Agenoy the Gila River Community Counqil reaffirmed that opposition last year. "District Six, they have a legal resolution, and the Community Council resolution reaffirming the District Six resolution is legal," he said, but he noted that during his campaign for governor land owner groups approached him with concerns about not having a voice when opposition was raised. "The landowners are saying, 'We didn't get a chance to vote.' That's true, if you're not from that District (Six), you didn't get to vote," Rhodes said. He explained that tribal members who have land interest in the affected area of the proposed South Mountain Freeway aren't necessarily members of District Six; 315 WEST 0.SA BLANCA ROAD o POST 0FFra Box 97 o SACATON, ARIZONA 85247 (520) 562-6000 o FAX: (520) 562-6~1 0 " EMAIL: executivemail@gric.nsn.us TELEPHONE: • A153 A154 • Appendix 1-1 they may be enrolled members in any of the other six districts of the Gila River Indian Community. This oversight can be remedied, he said, "Their right to vote can come through a voter referendum. This issue has been going on for the past three to four administrations, we will get an answer, and the way get an answer is by a referendum vote. I'm doing this to protect the peoples' rights. They have a right to a referendum." Rhodes said the bylaws and constitution of the Gila River Indian .QtLA. RIVER ·rNQtAN COMMUNITY· . SACATON., ,AZ 85247 : :LAND-USE PLANNiNG & ZONIN~ · . Fred - Ring·l~ro, Dire?tor Planning &_Zoning Cominfssion Ordi-nance Enforcement Office · Tribat.Homesite :Office : Livestock Office . SIJrvey & Enginee~ing _. Community outlines two ways that such a referendum can be held-one, it can . 10 percent of the registered voters in the community sign a petition. referendum on any enacted or proposed ordinance or resolution or other action be held at a special election called for that purpose or may be held at the same time as and concurrent with any other election. The result of such referendum Rhodes said in pursuit of such a referendum, "We can go through the .. ' · . . : : _ HDREngineering, Inc; ·. _ 2.t4(East Highla-nd.-Avenu·~ · . · Suite-2 50 Phoenix,. Arizona 8!j~16-473q · .• · . · . · · · Telephone (602) 508-6600 _ . _. *Contact ·Pers(?h: Stephen~- Martin, P.E., Proje?t Manager ; voters of the Community or by resolution of the Council. Such referendum may conclusive and binding upon the Council." . I THIS RI(;HT- OF- ENTRY is here_by.granted~ t_o;: .. .· . of the Council shall be called by a petition of 10 percent or more of the qualified shall be immediately noted in the Council minutes by the Secretary and shall be ' . NATURALRE~OURC~S STANDING COMMITTEE . ~IGHT-()F-'ENTRY f'I;~MIT NO. Rt-02;,_ 01 be called by a resolution of the Community Council; two, it can called if at least Article 13-Referendum, of the Community's Constitution reads, "A POST-OfFIGE-BOX E (520) .562~3301 (480) 899-0092 (520) . 8~6-7291 . FAX (520) 562-4008 tne> THIS RIGHT-Qf.;ENTRY, has, been grantedforthe following purpose.~ - T~ perrorm following> general types, otwork_:· · · · : . · · · ·. _· · · _· · . - . -· - • 1. To p~fform _ land surveying and temporary-aerial target cdnstruction. -· . . . . . ... . Community Council, ask them for a referendum vote to get an answer from the ' . 2. · To _eohduct :fteld investigations for a v~riety of non-:Ci:lsturbing · voters. If the Council feels it doesn't want to do a special election, then we'll have environmental· sur:Veys iricludfng drainag:e; biological, cultural; lal)d · use. sodo-:~conomic, tra-nsportation, -geolog-i cat visual, n·oise; air · qua,tity~, utilities,_and ot~er eriviro~mental considerations. ' - to go get signatures. The people have a right to a referendum, it's in the Constitution. The landowners have a right to express yes or no." T~l~ RIGHT..of:.;EN-TRY, wiJI. ~ncompass-the general: alignineht studies already approvedfor considerationthrough_priorTribal- CounCil Resolution. : The · ~tudy are~: is a · three-mile wide. cqrridor starting witt} the. eastern.boUnda·r y -Hne being the: Interstate. Highway 1-10, northern boundary is the GRIC northern boundary line or commonly.. , known as Peco_ s Road alignment'to a point known as the 35Ift Ave alignm~nt and turns ·-northwest the Salt River; the westem1 -boundary line _is.th~ -Gila River and runs ·north to the~ Salt River Please see the attached niap of the approved study: area. · ,.. · to Appendix 1-1 · THIS RIGHT -OF~WAY, will comme.nce .September . 2003 .' . . . .any- theft~. 6, 2001 and end Septemb.er 5; .. . . THIS ~IGHT -OF~WAY; was aRprove Disuict 6 Community along 5 I" A venue and Beltline Highway. frteway noise, 1rosh1 etc.); • l'leascconlact David White, Community Ma.nnger. (520) 562·9713 to set up a meeting so we can 525 W~st Gu u K.l · P.O. Box 97 · Sacaton, Arizona 8514 7 Telephone: 520·562·9840 · Fax: 520·562·9849 · Email: executivemail~gric.nsn.us L/-4~o-/~ William R. Rhodes, Governor GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Appendix 1-1 GILA RNER INDIAN COMMUNITY 'Executive Office of tfie (jovernor & Lieutenant (jovernor Wi{{iam 'R. 'Rhodes ]osryli:Manue{ Governor Lieutenant GoYernor further discuss the conditions of our cooperation and develop a schedule/process for conducting the study. Sincerely, January 27, 2010 Director John Halikowski Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Mail Drop 100A Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Halikowski, The purpose of this letter is to inform the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) that the Gila River Indian Community (the "Community") is willing to assist in conducting a study of the effects of an On-Reservation Loop 202 alignment consistent with the Community's land use plans (i.e., the Borderlands Study) and the desire to mitigate cultural impacts to Muadag (South Mountain). The Community's assistance in this matter should not be construed as our approval of an On-Reservation alignment. The Community's official position remains the same: (a) we oppose any desecration of Muadag (i.e., oppose the current Off-Reservation alignment), and (b) we oppose an On-Reservation alignment. Despite our desire for a no-build option, we recognize that there is a high likelihood that the Loop 202 South Mountain will be built. Therefore, it is in our best interests to explore all options to mitigate any negative impacts to our culture and land; including a potential On-Reservation alignment. The Community is willing to assist ADOT in studying potential On-Reservation alignments, provided that any proposed alignments would: • • • • Mitigate negative impacts of a freeway within or near the District 6 Community (i.e., freeway noise, trash, etc.); A void cultural sites and culturally significant properties; Preserve the Community's traditional routes and wildlife corridors between Komadk (the Estrella Mountain) and Muadag; and Be designed to limit truck and other commuter traffic through the District 6 Community along 51st A venue and Beltline Highway. Please contact David White, Community Manager, (520) 562-9713 to set up a meeting so we can 525 West Gu u Ki · P.O. Box 97 · Sacaton, Arizona 85147 Telephone: 520-562-9840 · Fax: 520-562-9849 · Email: executivemail@gric.nsn.us t_/-£~0-/e:J William R. Rhodes, Governor GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY • A159 A160 • Appendix 1-1 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 1-1 ARICOPA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS • A161 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 .A. Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone (602) 254-8300 .A. FAX (602) 254-8490 mag@mag.maricopa.gov September 20, 2001 Ms. Rita Walton Maricopa Association of Governments 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Subject: South Mountain Corridor L/DCR & EIS Demographic Data Request Dear Ms. Walton: ADOT is undertaking a study to assess the environmental impact and to perform a DCR r;; . proposed improvements within the South Mountain Corridor from the I-10/Santan Free' interchange vicinity to I-10 west between 43rd Avenue and 107th Avenue. To beg i; ~ evaluation, we are requesting the following demographic data in ARC/INFO or ArcView f: ;,·.. for the corridor: • • • • • • TAZ 2000 DFl 2025 (TAZ demographic data for the horizon year 2025) Development data Employment data General plans for Phoenix,_ Tolleson, Avondale, and Goodyear MP A Boundaries May 31,2000 TO: Members of the MAG South Mountain Parkway Stakeholders Group FROM: Terry Max Johnson, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: CONFIRMATION OF ACTION RECOMMENDED MOUNTAIN AGENCY STAKEHOLDERS GROUP BY THE SOUTH At the last meeting of the South Mountain Agency Stakeholders Group held on May 2, 2000, it was the consensus of the group that a Federal environment impact statement be undertaken for the entire corridor. Also, there was a recognized need to protect right-of-way for this facility. These recommendations require action by MAG and ADOT. To ensure that the consensus of the South Mountain Agency Stakeholders Group is fully addressed, a draft memorandum is enclosed for your review. Please provide any comments to me or Stuart Boggs at (602) 254-6300 by June 12, 2000. Do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions. These data files will be used in the review of the model demographic input files and emp!cyv<; in the alternative evaluation. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sincerely, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '1Jlc~~.~u!Lpau411f) Project Manager cc: Steve Martin, HDR Patrizia Gonella-Ramos, Lima & Associates - - - - - - - - - - - - A Voluntary Association of Local Governments In Maricopa C o u n t y - - - - - - - - - - - City of Avondale Ao. Town of Buckeye .A. Town of Carefree .A. Town of Cave Creek Ao. City of Chandler .A. City of 8 Mirage .A. Town of Fountain Hills .A. Town of Gila Bend .A. Gila River Indian Community .A. Town of Gilbert City of Glendale .A. City of Goodyear Ao. Town of Guadalupe .A. City of litchfield Park .A. Maricopa County .A. City of Mesa Ao. Town of Paradise Valley Ao. City of Peoria .A. City ~f Phoenix .A. Town of Queen Cn:ek Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community .A. City of Scottsdale .A. City of Surprise .A. City of Tempe .A. City of Tolleson .A. Town of Wickenburg .A. Town of Youngtown .A. Arizona Department of Transportation A162 • Appendix 1-1 DRAFT May 31,2000 TO: MAG Transportation Review Committee FROM: Terry Max Johnson, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO UNDERTAKE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PROTECT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SOUTH MOUNTAIN PARKWAY The South Mountain Agency Stakeholders Group was formed by action of the MAG Regional Council on January 19, 2000. At a meeting of this Group on May 2, 2000 there was a consensus to move forward with a Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the entire corridor. Also, it was recognized that the right-of-way for this facility needs to be protected. Accordingly, the following actions are recommended: • Amend the MAG and ADOT FY 2001 programs to include $6.0 million for an Environmental Impact Statement and Design Concept Report for the South Mountain Parkway. • Authorize right-of-way protection funds to be used in the South Mountain corridor. HISTORY The South Mountain Parkway extends 22 miles from the Papago Freeway in west Phoenix to south of South Mountain and then eastward along the Pecos Road alignment to the Maricopa freeway in Chandler. Funding for this parkway was approved by the voters ofMaricopa County in 1985. The South Mountain Parkway has been part of the MAG Long Range Transportation Plan since 1985, however, target dates for completion have varied. In 1997, $85 million was included in the funded ADOT Life Cycle Program for construction of an interim facility between 19th A venue and Baseline Road. This level of funding remains part of the currently approved Life Cycle Program. Completion of this facility is now targeted for after 2007. ISSUES In 1985, the South Mountain Corridor was located just north of the Gila River Indian Community. As a result, the Parkway cuts the edge of the southwest comer of South Mountain Park. Since the adoption of the original corridor location in 1985, the Pecos corridor has experienced intense development activity. ADOT has purchased 243 acres in this corridor and the City of Phoenix has helped to protect this corridor by requiring dedication of 110 feet of right-of-way. However, homes are now located along the edge of this planned facility. Development activity is also occurring along the north/south leg of the corridor. A red letter notification was received by MAG in June 1999 concerning a new subdivision with 148 homes in the Parkway alignment near Broadway Road. MAG and ADOT committees assessed this notification and as a result the Regional Council formed the South Mountain Agency Stakeholders Group that includes representatives from: • • • • • • The Gila River Indian Community Arizona Department of Transportation Maricopa County City ofTolleson City of Glendale City of Phoenix ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Preliminary engineering for the original alignment for the South Mountain Parkway was completed by ADOT in 1988. A state environmental assessment was completed in association with this work. At the meeting of South Mountain Agency Stakeholders Group on May 2, 2000, the consensus of the group was that a full Federal environmental impact statement should be completed for this entire corridor. Reasons include: • • • Ensure eligibility for Federal funding Need to fully address environmental issues Possibility of an alignment change that would be located on the Gila River Indian Community to avoid South Mountain Park At this meeting, interest was expressed in fully addressing related issues including: • • • • • A truck bypass route Design of the South Mountain/Papago Interchange to limit congestion on 59th Avenue Need for interim solutions, including a bypass route around the Laveen area Need to protect right-of-way Need for a strategic plan to program near-term funds and ensure completion of the parkway Appendix 1-1 • A163 ACTION In order to proceed with the consensus of the South Mountain Agency Stakeholders Group, the following is recommended: December 19, 2005 • Amend the MAG and ADOT FY 2001 programs to include $6.0 million for an Environmental Impact Statement and Design Concept Report for the South Mountain Parkway. • Authorizeright-of-wayprotection funds to be used in the South Mountain corridor. This additional $6.0 million in FY 2001 can be absorbed within the existing cash flow. This is a minor project so a public hearing is not required. Also, as an exempt project a regional conformity analysis is not required. The current freeway Life Cycle Program includes $5.0 million per year for the protection of right-of-way. Once the environmental and preliminary engineering work has been completed the existing $85 million on the South Mountain Parkway may need to be reprogrammed to be in accord with a new strategic plan to complete the corridor. For additional information please call me or Stuart Boggs at (602) 254-6300. The Honorable J.D. Hayworth House of Representatives 2434 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Hayworth: Thank you for meeting with Mayor Hawker, and staff from the Maricopa Association of Governments and the Arizona Department ofT ransportation (ADOT) to discuss the issues surrounding the Environmental Impact Statement being conducted by the ADOT on the South Mountain Freeway. We appreciate your candor regarding the concerns of the residents in the Ahwatukee area and believe that with your involvement the best solution for this facility can be attained. In our meeting, we discussed the history of the project and the need to address regional mobility. Your staff requested that we address the specific questions that you forwarded to our office and we have worked with the Arizona Department ofT ransportation regarding these issues. A copy of the answers is enclosed. To augment the answers to your questions, we would gladly work with your staff to further discuss the issues regarding the project. Again, we are looking forward to working with you and your staff on the South Mountain Freeway Project. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to discuss these issues. If you have any questions, please contact me at the MAG office. Executive Director c. Mayor Keno Hawker Brian Murray Eric Anderson A Voluntary Association of Local Governments in Maricopa County - - - - - - - - City of Apache Junction "' City of Avondale"' Town of Buckeye"' Town of Carefree "' Town of Cave Creek"' City of Chandler"' C.ity of El Mirage "' Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation"' Town of Fountain Hills "' Town of Gila Bend . Gila River Indian Community ... Town of Gilbert"' City of Glendale"' City of Goodyear"' Town of Guadalupe"' City of Litchfield Park"' Maricopa County"' City of Mesa .. Town of Paradise Valley"' City of Peoria"' City of Phoenix Town of Queen Creek ... Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community .. City of Scottsdale"' City of Surprise"' City of Tempe"' City of Tolleson"' Town of Wickenburg"' Town of Youngtown"' Arizona Department of TransportatiOn A164 • Appendix 1-1 • Date of Projections 1985 1988 2003 2005 Projection Year Study Central Area Transportation Study Southwest Loop Environmental Assessment and Design Concept Report (Arizona SR218) Initiation of South Mountain Freeway Environmental Impact Statement and Location/Design Concept Report (Arizona SR-202L) Continuing study efforts for the South Mountain Freeway EIS and L/DCR (Arizona SR-202L) 2015 2015 2025 2030 Daily Traffic Forecast 92,000 97,000 155,000 164,000 Copies of the 1985 and 1988 studies are available for review from MAG. Please contact us for copy informacion. Inquiry 2. Your most current estimates on commercial truck traffic versus noncommercial traffic. Response: The MAG travel demand model incorporates a commercial vehicle model to estimate this type of traffic on the MAG freeway system. Current projections indicate the SR202L/South Mountain Freeway will carry approximately 12,000 commercial vehicles daily, or· approximately seven percent, in the 2030 forecast horizon. By contrast, this volume is lower than the present commercial vehicle volume along the US-60/Superscition Freeway, where more than 17,000 commercial vehicles can \:)e found east of its traffic interchange with the Interstate tO/Maricopa Freeway. This volume is approximately eight percent of the existing traffic on US-60. Thus, MAG believes the SR-202L/South Mountain Freeway forecasts are in-line with the commercial vehicle demand for other freeways on the regional network. It is also important to note that the commercial vehicles using the proposed freeway dramatically reduce their use of existing surface streets in this portion of the metropolitan area. Most notably, this includes the Beltline Highway/51st Avenue corridor where MAG believes commercial vehicle traffic through the Gila River Indian Community and Laveen Village activity centers will drop by as much as 80 percent when compared to traffic projections for the No-Build scenario. We believe this drop in commercial vehicle traffic on these arterial streets will considerably reduce the crash potencial, especially between vehicles and pedestrians, in these activity centers. 2 Studies have shown that travel time will be less from travel along Interstate 10 between the current Pecos Road and Washington Street interchanges if the SR-202L/South Mountain Freeway is constructed. Without the freeway, the study team estimates the travel time would be 37 minutes for this trip. If SR-202L is constructed, then the travel time for this trip decreases to 28 minutes. Inquiry: 5. What are the reasons the Phoenix Parks Board opposes the construction of the freeway and how you plan to mitigate all of their concerns. Response: From the ADOT Study Team: The City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board unanimously passed a resolution to strongly oppose any alignment going through South Mountain Park/Preserve. As part of that resolution, the Board encourages ADOT to continue coordination with the Gila River Indian Community to construct the freeway on tribal lands. The board has concerns thatif the freeway is built, then there could be impact from the proposed construction cuts through the mountain ridges that includes treatment of habitat and visual impacts they would have. If ADOT is unsuccessful in coordinating with the Gila River Indian Community, then the Parks and Recreation Board suggests mitigation in the form of additional trailheads that could be accessed from freeway interchanges, other land trades, and possibly a tunnel instead of cuts. ADOT continues to try and coordinate with the Gila River Indian Community for potential construction of the SR-202L/South Mountain Freeway on tribal lands. However, these talks are at a standstill. ADOT believes the community is not interested in any construction of the freeway on their land. As a result, given the need for the roadway, ADOT will use the Environmental Impact Statement and Location/Design Concept Report study process to develop appropriate mitigation to minimize the potential natural and built environment impacts. ADOT's team is in the process of meeting with various stakeholder groups associated with South Mountain Park and Preserve, per the direction of the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, to determine the concerns surrounding the freeway use ofpark/preserve land and potential mitigation efforts that may be considered. A mitigation plan will be developed and presented to these stakeholder groups prior to inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Inquiry: 6. Effects on groundwater supplies to Ahwatukee, including mitigation efforts for wells that service the area. Response: From the ADOT Study Team: The study of potential impacts to the Ahwatukee groundwater is continuing. ADOT believes if construction results in water that cannot be accessed by drilling a new well, then mitigation will include a plan for getting water from elsewhere by other techniques. These may include directional drilling, or building a vault under the freeway for allowing access to an existing well. ADOT notes that this information was presented to the project's Citizen Advisory Team in November 2005. 