Appendix 6-1 APPENDIX 6-1 NOTICE OF INTENT Appendix 6-1, Notice of Intent, contains the Notice of Intent that was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2001 (Vol. 66, No. 77). This document notifies the public that the Federal Highway Administration, in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation, is preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate the potential impacts to mountain preserve land, residential and commercial development, Tribal lands, cultural resources, historic roads and canals, endangered species, jurisdictional waters of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste in the proposed South Mountain corridor. • A741 A742 • Appendix 6-2 APPENDIX 6-2 NEWSLETTERS AND ADVERTISEMENTS Appendix 6-2, Newsletters and Advertisements, includes the project newsletters and public meeting advertisements. These documents were published and distributed to inform the public of the project, meeting times, and locations and to inform the public on ways to comment or otherwise participate in the process. A r i z o n a D e p a r t m e n t o f T R A N S P O R T AT I O N South Mountain Corridor Study Fall/Winter 2001-2002 Overview Por favor vea este documento en español en las páginas 5-7. 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-level Environmental Assessment were completed in 1988. As presented in the Environmental Assessment, 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 community 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 alignment along Pecos Road. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration are conducting a new engineering and environmental study known as an Environmental Impact Statement that will examine a full range of alternatives to the concept presented in the 1988 Environmental Assessment. The potential social, economic and environmental impacts of each reasonable alternative will be studied, along with ways to lessen those impacts. Please see pages 5-7 for this document in Spanish. citizens to express their opinions and concerns. Every effort will be made to involve local residents, community leaders, governmen-tal agencies and elected officials in the decision-making process. The goal of the process is to achieve a broad consensus on a recommendation that will meet the region's existing and future transportation needs. Chronology A brief history of the South Mountain Corridor, from its inception to the present.  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 twomile wide corridor from I-10 near 51st Avenue, around South Mountain, to I-10 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 freeway connecting I-10 in Chandler with I10 in west Phoenix.  1988 A state-level 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 corridor is adopted by the State Transportation Board.  1994 Due to a funding shortfall, ADOT identifies 76 miles of planned freeways as "unfunded segments" and later drops some of those segments from the system. The South Mountain Corridor is designated for potential development as a toll road.  1996 A consortium of private companies proposes to build the South Mountain Freeway as a toll road. The consortium would Study Process The South Mountain Corridor Study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will take approximately three years to complete. The process, which began in July 2001, will include an examination of the transportation needs in the corridor and an evaluation of all reasonable ways to meet them. The first thing to be decided is whether there is a need for a major transportation improvement in the corridor. If so, the need must be carefully weighed against an analysis of potential transportation problems that might occur if nothing is done. If a need is found to exist, the study will move on to an evaluation of a broad range of alternatives. A key component of the study process is an extensive public involvement program, which will provide ample opportunity for Fall/Winter 2001-2002 Issue 1 South Mountain Corridor Study 1 Appendix 6-2 For South Mountain Corridor Study information updates, or to send your comments... Project Information: 602-712-7006 Website: www.dot.state.az.us Email: SouthMountain@dot.state.az.us    1999 ADOT announces plans to accelerate completion of the entire Regional Freeway System by seven years to 2007. The acceleration plan includes an unspecified portion of the South Mountain Corridor, which remains largely 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 Environmental Impact Statement to examine a broad range of alternatives to the 1988 South Mountain Freeway concept. Issues The purpose and need evaluation will consider three fundamental questions posed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 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 occurring here and why is it important? 3. Why now? Why does the problem need to be addressed now? What could happen if the problem were not addressed now? If a need is found to exist for a major transportation improvement in this corridor, the study then will move forward to consider all reasonable solutions, including the original freeway concept from the 1988 Environmental Assessment. 2 Questions and Answers The South Mountain Corridor Team has attempted to anticipate and answer as many questions as possible regarding 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 information becomes available. Has an alignment along Pecos Road already been decided? No. Although an alignment along Pecos Road was identified as a result of the 1988 Environmental Assessment, this study will start from the beginning and will consider all reasonable alternatives. Why is ADOT conducting a second environmental study? Much has changed in this area since the 1988 Environmental Assessment was completed. The new study is being conducted in light of new development in the area as well as changes in design standards and environment regulations and to qualify for federal funds. If the Pecos Road alignment is not a foregone conclusion, then why has ADOT purchased 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 acquiring right-of-way to preserve the result of of this ADOT dispose offuture the land that has viability thestudy, corridor andcan to minimize relocation ofbeen homes and businesses. Should another alternative be adopted as a acquired but is no longer needed. Will the fact that ADOT already owns right-of-way in this corridor influence the final decision? FHWA regulations do not allow the ownership of right-of-way to be a factor in the decision regarding the adoption of an alternative. South Mountain Corridor Study 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 or productive. What factors will be considered in choosing an alternative? South Mountain Corridor Team HDR Engineering, Inc. 2141 E. Highland Ave., Ste. 