4 Appendix 1-1 AVOndale Inquiry: 10. An analysis of all NEP A concerns and mitigation proposals. Response: From the ADOT Study Team: This is the purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement project. Prior to publishing the EIS draft and final reports, the ADOT Study Team is preparing more than 20 technical reports addressing specific environmental topics and potential mitigation measures for public review and comment. Presendy, these reports are at different stages of completion. Prior to public publication, these reports undergo review by appropriate ADOT staff, the Federal Highway Administration, and the affected agencies responsible for overseeing a particular environmental topic. While this task is a continuing effort by the study team, ADOT will be more than pleased to distribute copies to any interested party as they become available. The party may contact ADOT's project manager, Mr. Mike Bruder (602 712-6836) for details. Inquiry: 11. Copies of all draft technical reports, including the detailed mitigation options, not just executive summaries. Of greatest interest among these would be reports on traffic operations, air quality, costs, total impacts and secondary impacts. Response: From the ADOT Study Team: As noted in the previous inquiry, the ADOT Study Team is · completing the technical studies. Please feel free to contact ADOT's project manager, Mr. Mike Bruder (602 712-6836) for details on how to obtain copies of these reports as they become available. The Maricopa Association of Governments appreciates the opportunity to assist in the understanding of the study results and process for the freeway proposal; · If additional information is needed, or if our staff can provide additional assistance to facilitate further understanding about the regional need for the SR-202L/South Mountain Freeway, please feel free to contact me or Eric Anderson, MAG Transportation Director, for assistance. VICE MAYOR Marie L<).pez Rogers COUNCIL MEMBERS Albert Carroll, Jr. Peggy Jones Stephanie Karlin Betty S. lynch Raymond H. Shuey CITY MANAGER Todd HHeman Floyd Roehrich Project Manager ADOT 205 S. 17th Avenue, Suite 614E Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Mr. Roehrich: This letter is to inform you of my strong objection to the proposed alignment of the South Mountain Freeway at 1Oih Avenue. I understand 1Oih Avenue was offered as an option to the study consultants, and therefore ADOT feels obligated to study the alignment. The City of Avondale staff made it clear in December when they met with HDR representatives that 1oih Avenue was not a viable option, due to the current and proposed residential and commercial property in the area. I am disturbed that despite our objections, and without any consultation of our staff, the 1oih Avenue alignment was added to the study list. HDR and ADOT should not be making an important planning decision like this without the consent or consultation of the affected municipality. I and the City Council are the planning authority for Avondale, and we have properly planned our future according to the best interest of our community, and with the participation of our residents. I am distressed that we have been put in a situation where we must fight ADOT for our right to plan our City. Please understand that I will bring a resolution to the City Council asking them to adopt a fOimal position of opposition to the 1ozth Avenue alignment, and would appreciate more consideration of our City in the future. c.c. 6 David Anderson, V.P. HDR Vidor Mendez, Director, ADOT A165 525 North Central Avenue Avondale, AZ 85323-1999 Phone: {623) 932-2400 Fax: (623) 932-2205 Website: V\MIW.avondale.org January 27, 2003 MAYOR Ronald J. Drake • A166 • Appendix 1-1 525 North AV6ndale April 22, 2003 MAYOR Ron<~ld J. Drake VICE MAYOR Marie lopez Rogers COUNCfL MEMBERS The Honorable Janet Napolitano Governor, State of Arizona 1700 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Albert Carroll. Jr. Peggy Jones ·Steph;:~nie K<:trtin Re: S~uth MC!_un~~?-J.reeway Corridor Study Betty S. Lym;h Raymond H. Shuey CITY MANAGER ToddHilem~n Centn~l Avenue Avondale, N. 95323·1999 Phone: (623) 932-2400 Fax: (623)932-2:205 Websir:e: 'MIII'o!V.avondale.org Dear Governor Napolitano: This letter is to express our strong objections regarding the proposed 105Ul Avenue alignment for the proposed South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) interchange with the I-10. We respectfully request this alignment be removed from any future consideration. The proposed interchange and alignment would certainly have a damaging impact on the City of Avondale's primary commercial and employment area, causing severe financial hardship for this City, as there are limited areas within the city limits of Avondale for said commercial, retail or employment opportunities. sales and was recently selected as the site for a major employer This user has committed to build a 260,000 SF facility that will employ 250 people earning an average salary of ov-er $55,000. An independent financial analysis of this user demonstrated that this user will generate well over $70,000,000 in taxable sales annually, 5% of which will go directly to the State. This project is expected to be completed within the next 12 to 18 months. However, there is a very high probability that the user would abandon this site should they discover the proposed Josm Avenue freeway alignment and intercluuzge. The selection process for this user was very competitive one, involving the City of Avondale and the City ofRancho Cucamonga, California. Fortunately we were the successful candidate, largely based upon locatio11; and are worlcipg diligently to finalize the deal points. We are very concerned that should the proposed JOsd' Avenue alignment move forward, the user will tkcitk to move to their second clwice-Califomia. If this were to happen, the State of Arizona and the City of Avondale would both lose much needed revenue. The proposed interchange footprint will als.o impact ~~ eJ.llplgyment/commercialland north ofi~lO. We are currently in discussions with a major educational institution interested in locating a west valley site. They have been searching for a suitable site for several years and recently put down earnest money on a site directly impacted by the proposed interchange. They will also ahandbn the site if they discover 1M proposed alignment. The mere fact that this alignment is included in the preliminary studies will cause delay in the development of our primary employment and commercial corridor. The evaluation process undertaken by ADOT will take a minimum of two more years, and even then there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the outcome. Avondale cannot afford to wait, nor afford to run the risk of losing potential tax generating developers while the process moves forw~,rrd. We respectfully request that the 105th alignment be removed from the study immediately, to prevent any further economic impacts to our city. Thank you for your consideration ofthis request. Please contact me at the above address or The lOSih Avenue alignment would eliminate nearly 100 acres of prime land designated for employment and virtually eliminate the Avondale AutoMal~ our primary economic engine. Gross sales generated by the AutoMall are expected to be over $1 billion per year~ bringing much needed revenue to the City of Avondale, the State of Arizona and other taxing entities to help sustain programs and services in these lean economic times. Employment at the AutoMall will be well over 1,000 .people, most of who will live and shop within a 10 mile radius. The AutoMall currently exists with three operating dealerships, three more under construction and five more in the process of negotiations/planning. The decision not to eliminate the 105th Avenue corridor threatens important pending locations to our Auto Mall and other economic opportunities for the city. The remote possibility of this alignment coming to fruition will certainly impede our opportunities with potential investors; causing them to question whether to invest their resources in our community. The area just south of the AutoMall at l05th and Van Buren is currently zoned for Planned Area Development including employment and retail by telephone if you have any questions or need further clarification. :;;;;JtL Toddllileman City Manager ..· · ·~ Attachments cc: Floyd Roehriclt, Jr., Sa!.i« }Nject M.an&gc.:VaJIQY Project M.nagcmel\t Glwp 20S S. J'J'Ii A.-~uo Mail Drop 614E ~ix. A.C 8:S007 Mr. Viaor M~ Director .Arizona ~IH!t ofT~IKI 206 S. 17th AVCI1lle MOIOOA Phoet!ix, AZ 85007 Appendix 1-1 • A167 -· 1\VOnctale ........ .. Administration ----.~ 16231 932..Z4CC ..,...~., 1 1465 W Civic Center Drive. Suite 220 AVOndale F~ t6231 m~m ~'WY.w.~Qr9 May 19, 2003 MAYOR City Manager, City of Phoenix VICE MAYOR 200 W. Washington Street Phoenix. ta. 8;5003 ~OUNCJL .MEMBERS ,<'I!C)Crt c:arrar. ... ~Jones' ~Karin !3tc:t.S.~ .:=--~H. Shue.y .OTY MANAGER ~Cidd Kleman Phone : (623) 478-3001 . Fax: (623) 4 78-3802 Website: 11\iWW.avondale.org Frank Fairbanks J~J.Oralot Msfc Lapcz Roges';r Avondale, Arizona 85323-6806 Dear Frank, This letter is to inform you that the City of Avondale has notified Governor Napolitano and ADOT officials, indudlng Victor Mendez, that Avondara supports the City of PhoeniX in its desire to have the Interstate 10 CQnnection of the South Mountain Freeway along the original proposad aJignmenl City of Avondale staff have steadfastly opposed any alignment of the South Mountain FreeNay that is further west of the 1985-propo$8d 51sr59"' Ave alignment. The Cfty Council passed a resolution opposing alignments In the City of Avondale, and has written letters to the Governor stating our position. We also have informed the Governor and ADOT that we continue to support Phoenbc in its bid to assure the Freeway comects MAYOR Ronald J. Drake May21, 2004 VICE MAYOR Betty S. Lynch COUNCIL MEMBERS Albert Carroll, Jr. Jason M . Earp Marie Lopez Rogers Raymond H. Shuey Charles M. Wolf Mr. Victor Mendez Director, Arizona Department of Transportation 2006 S. 17th Avenue, MDlOOA Phoenix, Arizona 85007 CITY MANAGER Todd Hileman Dear Mr. Mendez: west of downtown. Attached please find the report you had requested recently from our Economic Development Department outlining staffs concerns regarding the 99th Avenue alignment of the South Mountain corridor and the potential negative impacts to Avondale's employment base and economy as a result thereof. ·As a related matter. Avondale hopes to secure funding. eitherfederaJly or Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. through the half cent·sales ~ ~sion, for a parallel Interstate 10 ~e that would relie~e traffic from wm central Phoenix to Mc-85. This Thank you for your support and attention. reliever route would parallel 1-1 o SCJuth of the freeway, and would connect to the South Mountain alignment This reliever wiR have the greatest affect. and therefore .makes the most sen:sa, If the South Mountain Freeway alignment is dosar to the center of amgestion in Phoenix. Please let me' knOW if we can be of assistance on the South Mountain Freeway matter. We will continue to work to oppose alignmentS In our city, but afso look forward to working coopere.tivety with the City of Phoenix to assure an afignmem that is beneficial to all. Jidt----Todd Hileman Todd Hileman City Manager Attachment A168 • Appendix 1-1 Administration I I 465 \'. Respect·fu.· ll. y .·f Re: David Fi~ , · 'Ji .· / /() -.!-/? _ / U 1 South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study, Economic Impacts AssistJc~~Y Manager Dear Mr. Mendez: C: Thank you for meeting with Mayor Lopez-Rogers and our staff on May 1, 2006 to share the Citizens Advisory Team's recommendation on the alignment and your department's plans for the finalization of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study. The information was informative and greatly appreciated. During the meeting we expressed our concern regarding the level of economic impact analysis that will be incorporated .. into the study. The Avondale City Council has adojted three resolutions regarding alignments proposed in this study: 1) opposed to the 105 Avenue alignment; 2) opposed to any alignment on 99th A venue; and 3) in support of the 55th A venue alignment. This letter should not be interpreted as an indication that the City of Avondale will support any alignment other than 55th A venue. City staff has been frustrated by the lack of data that demonstrates the economic impact to our City's businesses due to the various proposed alternatives such as 1) the elimination of access to/from McDowell Road; 2) the potential elimination of Dealer Driver between 99th A venue and 107th A venue; the loss of Gateway Chevrolet due to significant loss of auto display area; and 4) the overall loss of freeway visibility of the AutoMall due to the magnitude and proximity of the "Full Reconstruct" interchange with I-10. We have been informed that Federal requirements limit the analysis of economic impacts to direct impacts due to property acquisition. Such losses include property tax and sales tax produced by the property acquired. We were also told that impacts such as those described in the previous paragraph are speculative and cannot be included in the study. I am sure you can understand the City of Avondale's position that the true impacts can be much greater than the mere taking of right-of-way. Charlie McClendon Bill Hollins Appendix 1-1 ~\7l~ ----------------------------~--------------~--~-------Goodyear October 14,2002 Mr. Chris Voigt, Senior Engineer Maricopa Association of Governments 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85003 RE: SOUTH MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR AND RIO SALADO PARKWAY Dear Mr. Voigt: The Cities of Phoenix, Goodyear, Avondale, and Tolleson (Cities) express their support for the South MoWttain Corridor (SR 202) route that utilizes the currently adopted alignment to connect to Interstate 10 (1-10) instead of a westerly alignment going through Avondale or Tolleson to connect to 1-10. In addition, we want to propose a Rio Salado Parkway parallel to the Salt River as an 1-10 reliever route. This Parkway would extend from 7th Street to SR 202 on the south side of the river. West of SR 202 it would cross to the north side of the river and use the Southern Avenue alignment which has no major home developments (parallel to and north of the Salt River) to connect to Loop 303. The Cities are pleased to work in partnership with Maricopa Association of Governments and other contdbuting entities and will be more than happy to facilitate an exchange of information to continue this project to a successful completion. If you have any questions, please contact my office at (623) 882-7061. Sincerely, Grant I. Anderson, P .E. Deputy City Manager LN:ln:mag-southmtncorridor cc: Victor Mendez, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) At-, Dick .Wright, State Engm ..· .eer, Intermodal Tran . sportation Division, ADOT / U" Todd Hileman, City ,Manager, City of Avondale .. Tom Callow, Street Transportation Director, City of Phoenix· Reyes Medrarto, Jr., ASsistant City Manager, City of Tolleson · · Reading File Proud past. Vibrant future! Deputy City Manager's Office 190 North Litchfield Road P.O. Box 5100 Goodyear, Arizona 85338 623·882·7061 Fax 623·882·7063 1·800·872·1749 TDD 623·932·6500 www.ci.goodyear.az.us Proposed Rio Salado r·, rkway West Route • A175 A176 • Appendix 1-1 CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK RESOLUTION NO. 06-228 _________________________ J. Woodfin Thomas, Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY ALONG 55TH AVENUE. _______________________ Mary Rose Evans, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: WHEREAS, the City of Litchfield Park (the “City”) has been presented with information by the Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) and its consultants, HDR Engineering, Inc. (“HDR”), regarding various alignments of the planned South Mountain Freeway, including proposed alignments that would connect the South Mountain Freeway with Interstate 10 at its intersection with the Loop 101 Freeway near 99th Avenue in Avondale (the 99th Avenue Alignments”); and _______________________ Curtis, Goodwin, Sullivan, Udall & Schwab, P.L.C. City Attorneys By Susan D. Goodwin WHEREAS, the proposed 99th Avenue Alignments would seriously impact (i) the City of Avondale’s ability to develop 99th Avenue as a key commercial corridor, as is currently planned, and (ii) newly constructed, high sales tax generating businesses adjacent to 99th Avenue that provide an important revenue stream to the City that funds essential City services; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments has consistently shown the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway such that it would intersect with Interstate 10 near 55th Avenue (the “55th Avenue Alignment”); and WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson and the City of Avondale have planned for growth in their respective jurisdictions over the past two decades relying upon the 55th Avenue Alignment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK as follows: SECTION 1. That the City hereby adamantly opposes the 99th Avenue Alignments for the South Mountain Freeway. SECTION 2. That the City of Litchfield Park hereby supports ADOT moving forward with the 55th Avenue Alignment as included in the adopted Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Litchfield Park, April ______, 2006. ATTEST: S:\DOCS\LGL\RES\06-228 south mtn freeway support Res.doc Page 2 of 2 Appendix 1-1 City of Phoenix City of Phoenix STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT • A177 December 12, 1989 October 13• 1989, 125 East Washing! ArilOna 8 l'hoeni~. Hr. Charlie Hiller Directot, Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 , · - ~,._ . .. _,. Dear_ f1t;', J:1:!:1:le_r: RE: . 602-262-6284 . tll$ . · 7th Avenue Interchange at the South Mountain Freeway The Foothills Development, located north of · Pecos Road between 24th Street and 19th Avenue, is currently revising its Master Street Plan for Phase III. which has been purchased by UDC Homes. UDC representatives have requested that the City allow UDG to eliminate the potential freeway connection to Pecos Road at the future 7th Avenue interchange with South tlountain Freeway from the Master Street Plan. The land uses currently planned in the vicinity north of the freeway indicate that an interchange may not ' be essential at this location. The Indian Tribe to the south of the freeway has also indicated (in s letter to Larry Landry, repr~sentin~ · UDC) that the 7th Avenue interchange is not imperative to the development of their lands. We therefore request that ADOT remove the ~proposed 7th Avenue interchange at the South Mountain Freeway from its plans~ Please review this request, and inform us when you have reached your decision. Ve will ask UDC ~o show a potential freeway connection at 7th Avenue until ADOT confirms that the interchange will be removed from the plans. For your information, UDG has been informed that right-of-way, as specified by ADOT, will need to be dedicbted where ADOT has not already purchased land for the freeway. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely. 4r- James H. Matteson. P.E. Street Transportation Director JHM:TSH:kmg cc George Flores Ronald N. Short 125 East Washington S Mr. Rosendo Gutierrez Urban Highway Engineer Arizona Department of Transportation Highway Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phoenix, Arizona 8500· 602-262-6284 Dear Mr. Gutierrez: This is in response to your October 30, 1989 letter, and subsequent conversation with Tijana Stojsic Hamilton regarding South Mountain Freeway issues in the vicinity of the Foothills Development. The City has requested that ADOT review the feasibility of eliminating the proposed interchange at 7th Avenue and South Mountain Freeway (letter to Charlie Miller, October 11, 19_89). This was done at the request of UDC Homes, developers of Phase III of The Foothills. Based on previous conversations with ADOT staff, the City has informed UDC representatives that ADOT will be requiring dedication of additional right-of-way at the 7th Avenue interchange alignment. We also indicated, through comments on revisions to their Master Street Plan, that if ADOT allows the relocation of the 19th Avenue, additional right-of-way may be required there also. UDC has been informed that all negotiations regarding this, or any other issues impacting the South Mountain Freeway, should be with ADOT. Subsequ~nt to the receipt of your letter, UDC has also been informed of your requirem~nt for a letter to the Arizona Department of Transportation from the Gila River Indian Community indicating their position on the 7th Avenue interchange. UDC representatives have informed us that attempts toward obtaining this letter are being made. Please inform us when ADOT and UDC Homes have reached an agreement as to the 19th Avenue Interchange relocation and 7th Avenue Interchange elimination issues. As you know, we are holding up UDC-Foothills Phase III Master Street Plan pending resolution of these issues. Thank you for your cooperation and prompt response in this matter. Sincerely, e::.on, P.E. Street Transportation Director JHM:TSH:pj:194 c: Larry Landry Dave Richert Jon Wendt A178 • Appendix 1-1 Terry Johnson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Roger Herzog - MCDOTX [RogerHerzog@mail.maricopa.gov] Monday, June 05, 2000 2:26 PM 'Terry Johnson' Mike Sabatini - MCDOTX Comments on South Mountain Stakeholders Group Memo June 5, 2000 Max, Mr. Terry Max Johnson Transportation Manager Maricopa Association of Governments 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 850003 Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your May 31 memo concerning recommended actions in the South Mountain corridor. The City's position is that right-of-way should be actively purchased along undeveloped segments of the corridor using the programmed funds, i.e. the $85 million. This would be a more aggressive approach than simply protective rightof-way purchase, and may require a different split of programmed funds between design, right-of-way, and construction than is currently shown in the program. As a practical matter, right-of-way purchase would focus on the segment of the corridor from south of Van Buren Street to 51st Avenue and the GRIC boundary. The City agrees with the recommendation to include $6 million for an EIS and OCR. These documents would cover the entire corridor from 1-10 West to 1-10 South. Sincerely, ~£~ Thomas E. Callow, P.E. Street Transportation Director C:\OFFICE\WPVIIIN\WPDOCS\06211tr.doc c: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Fairbanks Tevlin Nordvold Herp Godbee Recycled Paper Mike Sabatini and I discussed your South Mount a in Stakeholders memo of May 31, 2000. Here are a few comments/questions: Will $5.0 million per year for right-of-way protection be * adequate to cover the South Mountain Corridor, as well as the rest of the re g ional freeway system? * We were somewhat surprised to see no mention of the g roup's discussion of shiftin g the $85 million to the north-s o uth leg. If we are readin g the memo correctly, this issue would not be addressed until after the EIS and Desi gn Concept Report are completed, which could be three years in the future. Could that slow pro g ress on c ompletion of the corridor? Thanks for the opportunit y to comment. Rog Appendix 1-1 ENHANCED NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM City of Phoenix To: City Jurisdictions From: Joy A. Mee, Assistant Subject: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX AIC~ Date: May 23, 2001 Planni~;ector Attached for your review is the following amendment to the General Plan for Pho~tim VILLAGE: LAVEEN 1. Today's Date: ---'So!.l:/~2"""3/t..:=O~O---=-------case Number: GPA-LV-1-0 1-7 Deadline for commenting jurisdiction to submit comments: 6/13/01 Date for response to comment: 6/27/01 First Hearin date for ro ·ect: Application: From: To: Acreage: Location: GPA-LV-1-01-7 Commerce Park Mixed Use--Commercial/Commerce Park 288.17 +/Generally located south of South Mountain Avenue on the North, Elliot Road on the South, 63rd Avenue on the West, and 59th Avenue on the East (excluding the Core and the parcel just south of South Mountain Avenue and west of the proposed freeway). Proposal: To add land use flexibility surrounding the Laveen Core. Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Representative: Kevin McAndrews w/L.E.A.D.S. 6/27/01 First Planning Commission Hearing: Second Planning Commission Hearing: 7/25/01 The first hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for June 27, 2001. Please review the enclosed application and forward your comments to me by June 13. 2001. 1. Submitting/host jurisdiction: 2. Contact person: -~H~ei~d~iD~r~o~st~----------- Phone: --~6~02~-~2~56~-~5~65~7~------------- 3. Address or description of location of project: Generally located south of South Mountain Avenue on the North. Elliot Road on the South. 63rd Avenue on the West and 59th Avenue on the East (excluding the Core and the parcel just south of South Mountain Avenue and west of the orooosed freeway). 4. Nature of action requested (general plan amendment, master plan, rezoning, etc.): 5. Description of the project. Projected additional A.M./P.M. peak hour vehicle trips:_--.!..7.£90~8~8~p~e<.!..r_,d_,_ay1------------ General Plan Amendment Number of dwelling units: __,_N:.w/A'-'------ Non-residential square footage: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acreage of project: ---"'2""'88,_,.c.:1~7_,_+_,_/-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present and proposed land uses: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · Existing: Commerce Park Proposed: Mixed Use-Commercial/Commerce Park Phasing plan for overall project: __________________________________________ 6. 7. Current level of service identified in the MAG Congestion Study for the nearest major intersection(s). ______________ Distance from the perimeter of the project to the nearest existing or proposed: freewayProposed Loop 202 bisects site at roughly 61 5 t Avenue road of regional significance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - , . 8. Should you have any questions, concerns, or changes to any mailing information/ please contact the Planning Department at 262-6882. Measures that will be employed to mitigate any traffic impacts caused by the project: ___________~-----~ If system related, are these improvements identified in the current MAG Transportation improvement Program? _ _ _ __ 9. Attachments Citv of Phoenix 10. Measures to mitigate other impacts of the proposed development (such as noise, drainage, land use transitions, etc.) How the project supports the host jurisdiction's commitments to implement the air quality plans of the region (trip deduction measures, transit incentives, etc.). Concentrates retail/employment along freeway corridor 11. Date of any previous communication of this overall project through the Enhanced Notification Procedure: - - - - - - - - - 12. Any other comments on the project (may use reverse side or separate sheet):-----~--------------- Please attach copies of: City of Phoenix Planning Department 200 West Washington Street, 6th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003-1611 Tel: 602-262-6882 Fax: 602-495-3793 0 0 A vicinity map, site plan and land use map of project Any available development impact studies conducted for this area • A179 A180 I • Appendix 1-1 • CITY OF PHOENIX • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 200 W.WASHINGTON ST.• PHOENIX, AZ" 85003" APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-1-01-7 VILLAGE: Laveen APPLICANT: Kevin McAndrews w I L.E.A.D.S. City of Phoenix (602)2626882 JACRES: j 288.17 acres +/COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date: September 10, 2001 Mary Vaparino ADOT PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: 206 S 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Commerce Park (288 .17 acres +I-) Dear Ms. Mary Vaparino, ... . . . Proposed Change Proposed General Plan 0-1 Du I Acre - Large Lot II II 1-2 Du I Acre- Large Lot ~&.;; 2-3.5 Du I Acre- Small Lot / /,· 3.5-5 Du I Acre - Small Lot ;::::::: 5-10 Du I Acre -Small Lot . . 10-15 Du I Acre- Higher density attached townhouses, condos or apartments ~:-:;.~ Commercial i~:tl4 Commerce/Business Park Parks I Open Space - Publicly owned Conservation Community (See Laveen Area Plan) ~~ Mixed Use Striped == REQUESTED CHANGE TO PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: Mixed Use- Commercial/Commerce Park (288.17 acres +/-) ~~ Mixed Use - Commercial/Commerce Park The Laveen Watercourse/Greenbelt Pedestrian Design Project concept plan is a working document developed to help guide the development of an amenity that reflects the agricultural heritage of Laveen. The Laveen Watercourse may eventually become a part of a regional greenbelt system connecting with the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, the Laveen Town Center, and the Laveen Village Core. A copy of the Laveen Watercourse Concept Plan is enclosed with this letter. Please review the concept plan and provide feedback to me (602) 256-5657 or Jasmin Chitrakar (602) 534-6410 by September 21, 2001. The concept plan will be revised to reflect the suggestions provided by the stakeholders, city departments and the public. The Laveen Watercourse/Greenbelt Pedestrian Design Project Concept Plan is part of the Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) Pedestrian Area Design Program. A consulting team worked closely with MAG and the City of Phoenix Planning Department during the planning process for the concept plan. The challenge for this project was to help plan for the rapid future growth in the Laveen, located in southwest Phoenix, while protecting community open space values. The Planning Department staff held an open house on August 8, 2001 to involve the public in the planning process. The objective was to update the Laveen community on the status of the Laveen Watercourse Concept Plan and solicit public comments regarding the concept design prepared by the consultant. It was the first of several meetings to be conducted over the next few months to work through details for the location and design of the watercourse. The next phase of the planning process is to solicit information from the stakeholders and city departments. A second public meeting will be held to update the public regarding the comments from the stakeholders and other city departments and to discuss potential alternatives. That meeting is scheduled for later this month. The concept plan will be revised and the fmal plan will be presented to the public and the village planing committee for further discussion and recommendation to the Planning Commission. Sincerely Yours, fl~~lL~ Rachael Pitts Laveen Village Planner 200 West Washington St reet • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 602-262-7131 • FAX: 602-49 5-3793 Recycled Paper Appendix 1-1 City of Phoenix To: Interested Stakeholders in Phoenix Rio Salado!fres Rios Projects ·From: Karen ·williams, City of Phoenix Kayla Eckert, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Subject: SALT RIVER RESTORATION FROM 19TH AVENUE TO 83R 0 AVENUE (RIO SALADO OESTE) .... . Date: October25, 2001 . The Phoenix .Rio Salado is a partnershtp bet'vveen the U .S·. Aimy Corp~ of Engineers and the c ·ity of Phoenix to restore habitat to five miles of the Salt River from Interstate 10 to 19th Avenue. Design of this 580-acre environment restoration project is currently underway. The flood control elements of Rio SaJado are under construction by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. ·The Rio Salado Oeste (Spanish for West) Feasibility Study is a planning effort to continue the habitat restoration efforts from 19th Avenue to 83rd Avenue in the Salt River; The project will connect with the Tres Rios environment restoration project west of 83rd Avenue. As' an interested stakeholder in the Rio Salado and/or Tres Rios projects, we invite you to our first stakeholder Oeste Steering Committee meeting. We want your valuable input to guide the 4-year Oeste Study. We recognize your time is limited and appreciate your cons'ideration of our request. We .really hope you will attend this· ?-hour meeting. Thank you. What: Rio Salado Oeste Study Steering Meeting When: · Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1 :00 to 3:00 p.m. Where: Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 West Durango For more information, call Kayla at (602} 640-2003, ext. 247. Did you know that there is the same amount of water on Earth today · as there was when the Earth was formed three billion years ago? Only 200 years ago there were 4 million people in the United States, while today there are 250 million ... and the same amount of water! It isn't too hard to figure outthat as the demands continue to grow, and the supply of water doesn't, everyone will hold a greater responsibility in conserving, protecting and getting involved in the decision making that involves our water resources. Federal, state, tribal and local entities can experience great rewards by effectively managing wetlands, fish and wildlife resources, endangered species, water quality and cultural resources for which they are responsible. Often, reliably managing these resources can translate into improved local economic opportunities. The City of Phoenix and the Corps of Engineers are partnering to study how the Salt River from 19th A venue to S3rd A venue can be protected and restored in the future. As stakeholders to the river, this is where we need your help! The following information was extracted from the Reconnaissance Study that was used as the basis for making the decision to proceed, into the feasibility phase of 0-e study. It resulted in the finding that there is a Federal interest in continuingthe study into the feasibility phase. We ask you to review the problems, opportunities, and objectives as identified below, and come prepared to discuss them as .they relate to your interest in the river. · LOCATION OF STUDY The study area is located along the Salt River, in Phoenix, Arizona, betWeen 191h A venue and 83rd Avenue. The study area· is located in between the authorized Rio Salado Project area and the authorized Tres Rios Project area. The Oeste study area is approximately eight river miles in length. In comparison, the authorized Phoenix reach of the Rio Salado project is five miles long and the Tres Rios study area is about seven miles long. • A181 A182 • Appendix 1-1 • Utilize discharges from the 23rd Avenue Waste Water Treatment Plant to supplement surface water and groundwater sources of water for restoration and other needs. • There is an opportunity to link other upstream and downstream projects to provide a continuous restoration and flood control corridor. These would include the authorized Rio Salado project and the authorized Tres Rios project. • Utilize groundwater for restoration and other needs, as agricultural groundwater pumping phases out. This opportunity may be the greatest in the Laveen area. • Flooding and drainage problems exist in the Salt River contributing drainages for the Laveen and Durango Area Drainage Master Plan areas. • Contributing interior drainages lack current hydrology information at all ·discharge points into the Salt River. Adequate points of disposals do not exist at many interior drainage discharge locations. • There is a flooding problem on the south side of the river, within the 100-year ·floodplain, between 67th Avenue and 75th Avenue. • There are no formal existing recreation or enviro:nmental education opportunities associated with the existing river corridor. As agricultural land near the river i~ converted to residential, the need for recreation wilt increase. The 27th A venue Solid Waste Recycling Facility Gust north of the river) has an existing environmental education master plan. The facility provides tours for children and adults. The 23rd Avenue Waste Water Treatment Plant also does enviro:nmentaY education programming and touring for water treatment. These existing facilities provide an opportunity to link enviro:nmental education that could be developed for a restored river corridor. • Existing cultural resources need protection· from erosion • The extent and significance of existing cultural resources is unknovm. The non-Federal sponsor for the feasibility phase of the study is -the City ofPhoenix. The study area includes portions of the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, state an<;! federal land. PLAN FORMULATION During a study, six plarming steps that are set forth in the Water Resource Council's Principles and Guidelines are repeated to focus the planning effort and eventually to select and reconunend a plan for authorization. The six planning steps are: 1) specify problems and opportunities, 2) inventory and forecast conditions, 3) formulate alternative plans, 4) evaluate effects of alternative plans, 5) compare alternative plans, and 6) select recommended plan. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES The evaluation of public concerns often reflects a range of needs, which are perceived by the public. This section describes these needs in the context of problems and · opportunities that can be addressed through water and related land resource management. The problems and opportunities that have been identified within the study area are: I • Degraded river and adjacent over bank areas, due to upstream water resources development, has eliminated native riparian plant species and wildlife habitat. Perennial base flow conditions, critical to the needs of native plants, no longer exist in the river corridor through the study area. • The average depth to groundwater beneath the river channel is much greater than historic conditions. Riparian vegetation that depends on groundwater has largely disappeared from the river channel. · • Lack of a natural flood reginie. These changes in the river system have impacted the surface/groundwater interactions and sedimentation dynamics that are important for sustaining and regenerating riparian vegetation. · • Land use changes, including landfills and sand and gravel mining, have degraded and are contributing towards continued degradation of the river corridor. • Unsuitable existing bank conditions exist at many locations. Surface dumping. and manmade bank changes have resulted in a degraded and unsafe bank in many locations. · • There is an opportunity to take advantage of existing open water bodies, in the river and adjacent properties, as potential restoration sites. · an~ vandalism. • ·The biggest contributor to water in this stretch of the Salt River is the City of Phoenix 23rd Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant produces a high quality. A++ effluent, which meets the water quality standards for numerous uses including Partial Body Contact, Fish Consumption, Aquatic and Wildlife (effluent dependent), Agricultural Irrigation and AgriculturaLLivestock. In order to meet the City of Phoenix's exchange agreement with the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the plant's effluent also meets water quality standards for irrigation of crops eaten raw. Thus it meets very high microbiologic standards. Other discharges into the river both .u pstream and downstream of the plant will have a degrading effect on 23rd Avenue effluent. Storm water, industrial and agricultural discharges along Appendix 1-1 this stretch of the river impact the overall river water quality. Thus the water quality may degrade as it moves downstream. City of Phoenix OFFICE OF THE MAYOR PLANNING OBJECTIVES These planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent desired positive changes in the without project conditions. The planning objectives are specified as follows: • Increase native riparian plant and wildlife habitat values, diversity and functions from 19th Avenue to '83 r A venue for a period of 50 years. Elements of diversity inClude establishing multiple native riparian plant species, providing sufficient open space for wildlife, and providirig open water_features for wildlife. • Increase passive recreational and environmental education opportunities for visitors, which are linked to the restoration project in the study area, for a period .of 50 years. • Attract wetland and riparian avian species in the study area. • Establish the presence of amphibian species, reptilian species, mammalian species,,ar1.d avian species in the study area. • Suppress undesirable and nonnative fish and wildlife species. 5 Eliminate J,!J.On-native, invasive plant species in the study area. • Improve flood control along, the Salt River between 67th and 75tl?- Avenue . . MAYOR SKIP RIMSZA August2002 Mr. Michael Goodman 9001 South 27th St. Phoenix AZ 85040 Dear Michael: If you could take just a few moments to give me some advice, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts regarmng transportatitin.