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 later withdraw its proposal, saying the project was not financially feasible. The South Mountain Corridor remains a part of the MAG regional Freeway System, but is designated as "unfunded.” Will an alignment on the Gila River Indian Community be considered? Fall/Winter 2001-2002 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. What about truck traffic that might be generated by a new highway? One of the factors that will be considered in this study is the amount of truck traffic that would be generated and its potential impact on the surrounding community. Will the public have a voice in choosing an alternative? Yes. An extensive effort has been developed to keep the public informed of the progress of the study and to elicit 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. 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. This study will examine not only the potential impacts of improvements, but also the consequences of building nothing. Is it possible 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 of a new road or freeway? 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. Fall/Winter 2001-2002 • A743 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. When is something likely to be built? 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 Environmental Impact Statement has been completed. Why was the toll road proposal 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. Where would the corridor join I-10 to the west of Phoenix? The corridor would likely join I-10 somewhere between 43rd Avenue and 107th Avenue. A major purpose of this study is to look at other potential locations. Is it likely that construction of a new road or freeway would require the acquisition of existing 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 purpose of this study is to determine the extent of new right-of-way that would be needed for each possible alternative. Isn't the real purpose of a South Mountain Freeway simply to act as a bypass to divert trucks from downtown Phoenix? 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. How is an Environmental Impact Statement different from the Environmental Assessment that was conducted in 1988? The 1988 Environmental Assessment 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. Under this act, an Environmental Impact Statement is required for this project due to the potential of substantial impacts on the environment and surrounding communities. This Environmental Impact Statement is different from the 1988 Environmental Assessment in that it will address in detail all feasible a lternatives to satisfy the transportation needs in the corridor. South Mountain Corridor Study 3 A744 • Appendix 6-2 A r i z o n a D e p a r t m e n t o f T R A N S P O R T AT I O N Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003 Panorama South Mountain Corridor Map/ Mapa de Asuntos del Corredor South Mountain Study Corridor/ Estudio del Corredor df Residential/ Residencial Commercial-Industrial/ Comercial-Industrial 1988 Adopted Alignment/ Alineamiento Adoptado en 1988 Scale of Miles/Escala en Millas 1 2 3 What Do You Think?/¿Qué Piensa Usted? 1. Do you believe that there is a purpose and need for some kind of connection between I-10 west of Phoenix to the segment of I-10 east and south of Phoenix? Please explain./¿Cree usted que hay un propósito y una necesidad para algún tipo de conexión entre el autopista I-10 al oeste de Phoenix y el segmento de la misma autopista I-10 al este y sur de Phoenix? Por favor explique. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Are there other options that you believe should be explored? Please explain./¿Hay otras opciones que usted cree que deberían ser exploradas? Por favor explique. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Additional comments/Comentarios adicionales: ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please return the completed form to/ Por favor regrese la forma completa a: 4 South Mountain Corridor Team HDR Engineering, Inc. 2141 E. Highland Ave., Ste. 250 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Optional/Opcional Name/Nombre: _________________________________________________________: Address/Domicilio: _______________________________________________________ City/Ciudad: _______________ State/Estado: ____ ZIP/Código Postal: _________ South Mountain Corridor Study Fall/Winter 2001-2002 Desde julio de 2001, un amplio corredor al suroeste de la montaña South Mountain se ha encontrado bajo estudio para determinar si una autopista previamente planeada debería construirse, y dónde debería ubicarse. El área de estudio incluye una región oeste, desde 43rd Avenue hasta 107th Avenue y de la autopista I-10 al río Gila River, y una región sur, desde la autopista I-10 hasta el río Gila River y de Pecos Road a Ocotillo Road. ¿Por Qué Estudiar Esta Área? En 1999, ADOT anunció planes de acelerar siete años la terminación del Sistema Regional de Autopistas, al año 2007. En dicho plan se incluyó el Estudio del Corredor de Transporte de South Mountain. Please see pages 1-6 for this document in English. Por favor vea este documento en inglés en las páginas 1-6. En