--· · · _ _ .. .. · · · .... Phoenix is now the 6th la.!'gest city in America. In Ma.r'icopa County, we already have 3 million people and are adding 5,000 more every month. In the next thirty years or so, we will have 6 million people in the county and Phoenix will become the third largest city in the nation. Please take a careful look at the enclosed map. lt shows where growth will occur in the next 25 years. If you live in the Desert Ridge area, you'll have 150,000 new neighbors. If you live in Laveen, you can expect 100,000 more people. The Baseline Corridor will see 40,000 new residents and the Central City core will grow by 125,000. Those are big numbers. But the map also provides concepts of proposed transportation improvements to help you maintain your quali'ty of life while our population doubles. Freeway widening, new parkWays, extended HOV lanes, traffic signal synchronization, expanded bus service (including bus rapid transit), more bus pullouts, and additional light rail extensions -- all these things can be considered and developed by the City of Phoenix to alleviate future congestion and gridlock. Our freeway system is nearly completed •• yet is already nearing capacity. The new census shows that, despite our new freeways, all of us are spending more time in our cars, trucks and SUV's. Without a significant lon·g.:r'ange commTtrri'enffO'traiispori:atlon Investments, average commuta"ti'mes-during rUsh hour cou.ld more... than double. Unless we make tomorrow's plans TODAY, we will tall so far behind we'll never catch up-- and our commute times will only get longer. We need a thoughtful, 20-year transportation plan that will get the job done for us all. I have a few ideas, but I'm sure you have ideas of your own. And I'd like to hear them. So please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire and a mail it back to me in the Mayor's Office. I appreciate your help. Sin~J. dfU. Mayor :ZOO We'>T WMHINGTON 5TI\EET, 11TH FLOOR, PHQ(NI)(, ARitONA 8:l003- 1611 Recycled Paper PHONE 602·262·7111 FAX 602·495-S563 • A183 A184 • Appendix 1-1 City of Phoenix ·-~-NTS OFFICE OF THE IVIAYOR Winner of the Carl Berte lsmann Prize IV1A.YOR SKIP RIMSZ.A. LEGEND ANDREA TEV LIN, CHIEF OF STAFF November 200~ •• -• OIOAOe st!P"""'I'lON New_.....,..,.~ • If you could take just a few moments to give me some advice, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts regarding transportation_ - · L.IOKT AAIL.'nV.NsrT" Pf-lABE It UOHT RAIL TRAN&rr EIU8 R/4PK> TFtANBrT' OR WGHT RAIL • • • • • • • ._.. Phoenix is now the 6th largest city in America. In Maricopa County, we already have 3 million people and are adding 5,000 more every month. In the next thirty years or so, we will have 6 million people in the county and Phoenix will become the third largest city in the nation. GROWTH~.-...... (PAQ.JECTED NEW GROWTH SY 2025) DE - - - - - -- ----·--·--- _ , ,_, Dear Mayor Rimsza, I agree that if we don't' continue making Improvements in our transportation system, 1 o years from now congestion will be worse_ _ YES NO I would encourage you to support the following transportation improvements to help maintain and improve our quality of life: (Please check all that apply) _ Expanded Freeways _ Express HOV Lanes _ New Parkway Construction _ Expanded Public Transportation More Bus Pullouts _ Expanded Light Rail _ O t h e r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Comments: Name: Address: Email & Phone No. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Our freeway system is nearly completed-- yet is already nearing capacity. The new census shows that, despite our new freeways, each of us are spending more time in our cars, trucks and SUVs. Without a significant long-range commitment to transportation investments, average commute times during rush hour could more than double. Unless we make tomorrow's plans TODAY, we will fall so far behind we•ll never catch up-- and our commute times will only get longer. a We need thoughtful, 20-year transportation plan that will get the job done for us att.· I have a few ideas, but t•m sure you have ideas of your own. And I'd like to hear them . So please take a few_ minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire and a mail it back to me in the Mayor's Office. Sincerely, JtkSkip Rimsza f0ayor Please affix a postage stamp. Thank You. 200 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, 11 TH fLOOR, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003-1611 PHONE 602-262-7111 FAX 602-495-5583 Appendix 1-1 PROPOSED TRANS RTATION IMPROVEMENTS City of Phoenix HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE LEGEND WIDEN EXISnNG FREEWAY CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS 1-17 C RRIDOR September 8, 2003 (1 00-150,000) -I SOLJTH MOUNTAIN PARKWAY •• NEW INTERCHANGE REBUILT INTERCHANGE NEW HOV LANES CAREFREE HWY ~ (/) DOVE VALLEY RD 5~ LONEMTNRD HOVRAMPS NEW PARKWAY ARTERIAL CONNEGnON .......... • GRADE SEPARAnON NEW BUS RAPID TRANSTT HAPPY VALLEY RD DEER VALLEY RD DESERT RIDGE PARADISE RIDGE PHASE 1 UGHT RAIL TRANSIT PHASE 11 UGHT RAIL TRANSTT JOMAXRD PINNACLE PEAK RD RIO SALADO PARKWAY EXTENnON (150,000) - GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAS (PROJECTED NEW GROWTH BY2025) Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA -Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 ~~~ ~ Re: HA-AZ, NR-202(ADY), 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL, Loop 202, South Mom1tain, Initial Section 106 Consultation Dear Mr. Hollis: Your office recently fotwarded a "Class I" report to my office regarding the proposed Loop 202 freeway corridor. The purpose of the report as explained in your letter is to identify "previously recorded cultural resources" to help with the process of identifying feasible project alternatives for the proposed freeway. ~ have a number of concerns regarding this report. They are as follows: DESERT PRESERVE NEW UGHT RAIL TRANSTT SERVICE AREA WITHIN TOLl£ SON CAMElBACK RD MCOOWELLRD + It does not appear that this initial study attempted to identify non-archeological historic properties that have been previously identified through historic surveys or determined National Register eligible by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). I am aware of at least several known National Register eligible historic properties located within the corridor area, including the Webster Farmstead at 75th Avenue and Baseline Road (previously determined National Register eligible by the SHPO), South Mountain Park (may or may not be partially in the boundaries of the corridor study), and potentially historic canals and canal laterals (need to confer with Bureau of Reclamation and Salt River Project). +A search of the National Register and Section 106 files of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the survey files of the City Historic Preservation Office is needed to locate any historic nonarcheological properties in the project corridor and "to identify previously recorded cultural resources" as stated in your letter. We highly recommend that the cultural resources "Class I Overview" by amended at this time to incorporate a records search of surveyed and designated historic buildings, structures, districts and objects. + My office also recommends that all further cultural resources identification efforts for this project include a qualified architectural historian on the identification team. This is needed given the high potential to locate other historic non-archeological properties within the project's area of potential effects. Ifl can provide additional information, please feel free to contact me at (602) 262-7468. Sincerely, Barbara Stocklin, City Historic Preservation Officer cc: Kae Neustadt, Arizona Department of Transportation Jim Garrison, State Historic Preservation Office 200 West Washington Street, 17th Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 602-26 1-8699 Recycled Paper FAX: 602 -534-4 57 1 • A185 A186 • Appendix 1-1 This letter was also sent to Mr. Floyd Roehrich, Jr., PE, Project Manager, South Mountain Corridor Study, Arizona Department of Transportation Appendix 1-1 WtEFEI&.IIeC., 1m tUJICMid IUIIIIICIIII dll eal pa• plim l!llnae OIJ!CC fY Ul!llllllllg &fld "1 Dlft 'll:llha 61• AliuuJ Lt\JIIJSU:f; EJid -.!CAB, tlla&JUCIUircll*lfll TH~ (;!TY MAiiA.GER October 28, 2003 1BJinl~idea'l!le01111lA\IJIIUB ~ 110 PltJidiCIJaud•' s Jul!e61•Asaw&\Jii1115111tl nul Alcei1bun:t Ilia...., clitia DE IT Rii&Ji.V&D BY .... COUNCI. OP 'IN! CI1YC# PH'JINDC ltd 110 PftDBniJl CltiOOINI n:dDJIIB lill11antcflhll st• fJ:a '10Wm1 18 4iiJSUd, l FILE: PROJI~:::::::::::::: Dear Ms. Edwards: 7 CUI This letter is to provide input on the 5 alternative South Mountain Corridor freeway alignments presented by ADOT staff at an October 2, 2003 public meeting. am.,.. A!laiiiJ iDIIII ct~ lbi:S.ao1110 lllllllc6il?llf&llll.'l t:C 1 aaaforllolcliOIIbldiPiaWJ PAP"D'IlJfD CUd cllle Ql{dflptf;jlr.NJ 11" -cf The City of Phoenix strongly opposes Alternative 2, which proposes connecting with the 1-10/Loop 101 Interchange at 99"' Avenue and running S>Ou!h !!>rough an 1 area between 95 " and 99"' Avenues and lower Buckeye Road . In November 2002, the Public Works Department purchased 183 acre s of land north of Lower Buckeye Road and east of 991" Avenue to construct a 100-acre district pari<, police precinct station, fire station, community branch library. maintenance service center, and a decentralized citizen service center (site map enClosed). Dewmba, .,;aaEIJ: ·~ .. OCT 3 1 2003 South Mountain Corridor Team Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) do Ms. Amy Edwards, Assistant Project Manager HDR, Inc. 3200 E. camelback Rd . Ste. 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-:2311 adues~...a~...,ltLtallotJ. ••u AEC.: DIST.: ..._,,•• • ono Ubtilltl:C &Ill l'*lWII2i 119 taa t'BMI 1111 ut:a Ia ltla S' HDR.. City of Phoenix The police and fire facilities are very critical to future public safety service delivery and maintenance of adequate response times to police and fire emergencies in this rapidly growing area of Phoenix. The district park and branch library will be needed to serve the surrounding community with recreational and educational opportunities. Tl1e citizen service center will allow local Phoenix residents to conduct City business in the area Instead of downtown Phoenix, and the maintenance service center will allow Public Works to efficiently serve the City's southwest area field operations needs. The City o f Phoenix strongly supports Alternative 1, which connects with 1-10 near 55" Avenue, as the best option for the planned South Mountain freeway. The 55'" Avenue route alignment has been on the City's General Plan Map since the last ADOT freeway study in 1988 and has been a basis for our ongoing planning efforts and development in the Estrella and l aveen Village plann ing areas. The Alternative 1 alignment has been recognized as an opportunity to improve the City's traffic circulation al a lime of unequaled growth, providing access to 200WCSI WM.hin(jt.¥1 Stretl,. 12fl f loof, P~M. Ar«on.J 3S003 602·262<(i841 f.AK· 602· 2'61-8311 J«r:W ~ • A187 A188 • Appendix 1-1 Page 2 Amy Edwards October 28. 2003 downtown . Land use planning in Phoenix has incorporated this freeway alignment to achieve the potential for commercial and employment ·Centers. Commercial core locations have been planned along this alignment that will tie into street improvement projects, bettering circulation opportunities in the City's boundaries. If you have questions. please contact Marl< Leonard, Public Works Director, at 602-256-5662 or me at 602-262-7466. George Flore Deputy City Manager Enclosure c: Mt. Li119ner, Council OlslriCI 7 Ms. Bllstan, Council District 3 Mr. Fairbanks. City Manager's Office Mr . Leonard. Public WOtks Mr. Richert. Ptannl119 Mr. Cailow, Street TranspO,,i, . gov As~i~IMt echev~reCphoenix.gov 1. The sOuth Mountain Freeway is a wry 1mpot1ant part of the . 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 ·2 3 4 s 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 regional transportation system. October 14, 200CI Collfl(ll o rstrict7 2. Based on f\.rture traffic projections there ·is a dear need fer (602) 26H492 fc).(: ii;O:Z) 534·4816 the freeway. 3. The ~tlves Identified by the study team are the most CHr Neighbor: appropriate altematlves to be~. AI your City CounCilman, It Ia my duty to det~Wt th&a ~t Muaag• about t:M South Mountain Freeway Alignment Proposal. t need your help becauM the residents of Laveen and Estrella Vl11agea wiU play a k~ role In the decision proo!IU. plan J em requeating your tupport for tho~ that will guarantee~ for uveert residents. For over twenty years. the City of Phoenix has ptOtacted a corridor for • fiMway alignment wtriQh Will connaot LavMn rMidenta to tM 1-10 Freti:NW/. This hnponant acceas mikes It possible for a comm«CCaa core to develOp along thtf~. The major retsilera ana restaurants that Laveen and Estrella reildentt need will not be po$8!ble Uf'lleta tt11s alignment is built. Unfortunately. a Federal Study is forr;.ing the State Department of Transportation to cot\Sider other aftemativea that wll stop retail devefopment and economic growth in your BI'H. Tho ttncloeed .urv.y offers thf'lll!l c:ifferent alignments to c:hoola from; L.oop 101, 71• A~. and 55fl Avenue. The 55"' Avenue alignment tnsurea commercial and much Meded rutBil development in the wea, as well as prOVIding a convenient •~ to the 1-10 Freeway. The 66" A~ aJJgnment also ha8 been epproved by the votare of Maricopa County in two etectlons. Please join me In supporting the future of Laveen and Estrella by flltiOQ out the enclosed IWIVey form and by selecting the 551" Avenue alignment A rettm envelope 11M been lnduded for your convenienCe. .4.. .connecting lhB traaway at loop 101 should be considered a 'lipble= alternatiYe for fiM'ther atudy. 5. Connecting the fr8ew8y 8t 7111 Awnue should be consldeted 11 viable altemattwt for further study. 6. Connecting thfi' ~~Avenue, tho 1988 alignment. ahoukt bo consk:hirida\lfable alternative for further stUdy. 7. Carrwctlng the freeway to Pecos Road on the east should bo eonsldered a viable atternativtJ for fUrther study. · :·::-.::·:::;._:...···:· _·;;:;·;r.:<;~\~~~;;J~-~:~~~·~,i . ·. 8. Comrnents sboutthewests!Ciealtematives: _ _ _ _~---------~- --~---·· ···----------~----------~--- 9. Commewrts about an eastsldeconnecllon; -----~---------- Thank you fot your participation. Sklc«ely, fO. CM~~men~: --~~-----~----~-----------~--- &aitr- Doug Ungner Nama: Ccundlm~~n Dllb1Ct1 -----~--------------------~- Add~:~--=-------------~------------ Enclosure City: __________.............. State: _ _ :lJP! ......___,..,_ _ E.-Mall:·~......----......------.;._-------- 200 W\?st W<:!5h1111,l\Qil sueel, 11th fluvr, Phosl'li:<, Ar1111fld BSD03 ·1f.1; Pl~t: l'f!lllrn wmp/etttlfom /nforll ltavb!g 1M 1JM1ri11g Qr I"BtW'If 1o: South MOWltain Corridor TCIItn HDil, IIIL 3200 s. CM~ctback. Rd., sm. )SO Pboonlx, Arizona fiSO I8-2311 • A191 A192 • Appendix 1-1 Mr. Victor M. Mendez, Director Arizona Department of Transportation December 27, 2005 Page 2 City of Phoenix WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of Phoenix Water Services Department request the ultimate location selected by ADOT for the Loop 202 Freeway alignment and the future I-10 Reliever alignment be routed around the Plant. December 27, 2005 Mr. Victor M. Mendez, Director Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Room 135A Mail Drop lOOA Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Re: Danny W. Murphy Acting Water Services Director Proposed Alignment for Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Loop 202 Freeway Near the 91 st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Mendez: The City of Phoenix Water Services Department has a concern with one of the Loop 202 Freeway alignment alternatives currently being considered by ADOT. The proposed alignment of concern is currently named the "Loop 101 alignment" which -- -proposes several -altgr:native- r-01.1te-s to connect to the-1-±G- ~Feeway---at -the - 9-9!~ Avenue/101 Freeway alignment. Specifically of concern are the two alternatives that cross directly through the 91 st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Due to the vital nature of this facility to the continued growth and environmental compliance of the Phoenix metropolitan area, the City would like to weigh in on this matter. The 91 5t Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) is owned by the cities of the Sub-Regional Operating Group, namely Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. For all five of these cities, the continued operation and expansion of the Plant is necessary to support the existing population and new growth for the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The financial expenditures put into this Plant since its inception in the 1950's represents a significant investment into the future of our community, and one that needs to be maintained. Potential conflicts with the surround ing community are continually being addressed by Water Services staff, in order to ensure the continued viability of the facility. In order for you to better understand the location of the Plant; I have included maps of the Plant with proposed expansions, and the Tres Rios Project which will accept the effluent from the Plant. The proposed alternative routes that are in conflict with the Plant have been over-layed on the maps for your convenience. 200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 Recycled Paper 602-2 62-6627 Fax 602-495-55 42 Attachments c: Thomas E. Callow Ross D. Blakley Carlos A. Padilla Paul Kinshella Blaine Akine H/2005corres/ADOT-FreewayAiignmentLtr-Loop202-12-27 -05/CAPjrs Appendix 1-1 • A193 BROADWA Y RD. laJ > ~ I 101 01 SOUTHERN AVE ..... ,_ IJI 0 400 - - !00 1200 1.600 2,000 2.<00 2800 ) 200 - --- 1inch equ~ls 400 feel feS.e d aligruneht of alignment" 'which 'proposes severai' alternative ·routes to connect :to the ·1--10 Freeway at the ggth Avenue/1 01 ·Freeway alignment · As joint owners of the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Facility, the City of Scottsdale would like to express the same concerns as are spelled out in Mr. Murphy's letter. Specifically of concern are the two alternatives that cross directly through the 91 5 t Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) is jointly owned by the cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe, which comprise the Sub-Regional . Operating ' Group, or ·SROG. For all five of· these cities, the contiiiued operation and expansion of the Plant is necessary to support the existing population and new. growth. The financial expenditures put into this Plant since its inception in the 1950's represent a significant investment into the future 'of·our ·conimuhity'and One that needs·.to be maintained. Phoenix's Water :~eiiVi.C;:~~tst~ffJ a~ )pe :Pf-i~~rY·facmty. operator, :.Is continually addressing potential ·c~nflicts, with the ,si..lrf~tmdi~g community ·in order to' 'ensure the ·continued:•viability pf_~thef.acilitY. : · -· : -- .' ,·. ,.., ··:·. ; · ,.. -·, · · · , . . -.'.- . - .·. , ··... , .- . _;, .. ,· . . .· ; · . em 200 West Washington Street, 12th Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 502-262-6941 • FAX: 602-261-8327 Recyded Paper OF ScoiTSDALE 9388 K SAN SALVADOR DR. • (480) 312-5685 • FAX {480) 312-5615 • wATER REsoURCES • PHONE ScarrsDALE, ARizoNA 85258 · Appendix 1-1 • A195 I L Mr. Victor M. Mendez, Director Arizona Department of Transportation January 11, 2006 Page2 OFFICE OF THE Clll' tv~NAGER November 24, 2009 The City of Scottsdale Water Resources Department joins with the City of Phoenix Water Services Department to request that the ultimate location selected by ADOT for the Loop 202 Freeway alignment and the future 1-1 0 Reliever alignment be routed around this critical facility. Mr. Murphy included in his letter maps to further clarify our position and provide you information on the location of the 91st Avenue Wastewater Facility in relation to your alternatives. Ms. Susanne Rothwell President PMPC For the PMPC Board P.O. Box 26121 Phoenix, AZ 85068-6121 Dear Susanne: Sincerely, ~t!JY!~ David M. Mansfield General Manager, Water Resources Department Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Phoenix Mountain PreseiVation Council (PMPC). I appreciate the position of the PMPC on the specific alignment of the proposed Loop 202 Freeway around South Mountain Park. The City of Phoenix has no formal role in the approval process. However, I thought it would be useful to lay out the review process. The proposed Loop 202 alignment is being evaluated through an Environmenta l Impact Statement (EIS) process administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administraiion(FHWA). It is currently funded by the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that was approved by the Maricopa region js voters in 2004. c: Dave Petty. Acting Planning and Engineering Director Greg Crossman, Sr. Water Resources Engineer r City of Phoenix According to ADOT, upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIS, the document will be reviewed by FHWA and other governmental agencies. A DOT's time line for release of the Draft EIS and the associated public hearing is largely based on this review process. At this time, ADOT anticipates publication of the . Draft EIS and the public hearing will occur in summer.201 0, with an associated 90-day public comment period (twice the federal requirement). The Final EIS will be available for public review during a 60-day comment period. After considering any comments received on the Final EIS, FHWA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will identify the selected alternative for the proposed action. If a build alternative is selected, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) will allocate funding . Further, ADOT and FHWA will continue to seek input from the public, agencies, and jurisdictions regarding the proposed freeway through the design phase and construction, if a build alternative is selected . In addition to the public hearing associated with the Draft EIS, ADOT plans to meet with the public and the Citizens Advisory Team regarding changes to the RTP and Draft EIS . I understand that the next Citizens Advisory Team meeting Is planned for early 2010 . A newsletter from ADOT providing updates about the study process is also planned for early 2010. 200 WPY 't'.·,, srHn, :'.'11 5tt~~t. 1.!:h Floor • Phommunications\Ltr. S Shade Questions 08300l .doe Appendix 1-1 Sandra Shade GRIC Page3 August 30, 2001 Sandra Shade GRIC Page4 August 30, 200 I Drainage Impacts Drainage is one of many engineering and environmental factors that will be considered in developing and selecting alternatives during the EIS process. All alternatives will consider hydrologic (runoff) and hydraulic (conveyance) impacts as well as water quality and biological impacts (Section 401, 404, 404(b)(l) requirements) to drainage and waterways. Specific impacts and potential mitigation measures will be determined during the study as part of the alternatives analysis process. Section 4(f) Regulations and Guidance: • Legislation: 23 U.S.C. Section 138 -Preservation ofParklands • Regulation: 23 CFR 771.135 • 4(j) Policy Paper • FHWA's Environmental Guidebook Cumulative Impacts NEPA requires that the potential direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of a federally funded project be identified, evaluated and mitigated as appropriate. Within the context of NEP A, secondary effects are defmed by the CEQ as impacts that are "caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative effects are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions .. .." (40 CFR 1508.7). If a project does not directly impact a particular environmental resource, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Assessments are conducted in accordance with FHWA and CEQ regulations and guidance documents, including the January 1997 CEQ handbook titled Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act and the April 1992 FHWA position paper titled Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process. If you need additional information or have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. cc: Ralph Ellis, ADOT Bill Vachon, FHWA Mary Viparina, ADOT File "Cumulative impacts" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency ... or person undertakes such other actions. 40 CFR 1508.7 (This is the effect on the resource from all the actions occurring in the area over time.) Secondary Undirect) Impacts "Secondary (Indirect) impacts" are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and ... related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. 40 CFR 1508.8(b) (This is the indirect effect caused by our project alone. The focus is "but for our project" the effect would not occur.) An accumulation of indirect effects can cause a cumulative impact. A cumulative impact is not a secondary impact. Many times secondary impacts are discussed with cumulative impacts because they both address the same reasonably and foreseeable future. However, each is distinctly different. 00173252044 S Mtn ElS-DCRIGRJC Canununications\Ltr. S Shade Questions 08300l.doc 00173252044 S Mtn ElS-DCRIGR!C Cammunications\Ltr. S Shade Questions 08300l.doc 1-il\ • A213 A214 • Appendix 1-1 December 27,2001 Gary Cooper Letter Page 2 Thank you for your time on the phone and your consideration of this request. Mr. Gary Cooper President of the Board of Directors Gila River Casinos P.O. Box 6790 Chandler, AZ 85246 Via 520.796.7714 (fax) Sincerely, South Mountain Project Team John D. Godec 602.266.5556 Dear Mr. Cooper, As we discussed in our telephone conversation yesterday, I was referred to you by Michael Harrison and referred to Mr. Harrison by Gary Bohnee. I run submitting this letter as a formal request for monthly use of a meeting facility at Vee Quiva casino for citizen advisory group meetings that will be held in conjunction with a three-year South Mountain Corridor Environmental Lnpact Statement (EIS) study. The citizen advisory group, made up of stakeholders from the area, will include several members of the Gila River Indian Community. The Arizona Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration have given us the task of conducting an EIS in an area of the south and southwest Valley to explore the purpose and need and alternatives for possible transportation improvements in the area. The Gila River Indian CommUnity (GRIC) is an active participant in this project. Our team meets monthly with a GRIC Task Force assigned to monitor this project led by Sandra Shade, Director of the GRIC Department of Transportation. We will need a meeting room capable of holding approximately 4D people around tables set up in a horseshoe configuration. The ftrst meeting of this group is planned for Saturday,January 26. We expect this ftrst meeting to begin at approximately Sam and last most of the day. Subsequent monthly meetings will likely be scheduled on weekday evenings from approximately 6pm to 9pm on days when your facility could be made available to us. If you have any speciftc questions about this study or our request I would be happy to answer them. As I mentioned in our telephone conversation we would also be happy to present the specifics of this project to the Board of Directors of Gila River Casinos at your convenience. The South Mountain Corridor Study website is at http://www.dot.state.az.us/ROADS/SouthMtn/index.htm. cc: Sandra Shade GaryBohnee Mary Viparina Ralph Ellis Steve Martin Jack Allen Theresa Gunn Appendix 1-1 January 10, 2002 January 10, 2002 Dr. George Brooks PMIP P.O. Box C Sacaton, AZ 85247 Bob Broscheid Project Evaluation Program Supervisor Arizona Game and Fish Department Habitat Branch 2221 W. Greenway Road WM-HB Phoenix, AZ 85023 Re: Re: South Mountain Corridor Study Dear Dr. Brooks: South Mountain Corridor Study Dear Mr. Broscheid: HDR Engineering Inc., on behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), is preparing a South Mountain Corridor Study and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the prop~sed_South Mountain Freeway. This investigation will take approximately three years to complete, and will include an ex~nation of the trans~rtation needs in the corridor and an evaluation of all reasonable ways to meet them. A conceptual destgn and state-level Envuonmental Assessment was preoared in 1988. As presented in this study, the freeway would connect Interstate 10 _(I-10) south of Phoenix with I-10 west of the city, following an east-west alignment along Pecos Road, through the western tip of South Mountain Park, then north to I-10 between 55th and 63rd Avenues. The legal location of the study area, not including locations that occur on the Gila River Indian Community, is: Township 2 No~, Range 1 East, S~ctions 33-36; Township 2 North, Range 2 East, Sections 31-34; Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Sections 1-36; To~nship 1 North, Range 2 East, Sections 3-10, 15-22, and 27-34; Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections 1 and 12; Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Sections 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, 34, and 35; Township 1 South, Range 3 East, Sections 31-36; Township 1 South, Range 4 East, Sections 31-33. An EIS will be prepared if it is determined that there is a need for a major transportation improvement required in the South area. It wil~ be prepared to address increased development within the project area, changes in design standards and envrronmental regulations, and to qualify for federal funds . This new study will start from the beginning and will consider all reasonable alternatives. The corridor being considered can be generally described as: I-10 on the west between 43rd and 107th Avenues, between the Gila River and South Mountain, and I-10 on the east between Pecos and Queen Creek Roads (see attachment). Mo~ntain HDR,_ Inc. ?as been retained by ADOT to prepare a South Mountain Corridor Study and an Environmental hnpact Statement for ~Is pr~Ject. 0~ behalf of the ADOT and FHWA, HDR Engineering, Inc. requests a species list, critical habitat, or any addttionalmf~rrnation that would be pertinent to the proposed project. A response received by February 11, 2002 would be greatly appreciated. Comments should be addressed to Ms. Fiona Goodson, HDR, Inc., 2141 East Highland Avenue, Suite 250, Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4736. Thank you for your assistance. HDR Engineering Inc., on behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is preparing a South Mountain Corridor Study and an Environmental hnpact Statement (EIS) for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. This investigation will take approximately three years to complete, and will include an ex~nation of the trans~rtation needs in the corridor and an evaluation of all reasonable ways to meet them. A conceptual design and state-level Environmental Assessment was prepared in 1988. As presented in this study, the freeway would connect Interstate 10 _(I-10) south of Phoenix with I-10 west of the city, following an east-west alignment along Pecos Road, through the western tip of South Mountain Park, then north to 1-10 between 55th and 63rd Avenues. The legal location of the study area occurring on the Gila River Indian Community is: Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Sections 31-35; Towns?ip 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections 1-17 and 20-26; Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Sections 7, 1721, and 27-3.5 ; Township 2 South, Range 2 East, Sections 1-17 and 22-24; Township 2 South, Range 3 East, Sections 1-24; and Township 2 South, Range 4 East, Sections 4-9, and 15-22. An EIS _will be prep~ed if it is determined that there is a need for a major transportation improvement required in the South Mounta.I.n area. It will be prepared to address increased development within the project area, changes in design standards and environmental regulations, and to qualify for federal funds . This new study will start from the beginning and will consider all reasonable alternatives. The corridor being considered can be generally described as: I-10 on the west between 43rd and 107thAvenues, between the Gila River and South Mountain, and I-10 on the east between Pecos and Queen Creek Roads (see attachment). ?as IIDR,_Inc. been retained by ADOT to prepare a South Mountain Corridor Study and an Environmental Impact Statement for ~s pr~Ject. ~behalf of the ADOT ~nd FHWA, HDR Engineering, Inc. requests a species list, critical habitat, or any additional mformation that would be pertinent to the proposed project. A response received by February 11, 2002 would be greatly appreciated. Comments should be addressed to Ms. Fiona Goodson, HDR, Inc., 2141 East Highland Avenue Suite 250, Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4736. ' Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, liDR ENGINEERING, INC. (J~2Y- Sincerely, ;~ Fiona Goodson Environmental Planner Attachments Enclosed Fiona Goodson Environmental Planner Attachments Enclosed HDR Engineering. Inc. Employee Owned Park One 2141 East Highland Avenue Suite 250 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4736 Telephone 602 508-6600 Fax 602 508-6606 HDR Engineering, Inc. Employee Owned Park One 2141 East Highland Avenue Suite 250 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4736 Telephone 602 508-6600 Fax 602 508-6606 • A215 A216 • Appendix 1-1 ONE COMPANY I Many Solutiolts s;, I May ·30, 2002 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Mr. Jeff Schmidt October 28, 2002 3003 N. Central Ave. #800 Phoenix, AZ. 85012 RE: Request for Prime and Unique Farmland (PUF) Determination; South Mountain Freeway Corridor Project Ms. Mary ·Viparina Senior Project Manager Arizona Department ofTransportatign 205 s; 17th Avenue, Mail Drop 614E . Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Mr. Schmidt: HDR Engineering Inc., on behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) .and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement {EIS) for the proposed South Mountain Freeway Corridor Project, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. This investigation include an examination of the transportation needs in the corridor and an evaluation of all reasonable ways to meet them. A conceptual design and state-level Environmental Assessment was prepared in 1988. As presented in this study, the freeway would connect Interstate 10 (l-10)south of Phoenix with 1-10 west of the city, following an east-west alignment along Pecos Road, through the western tip of South Mountain Park, then north to 1-10 between 55th and 63rd Avenues. We are requesting a PUF determination from the NRCS, for the proposed study area. We understand that a PUF determination was completed in the past for part of the study ar~a, but due to new scoping requirements and additional proposed aligD.m~nts, we feel a new determination is warranted. Attached you will a Geographical Information System (GIS) · map which includes the study area boundary, and potential PUF which were designated based upon NRCS soil mapping data. ·If possible, we would appreciate a response by June 28, 2002. Please contact me at (602) 508-6620 if you have any questions, or need additional information. . RE: - . : . . . . . . Sout~ Mountain T~ansportation Co~idor EIS and l.JDCR Methodology Reports Dear Ms. Yiparina: . . . . . ) . Please find attached a copy of the draft Methodologies Report for the· above-referenced project. Pursuant to the consensus-based appro·ach associated with the project, this report presents the methodologies proposed to analyze impacts for the National Environmental Policy Act topical · · environmental elements. We cordially askthat the methodologies proposed be reviewt!d by the appropriateADOT staff. Specific methodologies, geotechnical, hazardous w<}ste, and utilities, have already been subject to ADOT review. Upon completion of ADOT review (and under the assumption that no substantial changes are warranted), we ask that the report then be forwarded to the FHW A Arizona Division for review. The go~! of obtaining tea_m consensus o~ theproposed methodologies is to minimize . thechance ofsubstantial changes to the studies once c'?mpleted. Tq facili~ate the ~eview process, we have forwarded three (3) copies of the draft.Methodologi~s · Report to Mr. Thor AnNww.hd;inc.com Appendix 1-1 This letter was also sent to John Ravesloot, Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program • A217 A218 • Appendix 1-1 ONr COI\IPANY I,H,tll_l' Solutious · Ms. Cindy Lester · Arizona Section Chief U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers May 21, 2003 Page 2ofi . . As a coop~ratingagency or an agency expressing interest in the process, we are notifying you of this intent. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either ·me at 602~508~ 6648. Thank you. August 5, 2003 . Ms. Elaine Blackwater Land Use Planning and Zoning Director ·Gila River Indian Community P.Q:BoxE . Sacaton, AZ 85247 ~· ~ Ameha Edwards,.P.E. . Deputy Project Manager RE: cc: · Bill Vachon, FHWA Arizona Division Floyd Roehrich, ADOT Project Manager South Mountain Freeway DCRJEIS Study - Project Video Right-of-Entry Permit Request Dear Ms. Blackwater: .The referenced study, being conducted by HDR Engin~ering, Inc. on behalf of. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) arid in cooperation with Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), was initiated in July 2001. As part of the study, we acquired a right-of-entry permit (RE-02-01) for surveying and environmental studies. A copy of this permit is attached. · During a June meeting with Council representatives from Districts 4, 6 and 7, we ·were requested to create a project video for viewing by GRIC members. As part of this video cr~ation, we would like to film several locations within GRIC. The areas we are requesting to film are located within the study area defined under our original permit and shown in the attached map. The areas include the following: South Mountain as seen from GRIC • Kids playing at the school and Boys and Girls Club • ArtifaCts ·in the Cultural Center .. People working at the farms • Lone Butte Industrial Park • Wild Horse Pass Resort • . Casinos HDR Engineering, Inc. · Park.One 21 ~ 1. Ea st Highland Avenue .Suite 250 Phoenix; AZ 85016,47S2 Phone: (602) 508-6600 Fax: (602) 508-6606 w0w.IJdrinc.com HDR Engineering, Inc. Park One 2141 East Highland Avenue Suite 250 Phoenix. AZ. 85016-4792 Phone: (6021508-6600 Fax: (602)508:6606 www.hdrinc.com Appendix 1-1 ·Ms; Elaine Bl~~kwater . · :.Land. Use Planning ~rid Z,cming ·Dirc;ctor · · Gila River Indian Community · · · · · · 81.512003 Page_2 . . .. .. ··J hiwe attache~ a· liSt of personnelart4 a listofvehiclemakes, moq~ls and .license plates that may enter Community.iands during the project. .Upon receipt of a . . right;of~entry permit, those accessing Community l~nds will notify Office 24 · · · · · · · ·· hollrs.in advance of their visit. · · · · your Jhefilming effort.will be undertaken im~ediatdyupon receipt ofa right~of.:entry · perinit and will be' completed within 3 months time. Piease advise !Tie jf.there is .. any additional,inforri1ation you will need to aid irt the approval of this right·of~ .. . . . . ... . entry. Thank yoti for yourhelp with this matter;· ·•Sincerely, ;a.R~~ Am.elia Edwards, P.E. Project Manager . . · · Attachments . . . Right~of~Entry Perinit RE~Oi~Ol: . G~IC Study Area Map .Personnel, vehicle list cc: .·Floyd Roehrich John Godec · ·. . .Project File .· HDR Engin.eer ing,Jiu;. · • A219 A220 • Appendix 1-1 ONE.PANY l.\f,ut)' Solutions' • GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY RIGHT-OF-ENTRY LIST SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY EIS & DCR PROJECT VIDEO December 16, 2003 Personnel Amy Edwards John Godec Theresa Gunn Janet Nearhood Jim Kent Diana Cleland Year, Make, Model and License Plate of Vehicles 2000 Land Rover Discovery 452-FWT 1999 Dodge Durango 060-DVP 1998 Honda CRV 430-FZD 1999 Chevy Suburban 728-DTP Terry Leija Maricopa County Board of Supervisor 301 W. Jefferson · lOth Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003,.2148 . Re: South Mountain Freeway Public Meeting Dear Terry: . During the O~tober2 , 2003 South Mountain FreewayPublic Meeting sponsored by the Arizona Department·of Transportation at Tolleson High School, Supervisor ·· · Wilcox read and. provided the attached stateinerit. At the request of Bob Woodring at the .Maricopa County Department of Transportation and Floyd Roehrich at the Arizona Department of Transportation, we are providing this statement to you; If you have any questions regarding this matter or the project in general, please do not hesitate to contact me at 602-522-7755.. · Sincerely, · ~~ Amy Edwards, PE cc: Bob Woodring, MCDOT Floyd Roehrich, ADOT HDR .Engineering ,' Inc. ·3200 East Camelback Road . Suite 350 Phoenix. liZ85018-2311 Phone: 16021 522-7700 Fax: (60215Z2-7707 . . wvNI.hdrinc.com Appendix 1-1 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ADOT SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY TOLLESON HIGH SCHOOL October 2, 2003 Mar.y Rose Garrido Wilcox District Five 301 W. Jefferson, !O'h Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2148 Phone: 602.506.7092 Fax: 602.506.6524 TDD: 602.506.2000 mrwilcox@mailmaricopa.gov My name is Mary Rose Wilcox. I represent District Five as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. I am here tonight to comment on the South Mountain Corridor Study . . I support Alternative 1, which follows the GRIC boundary until halfway between 59th and 63rd Avenues . . - In 1986, as a former Phoenix City Council member, I was instrumental in forming a multi-jurisdictional committee that · developed the Estrella Comprehensive General Plan. This committee included the cities of Phoenix, Tolleson, Avondale, Maricopa County, private landowners and many other interested parties. After much discussion and planning, the Estrella General Plan was adopted by the Phoenix City Council in 1988, adopted in 1992 by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and also adopted by all participating jurisdictions. I am submitting a copy of the Estrella Comprehensive General Plan, which plans for the Alternative 1 alignment For almost 20 years, the westside has been making planning decisions based OQ the premise of the Alternate 1 alignment. I understand that planning must be fJexible but major consideration must be given to what has been adopted already. This general plan has been the basis of so much development For instance, the City of Tolleson has developed industrial parks based upon alternative 1 and mostly importantly, if the other alternatives are recommended, it would devastate the city's commercial tax base by rendering the city's primary commercial corridor useless. I understand the City of Phoenix is supportive of the 59th Avenue alignment due to the land use development that has occurred in this area. Changing the original alignment would be detrimental to the major development that has occurred in the cities of Tolleson, Avondale and Phoenix. I look forward to continuing to work with ADOT as the process of public hearings and planning continues. Thank you. • A221 A222 • Appendix 1-1 ON I CO.\Il'ANY I Mtlll)' Solntions' 'L...~R CU. ••. I Memo ONE COMPANY Many Solutiom•w To: Councilman Stanton and City of Phoenix Staff From: Amy Edwards Project South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Job No: 00173-525-044 December 31, 2:003 cc: Project File United States Army Corps of Engineers L.A. Distric;t, Regulatory Branch · Attn: Ms. Dana Owsiany 3636 North Central Ave., Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ. 85012 · Date: January 10, 2005 RE: Potential Interchange Locations on Pecos Road Alternative The HDR team is proceeding with detailed study of the Pecos Road alternative. As part of the process, we need to clearly identify the locations of potential interchanges along this route. In the original 1988 alternative, the interchange locations along Pecos Road were: RE: South Mountain Transportation Corridor Project: Jurisdictional Waters (Wetland Assessment) Dear Ms. Owsiany: • • • • • Thank you for your time in ~eviewing the field investigation photographs of the potential wetland area (subject area) located at 83rd Avenue in the Salt River Channel. The subject area is located where three freeway alignments are being considered. The subject area appeared to be a former gravel pit with wetland features on aerial_ photographs. Due to the wetland potential of this area, a field investigation of the area was conducted on December 4, 2003. During the field investigation, three soil pits were excavated using a shovel then photographed. In addition, several photographs were taken of the area to show vegetation types, standing water, and general site features. These photographs were given to you for review during our meeting on December 16,2003. On December 17, 2003 you called to inform us of the results of your internal meeting with Ron Fowler and Robert Durnar. Your review of the site photographs yielded the opinion that the subject area is not a wetJand, but the source of water must be confirmed. HDR appreciates your review and your guidance with this issue. We will provide new information as the Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting process moves forward associated with the project. We will continue to coordinate with you to discuss issues and findings . associated with jurisdictional waters. · 40th Street 24th Street 7th Street 7th Avenue 19th Avenue As part of our study, we have evaluated where it is geometrically possible to construct interchanges given the development that has occurred within the area since the 1988 study. Our analysis has shown potential interchange locations along Pecos Road at (see attached figure): • • • • • • 40th Street 32nd Street 24th Street Desert Foothills Parkway 17th Avenue 25th Avenue The differences in the lists are as follows: . Sincerely, · • HDR ENGINEERING, INC. • ScottMars,FUEM c: • Amy Edwards, HDR Project File • ·• HDR Engineering, Inc: 3200 East Camelback Rocid Suite 350 Phoenix. Arizona 85018 Phone: (602) 522-7700 Fax: (602) 522-7707 · www.hdrlnc .com 32nd Street- The current study shows this as a potential interchange location. This location has been included as it connects to the existing arterial system, is geometrically possible to construct and would serve the arterial street mobility need. Desert Foothills Parkway - The current study shows this as a potential interchange location. This location has been included as it connects to the existing arterial system, is geometrically possible to construct and would serve the arterial street mobility need. 7th Street - The current study does not show this as a potential interchange location. This location was not included as it does not connect with the existing arterial system. 7th A venue - The current study does not show this as a potential interchange location. This location was not included as it does not connect with the existing arterial system. 17th A venue -The current study shows this as a potential interchange location. This location has been included as it connects to the existing arterial system, is geometrically possible to construct and would serve the arterial street mobility need. HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Road Suite 350 1 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 I Phone (602) 522-noo Fax (602) 522-no7 www.hdrtnc.com 1. Page 1 of 2 Appendix 1-1 ~ ' 4 • • ·L~~ 19th Avenue - The current study does not show this as a potential interchange location. This location was not included as it does not connect with the existing arterial system. 25th Avenue- The current study shows this as a potential interchange location. This location has been included as it connects to the existing arterial system, is geometrically possible to construct and would serve the arterial street mobility need. Oi'n .the ..project as jubcoilsultant to. HDR. The 'GRIC-CRMP· 'was tasked \Vith . . • conducting a Class I :overvie~ .of the.study-area and a Class .ill .sUrvey of alternative alignments. · Attached is ·a· ·sunu.riary of GRIC-CRMP's ·work to .date .. A . few_ other ·key ·dates with regard to. . . . . coordination with the City o'f Phoenix are follows: as • . July 9, 2001 ~ HDRreceive.d notice to proceedf~mn ADOTiFHwA; • August 8:, -20o3· - ADOT·initiated Secti~nl06 con·sulta:tions,with the City of Phoenix,. : :provided a' di~tf't ClassTreport for review, and requested concurrence that a Programm~tic .. agreement be d~vel6ped; · , ·· · . ..· ·· · • · . September 8, 2003 ~- HDR sent fieidwqrk notification letter to Cjty of Phoenix (the letter · · · was ser1f to City Hall, notPqeblo-qrande). : • · September i 7, ·2003 - Cit.y of Ph.oenix sent ADOT a response letter concumng that. a PA should-be developed. · · · · • .:DeceJ,nber 9, .2003 ~ ADOT sent _draft Pragmatic Agreement ~0· ~h~ City of Phoenix for review. .. . . • ._December 17, 2003 - ·City of Phoenix. sent A,OOT a response letter concurring with· the·.. ... adequacy· of the draft'Program:nlatic Agreemerii. · conurtu~i~ati~ri b~tweenm1f team.and your office .. B.DRfully .· . cterotocoi section (page 29)' whiCh details proper coordination ·procedures .. Please. be· assure.cl tharHDRis fullycohiJ;n:itted to the pr9per and ethical rrianagement.of. cultural resources in _Phoenix,:· Arizona,· and beyond: T6 ensure this situation dbes .not happens :agaih, _HDR will HDR Engineering, Inc. 1 3200 E. Camelback Road Suite350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 I Phone (602) 522-7700 Fax(602) 522-7707 www.hdrinc.com I _ , Page2 of 2 ·· · · : · HD_R _ Eng_ineering; Inc. · : 3200 E. Came!back.Road · Suite 350 · Phone: (602) 522·7700. Fax: (602) 522-7707 . · · ..... ' ·~-~---:-----'--=-,'-----'-----.J--.:; - P...:..h;.:..oe.:.:.n:..:;;iie"-'~A.;.::.Z:..;8;.::5.;;_01'-'=:s_~--'--~~'--'-.;.::W'NW~·.""'"hdr=i~nc=~c=o.;.;.,m~ · --~- .· . ' • A223 A224 • Appendix 1-1 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 1-1 Agency Letters and Communication Received After Close of Comment Period of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement • A225 A226 • Appendix 1-1 2 an existing condition and become habituated to traffic noise. The City of Phoenix and USACE view the South Mountain Freeway crossing as an opportunity to use storm water runoff from the proposed freeway to "irrigate" the river habitat. The study team will continue to consult with BLM, USACE, and the City of Phoenix to coordinate design efforts to minimize impacts on the proposed uses of this land. If this summary is accurate and reflects the most currently available information, please sign the concurrence line below. If you or others in your organization have additional information, please provide it to the Federal Highway Administration by July 14, 2013, so that it can be incorporated into the Final EIS. If you have any questions, please contact Rebecca Yedlin, FHWA Environmental Coordinator, at (620) 382-8979 or Rebecca.Yedlin@dot.gov. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, ~~ ..wKarla S. Petty Division Administrator Enclosure cc: Karen Williams, City of Phoenix, 200 West Washington Street, 12th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 Brian Kenny, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3636 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012 Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Scott Stapp, HDR Engineering, Inc. , 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Appendix 1-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department d Trmsportation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602)" 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm July 2, 2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Request for Rio Salado Oeste status concurrence 2 an existing condition and become habituated to traffic noise. The City of Phoenix and US ACE view the South Mountain Freeway crossing as an opportunity to use stormwater runoff from the proposed freeway to "irrigate" the river habitat. The study team will continue to consult with BLM, US ACE, and the City of Phoenix to coordinate design efforts to minimize impacts on the proposed uses of this land. If this summary is accurate and reflects the most currently available information, please sign the concurrence line below. If you or others in your organization have additional information, please provide it to the Federal Highway Administration by July 14, 2013, so that it can be incorporated into the Final EIS. If you have any questions, please contact Rebecca Yedlin, FHWA Environmental Coordinator, at (620) 382-8979 or Rebecca.Yedlin@dot.gov. Thank you for your time and assistance. ·Sincerely, Ms. Karen Williams, Rio Salado Coordinator City of Phoenix 200 West Washington Street, 12th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 ~ The W59 Alternative would cross the Salt River through the eastern half of a 192-acre BLM parcel. The City of Phoenix has a lease on this parcel under provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (Lease A-31292). The leased land would be included in the proposed RSO project, which is cosponsored by USACE. Although the lease does not include a reference to the proposed freeway, BLM and the City of Phoenix, in an August 2005 letter, indicated they would work together to amend the lease to show the proposed freeway passing through the parcel if the W55 Alternative was identified as the selected alternative in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and Record of Decision. In July 2010, the City of Phoenix and USACE completed the Rio Salado Oeste Conceptual Design Documentation Report. This report incorporates the location of the proposed South Mountain Freeway as it passes through RSO (see enclosure). According to USACE, the RSO project lacks funding to proceed. As a result, the proposed construction of the South Mountain Freeway in this area would precede RSO. Although traffic noise could affect some species, any wildlife that would inhabit the area after habitat improvements would experience the freeway as C;FT "-" Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Dear Ms. Williams: This letter summarizes the current information the South Mountain Freeway study team has compiled regarding the Rio Salado Oeste (RSO) project as it relates to the W59 Alternative of the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway), Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(/) Evaluation. It ____ should be noted that most of the coordination between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), City of Phoenix, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regarding RSO was in relation to the W55 Alternative. In 2009, the W55 Alternative was shifted to 59th Avenue and was renamed the W59 Alternative. The location of the Salt River/RSO crossing has not changed. fa-. ~ J_i ~ Date Enclosure cc: Jim Andersen, Bureau of Land Management, 21605 West 4th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027 Brian Kenny, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3636 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012 Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Scott Stapp, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 • A227 A228 • Appendix 1-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 4000 North C-entra Avenue Suite 15001 PhoeniX; Arizona 85012-.3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 1 btto://J!!ww.fhltVa.dptgov1~div1index.html July 8, 201.3 In Reply Refer To: NH-202 D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202·D(ADY) TRACS No. 20QL MA 054 H'S764 OlL South oWilBin Freeway {Loop .202} RJ:qucst ft Rio Salado Oeste tab1s cont-WTencc Mr. Hrian Kenny, Rio Salado Projiect Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3636 North Central Avenue Phoenix. Arizona 85012 Dear Mr. Kenny: The study team is updating information within tbe outh Mountain Freeway (Loop 202). Jnters.tate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway), Draft Envir:onmental Impact Statement and Section 4(/) E~aluaJion (Draft EJS) for the production ofthe Final EIS for the project Although tile team has had informal tel phone communicatio.DB with you regarding th - status of the Rio Salado Oeste (RSO) project, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) wishes to formally document.the status within the Final BIS. This letter summarizes the current info:rmation the team bas compiled regardin_g the RSO project .as it relates to the W59 Alternative of the South Mountain Freeway. It should be noted that much of the prio·r coordination betw · the B:ureau of Land Managem .nt (BLM), City of Phoenix~ and th _ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regarding R.SO was in r:eJadon.·to ·the WSS Alternative. In 2009~ the WSS Alternative was shifted to 59th Avenue and was t·ooamed ·the W59 Alternative. The locatio of the SaltRiver/R 0 crrn~sing has no·t changed. The WS9 Alternative would cro s the Salt Ri er through the eastern half of a 192-acre BLM parcel. The City of Phoenix has a lease on tb.i parcel lindet provisjons of the Recreation .and Public PurpoBes Act.(Lease A-3 1292). The leased land would be included 'in the proposed RSO project, which i cosponsoli'Cd by USACE. AlthoU:gh the lease does not include a l!Cference to· the proposed tiecway BLM and.lhe City ofPhoeni~ in an Augwt 2005 letter, indicated they would work togetfter to amend the lease to show the proposed. freeway passing through th parcel if the WSS Mtemafve WWI identified as the selected.aJtemative .in the EIS and Record of Decision. ~ - 5 0 _.z Appendix 1-1 2 In July 20 I 0, the City of Phoenix and USACE completed the Rio Salado Oeste Conceptual Design Documentation Report. This report incorporates the location of the proposed South Mountain Freeway as it passes through RSO (see enclosure). According to USACE, the RSO project lacks funding to proceed. As a result, the proposed construction of the South Mountain Freeway in this area would precede RSO. Although traffic noise could affect some species, any wildlife that would inhabit the area after habitat improvements would experience the :freeway as an existing condition and become habituated to traffic noise. The City of Phoenix and USACE view the South Mountain Freeway crossing as an opportunity to use stormwater runoff from the proposed freeway to "irrigate" the river habitat. The study team will continue to consult with BLM, USACE, and the City of Phoenix to coordinate design efforts to minimize impacts on the proposed uses of this land. If this sununary is accurate and reflects the most currently available information, please sign the concurrence line below. If you or others in your organization have additional information, please provide it to FHWA by July 29, 2013, so that it can be incorporated into the Final EIS. If you have any questions, please contact Rebecca Yedlin, FHWA Environmental Coordinator, at (620) 382-8979 or Rebecca. Yedlin@dot.gov. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, ~(jW 1%::Karla S. Petty Division Administrator . /v Signature for USACE Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) 24 (Jcf.C'.f~':J c?J/ ~ Date Enclosure cc: Jim Andersen, Bureau of Land Management, 21605 West 4th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027 Karen Williams, City of Phoenix, 200 West Washington Street, 12th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc. ,3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Scott Stapp, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 • A229 A230 • Appendix 1-1 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportment dltnspo1alion Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 htto://www. fhwa. dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm ARIZONA DIVISION US. Department d '&tripor1ctlal Federal Highway Administration August 15,2013 August 15, 2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Receipt of Comments on the South Mountain DEIS TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Receipt of Comments on the South Mountain DEIS Ms. Patricia Sanderson Port, Regional Environmental Officer United States Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary Pacific Southwest Region 333 Bush Street, Suite 515 San Francisco, California 94104 RE: In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ Mr. Jared Blumenfeld United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Regional Administration, Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105-3901 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), I-1 0 (Papago Freeway) to I-1 0 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), I-10 (Papago Freeway) to 1-10 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: Dear Ms. Port: The Ariz~na Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have rece1ve~ your July 24, 2013, comments on the South Mountain (Loop 202), I-10 (Papago Freeway) to I-1 0 (Mancopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). With the closin~ of the DEIS public comment period on July 24, 2013, we will now begin addressing the comme~ts rece1ved. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all comments on the DE~S w11l be c~efully considered and responses to these comments will undergo a rigorous preparation, rev1ew, and vettmg process through ADOT and FHWA as we advance the project through the NEPA process .. We ant.icipate completion of this effort in 2014. Based on our current schedule, after publication oft~e Fmal Env1ronment~I.Impact Statement (FEIS), the document will be subject to a 60-day public rev1ew. A Record ofDec1s1on on the proposed project would follow. We appreciate the involvement of the United States Department of the Interior on this project and look forward to continuing our partnership with the Department. Ka~\a The Ariz~na Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have rece1ve~ your June 20, 2013, comments on the South Mountain (Loop 202), I-1 0 (Papago Freeway) to I-I 0 (Mar1copa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). With the closing of the DEIS public comment period on July 24,2013, we will now begin addressing the received. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all comments on the DE!S wtll be c~efully considered and responses to these comments will undergo a rigorous preparation, rev1ew, and vettmg process through ADOT and FHWA, as we advance the project through the NEPA process .. We ant.icipate completion of this effort in 2014. Based on our current schedule, after publication of ~e Fmal Envlronmen~I.Impact Statement (FEIS), the document will be subject to a 60-day public rev1ew. A Record ofDectslon on the proposed project would follow. comme~ts We apprec!ate the involvement of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office on thts proJect and look forward to continuing our partnership with the Agency. Sincerely, s. Pett) Karla S. Petty Division Administrator cc: Rebecca Yedlin, Chaun Hill (EM02), Ralph Ellis (EM02), Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Karla 5. Pett·· Karla S. Petty Division Administrator cc: Rebecca Yedlin, Chaun Hill (EM02), Ralph Ellis (EM02), Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Appendix 1-1 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http:/Jwww. fhwa. dot.qov/azdiv/index.htm ARIZONA DIVISION US. Deportment a1itrlsporfalial Federal Highway Administration US.Deportment a'imsportalial Federal Highway Admlnlstraflon August IS, 2013 August 15,2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Receipt of Comments on the South Mountain DEIS TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Receipt of Comments on the South Mountain DEIS Ms. Diane Enos, President Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community I 0005 East Osborn Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85256-9722 Mr. Gregory Mendoza, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85147 RE: 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm ARIZONA DIVISION Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to I-1 0 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to I-1 0 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Dear President Enos: Dear Governor Mendoza: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have received your July 11,2013, comments on the South Mountain (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to 1-10 (Maricopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE IS). With the closing of the DEIS public comment period on July 24,2013, we will now begin addressing the comments received. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all comments on the DEIS will be carefully considered and responses to these comments will undergo a rigorous preparation, review, and vetting process through ADOT and FHWA as we advance the project through the NEPA process. We anticipate completion of this effort in 2014. Based on our current schedule, after publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the document will be subject to a 60-day public review. A Record of Decision on the proposed project would follow. We appreciate the involvement of the Gila River Indian Community on this project and look forward to continuing our partnership with the Community. Sincerely, Kar\a The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have received your June 12,2013, comments on the South Mountain (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to 1-10 (Maricopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). With the closing of the DEIS public comment period on July 24, 2013, we will now begin addressing the comments received. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all comments on the DEIS will be carefully considered and responses to these comments will undergo a rigorous preparation, review, and vetting process through ADOT and FHWA as we advance the project through the NEPA process. We anticipate completion of this effort in 2014. Based on our current schedule, after publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the document will be subject to a 60-day public review. A Record of Decision on the proposed project would follow. We appreciate the involvement of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on this project and look forward to continuing our partnership with the Community. Sincerely, s. Pett'. Karla S. Petty Division Administrator cc: Rebecca Yedlin, Chaun Hill (EM02), Ralph Ellis (EM02), Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Karla 5. Petty Karla S. Petty Division Administrator cc: Rebecca Yedlin, Chaun Hill (EM02), Ralph Ellis (EM02), Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 • A231 A232 • Appendix 1-1 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department d1trisportaticrl Federal Highway Administration ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department of TrcnsportoHon Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm November 1, 2013 August 15, 2013 In Reply Refer To: In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 HS764 0 I L South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Receipt of Comments on the South Mountain DEIS NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) PM 10 Hotspot Analysis Ms. Joyce Francis, Habitat Branch Chief The State of Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to 1-10 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Dear Ms. Francis: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have received your July 24,2013, comments on the South Mountain (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to I-1 0 (Maricopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). With the closing of the DEIS public comment period on July 24,2013, we will now begin addressing the comments received. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all comments on the DEIS will be carefully considered and responses to these comments will undergo a rigorous preparation, review, and vetting process through ADOT and FHWA as we advance the project through the NEPA process. We anticipate completion of this effort in 2014. Based on our current schedule, after publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the document will be subject to a 60-day public review. A Record of Decision on the proposed project would follow. We appreciate the involvement of the State of Arizona Game and Fish Department on this project and look forward to continuing our partnership with the Department. Sincerely, Karla 5. Pett' Karla S. Petty Division Administrator cc: Rebecca Yedlin, Chaun Hill (EM02), Ralph Ellis (EM02), Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc. '3200 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 1-l'QR RECEIVED Mr. Jared Blumenfeld United States Environmental Protection Agency Office ofthe Regional Administration Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-390 I RE: l~QV 04 2013 1'1\0J; - - - -- - - - -- l~iLE: - - -- - - - - - - - DTST : ·------ Request to review the PM10 Hotspot Modeling Protocol for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), l-1 0 (Papago Freeway) to I-1 0 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 II5764 0 I L, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) received your July 23,2013 comments on the South Mountain (Loop 202), l-10 (Papago Freeway) to 1-10 (Maricopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). One of the major comments received requested completion of an assessment of potential PM 1o hotspot impacts. The project team drafted the PM 1o modeling framework or protocol, updated witl1 new traffic estimates based on the 20 I 0 Census. It was reviewed and approved by the air quality specialists within ADOT, Arizona Depa11ment of Environmental Quality, and FHWA. FHW A now requests the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the protocol and let us know if you have any comments. We would appreciate any comments you have submitted to us by November 15,2013. We appreciate the involvement of the EPA Region IX Office on this project and look forward to continuing our pattnership. Please submit your comments to Rebecca Yedlin, FHWA Appendix 1-1 November 1, 2013 2 Environmental Coordinator, 4000 N. Central Ave., Suite 1500, Phoenix, AZ 85012; or Rebecca.Yedlin@dot.gov. If you have any questions, contact Rebecca at 602-382-8979. Sincerely, Rebecca Yedlin Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Enclosure cc: Colleen McKaughan, USEPA Region 9, mckaughan.coilccn@epa.gov Clifton Meek, USEPA Region 9,. 75 Hawthorne St., Sao Francisco, CA 94105 Ben Spargo, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Sujte 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 Darcy Anderson (EM02) Brent Cain (EMO 1) JeffHouk Rebecca Ycdlin RYedJin:cdm South Mountain Freeway DEIS PM1o Quantitative Hotspot Analysis Protocol Project Description The proposed South Mountain Transportation Corridor (SMTC) will link the Interstate 10 (I10) corridor west of Phoenix to the I-10 corridor south of Phoenix and consists of three northsouth alternative alignments that will connect with an east-west alignment adjacent to the Ahwatukee Foothills. The proposed freeway would serve to provide additional access to l-10 and othe1· Valley locations for residents in the southwest Valley, ease congestion on arterial streets in the southwest Valley and provide a direct li.nk between I-10 to the south and I-10 to the west. 111e roadway would consist of a divided 8-lane roadway (6 general-purpose lanes and 2 high-occupancy vehicle lanes) with grade-separated interchanges. The South Mountain Freeway Draft EIS included a qualitative evaluation for PMw. This analysis was c-onducted for NEPA purposes for the development of the DEIS (a formal draft conformity determination is not required until the FETS). In March 2006, EPA and FH WA issued a joint guidance document on perfonning qualitative hotspot analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. Projects that are of "air quality concern" as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 93.123(b)(1) require a hot-spot analysis. The proposed action is such a project. ln December 2010, EPA established transportation conformity guidance for performing quantitative PM2.5 and PMlO hot-spot analyses for transportation projects and established a 2-year grace period. EPA conformity guidance continues to allow qualitative PM10 hot-spot conformity analyses for analyses that were started before or during the grace period and if ti1e final environmental document for U1e project is issued no more than 3 years after issuance of the draft enviromnental document (40 C.F.R. § 93.111(c)]. A PMlO qualitative analysis was performed for this project because the initial air quality technical analysis report was produced .in October of 2005. Although the qualitative hotspot analysis would be sufficient under the conformity grace period guidance, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) plans to update the qualitative analysis to a qua11titative analysis for U1e FEIS to ensure tl1at a state-of-the-art analysis is completed for the proposed project. Process to Determine Project of Air Quality Concern Determining wl1ether a project is of air quality concern and requires a PM1o quantitative hotspot analysis is based on the ADOT Checklist for Project Level Conformity - Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Screening Process. The following sections address the multiple criteria for determining the need for quantification. These criteria are consistent with those listed in the conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.123(a)). 1 • A233 A234 • Appendix 1-1 November 1, 2013 New Highway Capacity Expansion November 1, 2013 (EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality EPA-420-F-1 0-052, December 2010) 1. Are the design year total Build condition traffic volumes .:::_125,000 a1U1ual average daily traffic (AADT) and huck volumes 2:10,000 heavy-b·ucks per day (8%) in the project vicinity? YES - Projected 2035 AADT ranges from 117,000 to 190,000 and projected heavy-trucks range from 3,800 to 17,000. (MAG 9/20/2013) 1. Determine the need for analysis - is this a project of local air quality concern? YES- Both ADOT and the Arizona Deparhnent of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) consider this project a POAQC. 2. Determine lhe approach, models, and data. 2. Does the project cause 2: 6,250 and 2: 500 increases in AADT and truck volumes, respectively between the Build and No-Build conditions? YES- Because this is a new facility, projected increases between the Build and No-Build AADT range from 117,000 to 190,000 and 3,800 to 17,000 additional trucks. (MAG 9/20/2013) If yes to either of the above questions, it is potentially a project of air quality concem (POAQC) and may require interagency consultation; if no on both, it is not. Other Considerations: 1.. Does the project affect intersections that are of Level-of-Service (LOS) D, E, or F v.tith a significant number of diesel vehicles? YES 2. Does the project affect locations, areas or categodes of sites that are identified in the PM1o or PM2.s applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submissions, as appropriate, as sites of violation or potential vioJati011? YES- PM10 Not applicable - PM2.s 3. Is the project considered significant or environmentally conh·oversial with respect to future impact on localized pollutant concentrations (e.g., evaluated using environmental impact statement (EIS) 01· environmental assessment (EA)? (www.ep_uovI compliance/basics/nepa.hlml) YES - The FHWA considers the potential impact on the project area to be controversial and to generate a great deal of public interest. The project currently has a completed Draft EIS (DEIS). 4. Is the project in a confomung plan and/ or TIP? a. Define the project area (area substantiall)' affected by the project, 58 FR 62212) and emission sources. The project area encompasses more than 156 square miles. The project area includes the alternative alignments: • The north-south alternative alig11ments area is bordered approximately by McDowell Road to the north, Elliot Road to the south, 51~~ Avenue to the east and 1071h Avenue to the west. The three highest vohlme interchanges along the Preferred Alternative will be modeled. • The east-west alternative alignment area is bordered appxoximately by South Mountain Park to the north, the Gila River Indian Community to the south, I-1.0 to the east, and 51•1 Avenue to the west. b. Determine general approach for Jnodcling the preferred alternative (the W59/E1 Alternatives) and analysis year(s) - year(s) of peak emissions during the lime frame of the lTansportation plan (69 FR 40056). Emission rates in 2015, 2025 and 2035 will be estimated using EPA's MOVES2010b program. These analysis years are included in the most recent update to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) regional confornuty a nalysis. Under the Build Alternative enussion rates will be developed for the three highest volume interchanges. Each location will be modeled for morning (AM) peak, Midday hours, afternoon (PM) peak, and ovemight. PM1o emissions will be modeled incorporating operating conditions included in EPA's Transportation Conformity Guidance fiw Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM1o N01wttainme11t and Mainte11ance Arens, publication number EPA420-B-10-040, December 2010. Based on the most recent MAG Conformity Analysis, the peak year of emissions will be determined and used to quantify PM10 emissions associated with the project. YES Completing a Quantitative Particulate Matter Hot-Spot Analysis 2 3 Appendix 1-1 November 1, 2013 Following the development of peak year emission rates, the three worst-case. interchanges and locations expected to have the highest concentrations under the Build Alternative will be selected in consultation with FHWA for detailed dispersion modeling with CAL3QHCR. Traffic projections by link will be used the analysis. CAL3QHC~ dispersion modeli.J.'Ig will incorporate a 5 year mcteorologtcal data set and other guidelines suggested by EPA guidance for quantitative PM10 analyses. As noted in EPA's "Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PMlO Nonattaimnent and Maintenance Areas" (December 2010), to avoid um1ecessary work, EPA recommends modeling the build scenario (including background concentrations) first. In those instances if the design values under the build sce11ario are Jess than or equal to the relevant PMIO NAAQS, then the project conforms and no additional modeling is required. November 1, 2013 d. Select emissions and dispersion models and methods to be used. The PM,o emission factor model to be used in lhis analysis is the EPA m.odel MOVES2010b (revised) released on October 30, 2012. Re-enh·ained road dust will be incorporated mto model results using emission rates provided by MAG. PM1o background concentrations will be determined in consultation with MAG, ADOT and FHWA and included with model results. The analysis of PM, 0 impacts will follow the guidelines established by the EPA in Transportation Confiwmity Guidtwce for Quantitnth>e Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.s and PM 1o Nonattnimuent and Maintenance A1·eas, publication number EPA-420-B-10-040, December 2010. e. Obtain project-specific data (e.g., fleet mix, peak-hour volumes and average speed). In the event that the design value for the build scenario exceeds the PMIO NAAQS, the no-build scenario (without the South Mountain pr~ject) wil~ be mod~led. Under that scenario (and following EPA gu1dance), 1f the des1gn values for the build scenario are less than or equal to the design values for the no-build scenario , then the project meets the conformity rule's hot-spot requirements. New socioeconomic subarea projections based on the 2010 U.S. Census and Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) county-level projections have been approved by the MAG Regional Council. Based on these new projections, revised n·affic data were provided by MAG following completion of the updated h·affic projection models; new projections were also provided for t1'uck b·affic. In ~ither instan~~ if. the pmject fails to meet conformity reqmrements, nutigahon and/ or conh·ol measures will be considered and additional modeling will be completed to ensure that the build scenario is Jess than or equal to the PMlO NAAQS or the no-build scenario, as applicable. Fleet mix, vehicle hours travelled (VHT), h·avel speeds by link and hour, Inspection/Maintenance (1/M) Programs, fuel formulation, fuel supply, age distribution, and other MOVES inp1.1ts will be based on MAG data for years 2015,2025 and 2035 (MAG personal communication from TaejooShin J0-17-13). Vehicle PM1o exhaust emissions are expected to decrease substantially over time; however, brake and tire wear, and reentrained road dust emissions are not expected to decrease. Reenb·ained road dust will be incorporated into model results using emJSSJon rates provided by MAG in its most recent Conformity Analysis. Meteorological inputs to MOVES will be based on data from the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (surface) and Tucson International Ahport (upper air) and be consistent with MAG i.J.1puts to MOVES. Roadway configurations will be based on available information, comparable freeway designs such as the San Tan Freeway, and will be consistent among the alternatives. c. Determine National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Particulate Matter types to be evaluated. The evaluation will be performed for PM1o with the applicable PM1o 24-J:-lour standard (150 J.tgfm3). 4 3. Estimate on-road motor vehicle emissions usi.J.1g MOVES. Using data discussed in Step 2, MOVES PM1o emission factors will b~ calculated for the various roadway variables, using MOVES at the Project scale, and used for input to CAL3QHCR. 4. Estimate emissions from road dust, conshuction, and additional sources. a. Estimate road dust emissions using AP-42 Paved Roads (13.2.1, 201J) Re-entrai.ned road dust will be estimated using emiSSion rates provided by MAG. Fugitive dust PM1o emission factors for paved roads were calculated using the AP-42 equation and the MAG 5 • A235 A236 • Appendix 1-1 November 1, 2013 region approved silt loading values and other MAG-approved input parameters. b. Do emissions from other sources need to be considered? NO - This was agreed to during interagency consultation. Construction dust does not need to be modeled, and there are no major freight terminals or other facilities that need to be included in the model. 5. Select air quality dispersion model, data inputs, and receptors. a. Obtain and inputrequh"ed site data (e.g., meteorological). Five years of surface meteorological data (2008 - 2012) from the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport ar\d five years of upper air data (2008 - 2012) from the Tucson International Airp01t will be provided by ADOT and used with CAL3QHCR. b. Input MOVES and AP-42 oulputs (emission fa-ctors). Emission factors from MOVES and AP-42 re-entrai.ned road dust emissions will be incotporated into CAL3QHCR model inputs. c. Determine number and location of receptors, roadway links, and signal timing. Receptors will be selected to estimate maximum impacts associated with the roadway and will follow EPA guidance recommendations for receptor placement in CAL3QHCR; receptor height will be set to 1.8 meters. Wind distribution patterns will be reviewed to assist iJ.1 the selection of receptor locations impacted dw·ing stable atmosphe1'ic conditions; additional receptors will be located downwind of the modeled roadway. Receptor placement will be based on guidance in EPA-420-B-10-040, Section 7.6.2. Roadway links will be defined by conunon characteristics; signal times will be used for queue links and will be based on applicable guidelines. d. Run air quality dispersion model and obtain concentration results. CAL3QHCR will be run for each quarter and year of meteorological data for the build, no-build and alternative locations selected for detailed dispersion analysis. Model results will be used to estimate maxirnum 24-hour PM10 concentrations. 6. Determine background concentTation using existing monitors in the nonattaimnent or maintenance area representative of the project area. 6 November 1, 2013 Ambient monitoring data will be evaluated and selected carefully to determine appropriate background concentrations for the project area. Although the South Mountain project area includes monitoring stations with some of the highest PM1o concentrations in the valley (West 43•d Avenue Site), these concentrations are directly related to industrial and resource mining activities near the monitoring stations and are not representative of the ambient PM10 concentrations for the project area. To obtain representative background concentrations, data from a monitoring station in the region that is not impacted by local sources should be used. Data from all monitoring stations in the region will be reviewed to detennine the most appropriate value through int~.ragency consultation. The MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan (Plan) demonsh·ates attainment of the 24-hour PM1o standard for three areas, including portions of the project area. The background values used in the Plan were 14.9 ~tg/m3 for wind speeds less than or equal to 12 miles per hour (rnph) (5.4 meters per second (m/s]) and 21.9 ~tg/m~ for wind speeds greater than 12 mph (5.4 m/ s). These values were based on data collected at a remote location approximately 30 miles west of the boundary of the project area. At this time, a background conce11tration has not been determined; the selection of a background concenb"ation will require coordination and consultation with ADOT, FHWA, and ADEQ. If EPA takes action on the 5% plan before the release of the FEIS, the MAG background value will be used. This approach was agreed to under il1teragency consultation. 7. Calculate design values and detenni.ne conformity. a. Add step 5 results to backgmund concentrations to obtain values for the Build scenario. The 61h highest 24-hour concenlTalion obtained over the 5 years of data for each receptor will be identified. Of these, the highest will be identified. This value will be added to the background concenb·ation and rounded to the nearest lO!!g/m>; this is the highest desig11 value in the Build scenario. b. Do the d<~sign values allow the project to conform? The design values will be compared with the 24-hour NAAQS. If the highest build design value is less than or equal to the NAAQS, the project is in conformity. lf the build design value is over the NAAQS, the No-build scenario will also be evaluated and compared to the build scenario. 8. Consider mitigation OJ' control measures if the design values are above the NAAQS. 7 Appendix 1-1 November 1, 20 13 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX Ambient monitol'ing data will be evaluated and selected catefuliy to determine appropriate background concenb:·ations for the project area. Although the South Mountain project a~·ea includes monitoring stations with some of the highest PM10 concentrations in the valley (West 43rd Avenue Site}, these concentrations are directly related to industrial and resout'ce mining activities near the monitol·ing stations and are not representative of the ambient PM10 concenb·ations for the project area. To obtain rep resentative background concentrations, data from a mon1toring statiort in the region tha Lis not impacted by local sow·ces should be used. Data from all monitoring stations in the region will be reviewed to dete:nn:ine the most appropriate value thmugh interagency consultation. TJ1e MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan (Pla11) demo11strates attainment of the 24-hour PM1o standard for three area sf includ · 1g portions of the project area. The background values used in the Plan wel'c 14.9 ~Lg/m3 for wind speeds less than or equal to 12 1niles pel' hour (mph) (5.4 meters per s cond [rn/s]) and 21.9 ~Lg/rn:l for wind speeds greater tha11 12 mph (5.4 m/s). These values were based on data collected at a remote location approximately 30 miles west of the boundary of the project area. At this time, a background concentration has not been determined; the selection of a background concenb·ation will require coordination and consultation with ADOT, FHWA and ADEQ. If EPA takes action on the 5% plan before the release of t-he FEIS, the MAG background value will be used. This approach was agl'eed to uJ"tder interagen cy onsultation. 7. Calculate design values and detenmne conformity. a. Add step 5 results to background concentrations to obtain values for the Build scenario. Th • 6th highest 24-hour concen lTalion obtained over the 5 years of data for each receptor will be identified. Of these, the highest will be identified. This value will be added to tl1e background on<.:t?Jlb:·ation and )"()Unded to the nearest 10!-4g/m3; this is the highest design value ill the Build scenario. 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 December 4, 2013 Rebecca Yedlin Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 4000 North Central A venue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Subject: EPA Comments on the PM10 Hot Spot Modeling Protocol for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), 1-10 (Papago Freeway) to 1-10 (Maricopa Freeway), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L, Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Dear Ms. Yedlin: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the PM10 Hot Spot Modeling Protocol for the South Mountain Freeway, submitted to our agency on November 1, 2013. The submittal of the modeling protocol for review, and our comments on this document provided below, represent the first interagency coordination between our agencies to partially address the bases for EPA's adverse rating and recommendations provided in our formal comment letter on the DEIS prepared for the South Mountain Freeway (July 23, 2013). The comments provided below provide recommendations for the PMlO Hot Spot Modeling Protocol only, and we note that there are remaining, substantive issues as outlined in the DEIS comment letter that we would like to discuss with FHWA and ADOT once a strategy for addressing the remaining issues has been prepared. Overall Comment Based on EPA's review of the South Mountain PM10 hot-spot protocol, we have concerns that the protocol and many of the criteria referenced in the protocol are not consistent with the transportation conformity rule. The document contains many references to decisions made through interagency consultation; however, EPA was not included in this consultation. EPA must also be consulted for evaluating and choosing a model and associated methods and assumptions to be used in hot-spot analysis under40 CFR 93.105(c)(l)(i). By including EPA earlier, concerns about the "screening process" and the modeling proposed for projects can be resolved earlier in the project timeline. See Section 2.3 of our quantitative hot-spot guidance for more information on interagency consultation requirements for. these analyses. ADOT Checklist for Project Level Conformity b. Do the design values allow the project to conform? The design valul'!S wi11 be compared with the 24--hour NAAQS. If the highest build design value is less than or equal to the NAAQS, the project is in conformity. If the build design value is over the NAAQS, the No-build scenario will also be evalua ted and compal'ed to the build scenario. 8. Consider mitigation OJ' control measu1·es if the design values are above the NAAQS. Page 1: The last paragraph mentions the "ADOT Checklist for Project Level Conformity - Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Screening Process." Comment: Please provide a copy of this checklist so that we can determine if the checklist's decision criteria are consistent with EPA's conformity rule, preamble and our quantitative hot-spot guidance. Based on our review of the South Mountain PM10 hot-spot protocol, we have concerns that the checklist may not be consistent with the conformity rule. For example, the title of the checklist mentions PM nonattainment areas, but hot-spot analyses also apply in PM maintenance areas. Determining Whether the Project Needs an Analysis Page 2: The protocol indicates two questions to consider in determining whether the project must .have a hotspot analysis: 7 Printed on Recycled Paper • A237 A238 • Appendix 1-1 1. Are the build volumes~ 125,000 AADT and truck volumes~ 10,000? and 2. Does the project cause an increase in AADT ~ 6,250, and an increase in truck volumes ~ 500 trucks? The protocol states that if the answer is yes to these questions, it is potentially a project of air quality concern, and if the answer is no to both, it is not. Comment: While EPA agrees this project should have a hot-spot analysis, there are no specific AADT or truck volume thresholds that alone determine whether or not a project must have a hot-spot analysis. Are these decision criteria included in the ADOT checklist? The questions listed under "Other Considerations" are also important in making this decision, even if the answer is no to these first two questions. For example, under "Other Considerations," the protocol asks if the project affects locations identified in the SIP. If the answer is yes, then a hot-spot analysis is required based on the regulation at 40 CFR 93.123(b)(l)(v), regardless of the traffic volumes on the project. While the decision criteria listed in questions #1 and #2 are levels found in the conformity rule preamble and Appendix B of EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance 1, the levels are only intended as an example rather than a specific threshold. Regular interagency consultation, including EPA, FHWA, ADOT, ADEQ and MAG should be used to determine if a project is of air quality concern and requires a PM hot-spot analysis. Other Considerations for Determining Whether the Project Needs an Analysis Page 2: The protocol states, "Other Considerations: 1. Does the project affect intersections that are of Levelof-Service (LOS) D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles? Yes" Comment: It is unclear to EPA why the answer to this question is yes, as this is a freeway project. The modeling protocol does not address intersections, and it would need to if this answer is yes. See similar comments below regarding "Determining the Project to be Modeled." Page 2: The protocol states, "2. Does the project affect locations, areas or categories of sites that are identified in the ... [SIP] as sites of violation or potential violation? Yes- PM10" Comment: EPA does not agree that there are specific locations, areas or categories of sites that are identified in the PM10 SIP as sites of violation that should be considered as potential hot-spots. Therefore the answer to this question should be no. To clarify, this criterion isn't automatically determined to be a yes if the SIP shows there is air quality worse than the NAAQS in the entire nonattainment area. Defining the Project Area Page 3, 2a: ''The project area encompasses more than 156 square miles. The project area includes the alternative alignments." Page 4, 2b: "Roadway configurations will be based on available information, comparable freeway designs such as the San Tan Freeway, and will be consistent among the alternatives." Comment : The protocol and hot-spot analysis need to be more specific about what the project area is. It is unclear how the project area will encompass more than 156 square miles. Since the protocol states that only the Preferred Alternative will be modeled, why does the protocol mention that roadway configurations for the other alternatives will be consistent and included? 1 The complete name of this guidance is ''Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PMIO Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas," EPA-420-B-13-053, November 2013, found on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/otag/stateresources/transconf/projectlevel-hotspot.htm. 2 Section 3.3.2 of EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance states, " .. .it is necessary to defme the project, determine where it is to be located, and ascertain what other emission sources are located in the project area." It is reasonable to model one altemative, but an analysis for the preferred alternative would not serve as the analysis for any other alternative alignment. Therefore, if an alternative alignment other than the preferred is chosen, another analysis would need to be conducted. · Defining the Project to be Modeled Page 3, 2a: ''The three highest volume interchanges along the Preferred Alternative will be modeled." Page 4, 2b: " ... the three worst-case interchange~ and locations expected to have the highest concentrations under the Build Alternative will be selected in consultation with FHWA for detailed dispersion modeling with CAL3QHCR." Comment: The protocol and hot-spot analysis need to be more specific about what will be modeled and EPA requests to also be consulted on the selection of the three worst-case interchanges, consistent with the conformity rule's consultation requirements at 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The protocol and/or the analysis shoqld refer to Section 3.3.2 of EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance to validate the approach of modeling the three highest volume interchanges, as this section states: "For large projects, it may be necessary to analyze multiple locations that are expected to have the highest air quality concentrations and, consequently, the most likely new or worsened PM NAAQS violations. If conformity is demonstrated at such locations, then it can be assumed that conformity is met in the entire project area." Please clarify how the effects of the project on nearby links would be considered in the modeling, if just the links for the worst interchanges are modeled. EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance states, ''The air quality modeling for nearby sources that would be affected by the project must include any reasonable expected changes in operation of the nearby source between the build and nobuilcl scenarios when both scenarios are necessary to demonstrate conformity." Analysis Years Page 3, 2b: The protocol says "emission rates in 2015, 2025, and 2035 will be estimated using EPA's MOVES2010b program.'~ It also says "Based on the most recent MAG Conformity Analysis, the peak year of emissions will be determined and used to quantify PMlO emissions associated with the project.'' Comment: It is not clear from the protocol whether all three of the years mentioned will be analyzed, or if only one of them will be chosen. There is no explanation in the protocol of why these three years are the only ones being considered as the year or years of peak emissions. EPA's conformity regulations and hot-spot guidance do not indicate that the year of peak emissions could be chosen based on the area's regional conformity analysis. The protocol needs to be clear about what year or years are being analyzed, as well as why the chosen analysis year or years are expected to be years in which peak emissions will occur. Section 2.8 of EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance states: "Areas should analyze the year(s) within the transportation plan ... during which peak emissions from the project are expected; and a new NAAQS violation or worsening of an existing violation would most likely occur due to the cumulative impacts of the project and background concentration in the project area." Section 3.10 states that the documentation of the analysis should include "a description of the analysis year(s) examined and the factors considered in determining the year(s) of peak emissions." 3 Appendix 1-1 The protocol does not mention when the project will be open to traffic. Will the project be opened in 2015, or would this be a construction year? The next year mentioned by the protocol is 2025. However, if the project is opened to traffic several years before 2025, then 2025 may not be the year of peak emissions. The peak may occur before 2025 or may occur during a year of construction. Please provide more rationale on what year the peak emissions could be occurring and consult with EPA on that determination. CAL3QHCR Version Page 4, 2b: " ... the three worst-case interchanges and locations expected to have the highest concentrations under the Build Alternative will be selected in consultation with FHWA for detailed dispersion modeling with CAL3QHCR." Comment: What version ofCAL3QHCR will be used? Please see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/ttnlscram/disoersion prefrec.htm#cal3ghc for the currently approved version of the model. Background Concentrations Page 5, 2d: ''PMlO background concentrations will be detennined in consultation with MAG, ADOT, and FHWA ... " Comment 1: Background concentra.tions must be chosen through the process established by the area's interagency consultation procedures (40 CFR 93.105(c)(l)(i)). EPA must also be consulted on the selection of background concentrations for this project under 40 CFR 93.105(c)(l)(i). Based on our review, we have concerns regarding the protocol's discussion about background concentrations. Our overall recommendation is that a nearby monitor be used to determine a representative background concentration for hot spot monitoring. In Section 8.3.1 of the guidance, EPA discusses factors for "Using a Single Monitor" in a PM hotspot analysis, e.g., "Background concentrations data should be as representative as possible for the project area examined by the PM hot-spot analysis. In most cases, the simplest approach will be to use data from the monitor closest to and upwind of the project area." EPA's guidance further discusses considerations for choosing a monitor on which to base background concentrations, including whether there are similar characteristics between the monitor location and the project area (the density and mix of emission sources around the monitor location, how well the monitor captures the influence of nearby sources not affected by the project, land use and terrain, height of the monitor probe, purpose and geographic scale of the monitor), distance of the monitor from the project area, and wind patterns between the monitor and the project area. Page 7, 6: "To obtain representative background concentrations, data from a monitoring station in the region that is not impacted by local sources should be used." Comment 2: It is unclear what is meant by "local sources," but this statement is of concern. Section 8.3 of EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance states, "PM hot-spot analyses should also include background concentrations from "other sources" as well as any nearby sources that are not included in modeling." The guidance defmes "nearby sources" as those which would be reflected in the background concentrations unless affected by the project, in which case they would be modeled, and "other sources" as those in the project area not from the project or any nearby sources. Page 7, 6: The protocol states that if EPA takes action on the 5% plan before the release of the FEIS, the MAG background value will be used, and that this approach was agreed to under interagency consultation. 4 The protocol also states that the background values used in the plan "were based on data collected at a remote location approximately 30 miles west of the boundary of the project area." Comment 3: It is not clear that the background concentrations calculated for SIP modeling, which reflects air quality without the influence of any sources in the nonattainment area, would adequately represent background concentrations at the project area. We do not agree that data 30 miles west of the boundary of the project area would be representative of the project area and meet the criteria described in EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance. We were not included in the interagency consultation on this issue, as is required. We are not aware of any data in the 5% plan that would be adequate for use for hot spot background data for thi~ analysis. Page 7, 6: The protocol states ''The MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan (Plan) demonstrates attainment of the 24· hour PMlO standard for three areas, including portions of the project area." Comment 4: Please explain how this is relevant to the hot-spot analysis? Are you suggesting that the modeling for the 5% plan could provide background concentrations rather than AQ monitoring data? Construction Dust Page 6, 4b: The protocol indicates that through interagency consultation, it has been decided that construction dust does not need to be modeled. Comment: Please provide more background on the construction period of this project? Is it 5 years or less? EPA consultation must be included in this protocol for such decisions (40 CFR 93.1 05(c)( 1)(i)), therefore this issue should be re-examined. If the construction period will be greater than five years, construction-related emissions must be included in the hot-spot analysis. Meteorological Data Comment 1: This is another part of the analysis where interagency consultation that includes ADEQ and EPA should be used to ensure that meteorological data is selected that is representative of the project location and appropriate for use with the selected air quality model. EPA requests additional information for why the Phoenix Sky ·Harbor Airport meteorological station is considered representative of the project area for the proposed project based on the factors described in Section 7.5.1. of EPA's quantitative hot-spot guidance. We also request additional information on how selected meteorological-data is proposed to be used for emissions and air quality modeling, as described below. Page 5, 2e: "Meteorological inpu~ to MOVES will be based on data from the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (surface) and Tucson International Airport (upper air) and be consistent with MAG inputs to MOVES. Comment 2: For MOVES, temperature and humidity data will be needed; MOVES does not need upper air data, but this data will be needed for air quality modeling. Please confirm specifically how the temperature/humidity data for the hot-spot analysis are consistent with those used for the area's regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.123(c)(3)). Page 6, 5a: The protocol states, "Five years of surface meteorological data (2008-2012) ... will be provided by ADOT and used with CAL3QHCR." 5 • A239 A240 • Appendix 1-1 Unltll!d States Departm _ t _f " :ric ture Comment 3: Please provide additional information regarding the proposed method for preprocessing the meteorological data for these years for use with CAL3QHCR. Please note that our guidance does not include a technically supported method for using AERMET pre-processed data with CAL3QHCR. Receptor Locations Page 6, 5c: The protocol includes the statement, "Wind distribution patterns will be reviewed to assist in the selection of receptor location impacted during stable atmospheric conditions; additional receptors will be placed downwind of the modeled roadway." Comment: Section 7.6 of EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance provides general guidance that should be followed when placing receptors. Receptors need to be placed around the entire project being modeled. Interagency consultation must be used, including EPA, to determine the placement of receptors. ~ NRCS Ne ral R!lsourcos ConserwtJon Sel"'/[ce U.S. Courthouse - Fe