los años que han pasado desde que se completó la evaluación EA a nivel estatal de 1988, mucho ha cambiado el área del estudio. Por lo tanto, ADOT y la Administración Federal de Carreteras están llevando a cabo un nuevo estudio medioambiental conocido como una Declaración del Impacto al Medio Ambiente, así como un Reporte de la Ubicación/el Concepto del Diseño. En 1985, los electores del Condado Maricopa aprobaron el plan de un Sistema Regional de Autopistas, el cual incluyó a la Autopista South Mountain. El diseño conceptual y la Evaluación Medioambiental (EA) a nivel estatal para dicha autopista fueron completados en 1988. Como fue concebida, la Autopista South Mountain conectaría conla autopista I-10 al sur de Phoenix en Pecos Road, seguiría a Pecos Road, pasarí a por la punta oeste del parque South Mountain Park, y daría vuelta hacia el norte para conectarse con la autopista I-10 entre 55th Avenue y 63rd Avenue. Sin embargo, debido en parte a un déficit en el financiamiento, el Departamento de Transporte de Arizona (ADOT) eliminó de su itinerario original aproximadamente 76 millas del Sistema Regional de Autopistas, incluyendo su segmento en South Mountain. Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003 Edición 2 Área del Estudio Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain 7 Appendix 6-2 El estudio para la declaración EIS de South Mountain comenzó en julio de 2001 con un análisis de las necesidades de transporte en el corredor y de todas las formas razonables para satisfacerlas. El primer paso, fue determinar si en el futuro existiría la necesidad de instalaciones grandes de transporte en el corredor. Basándose en estudios de tráfico, proyecciones de población, y comentarios del público recibidos desde julio de 2001, se ha determinado que existe un propósito y una necesidad para que el estudio EIS continúe. Propósito y Necesidad El Equipo del Proyecto se propuso contestar tres preguntas clave: 1. ¿Por qué? ¿Existe un problema básico o una deficiencia en la red regional de transporte? 2. ¿Por qué aquí? ¿Ayudaría a corregir el problema o la deficiencia la construcción de una autopista u otro importante mejoramiento al transporte en el Corredor South Mountain? 3. ¿Por qué ahora? ¿Por qué se necesita resolver el problema ahora? ¿Qué pasaría si el problema no fuese resuelto ahora? Un análisis de tendencias de la población, planes del uso de terrenos y demandas de viajes muestra claramente que existe un considerable problema de tráfico en el Valle, y que es muy probable que empeorará en el futuro si ahora no se planea cómo enfrentarse al crecimiento. De acuerdo a la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa (MAG), la principal agencia de planeación de la región, la población del Área Metropolitana de Phoenix creció en un 45 por ciento en la década de 8 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 70 60 50 40 2001 2025 sin . M tn. 2025 con . M tn. 30 20 10 0 I-10/Pecos Rd. a I-10/Wash. St. vía I-10 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 1990, a 3.1 millones de residentes. Se espera que ese crecimiento continúe en las próximas décadas . Las proyecciones de MAG muestran que la población aumentará más del 50 por ciento, a 4.8 millones para 2025 y que se duplicará a 6.2 millones para 2040. Mucho del crecimiento durante la década de 1990 ocurrió en el sureste y suroeste del Valle, donde también se espera que mucho del crecimiento proyectado ocurrirá. De acuerdo a las proyecciones de MAG, se espera que la demanda de viajes y las millas vehiculares manejadas en el Valle aumentarán aún más que la población. Mientras que se espera un crecimiento en la población de un poco más del 50 por ciento para 2025, MAG predice un crecimiento del 58 por ciento en el tráfico a través del mismo período de Se espera que la demanda de viajes y millas vehiculares manejadas en el Valle aumentarán aún más que la población. tiempo. Aún con los mejoramientos anticipados con el tranvía ligero, el servicio de camiones, los programas de reducción de viajes y la ampliación planeada de los caminos existentes, se espera que el tráfico vehicular excederá la capacidad de las calles y carreteras del suroeste del Valle hasta en un 22 por ciento para 2025. ¿Cómo afectaría al problema, la construcción de una autopista u otros importantes mejoramientos de transporte en el Corredor South Mountain? Mientras que la construcción de una sola nueva autopista no resolverá todo el problema de congestionamiento de tráfico en el Valle, una conexión entre el sur de la autopista I-10 y el oeste Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain planeación de la ciudad, organizaciones de propietarios de casas, líderes comunitarios y oficiales de gobierno. La mayoría de las personas sintieron que existe un creciente problema de tráfico en el Valle, y que la construcción de una conexión entre la parte sur y la parte oeste de la autopista I-10 alrededor de South Mountain ayudaría. Tiempo Aproximado de Viaje Minutos Una Declaración del Impacto al Medio Ambiente (EIS) sigue un proceso paso a paso, y se requiere para todos los proyectos importantes federales (o aquellos usando dinero federal) que pudiesen tener un efecto substancial en el medio ambiente. La declaración EIS incluirá información sobre cómo pueden afectar las alternativas del proyecto tanto al medio ambiente natural (calidad del aire, vida silvestre y su hábitat, y recursos de agua), como al ambiente social/de la construcción (gente, tierras de labranza, arqueología, ruido, parques y recreación, comunidades y estética). Población Proyectada para el Área Metropolitana de Phoenix Millions Millones Declaración del Impacto al Medio Ambiente Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003 Laveen a I-17/I-10 vía 51st Ave. y I-10 * Las proyecciones del volumen de tráfico no son oficiales hasta que se apruebe la actualización del modelo de la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa. de la misma por South Mountain tendría un impacto positivo. MAG calcula que 155,000 vehículos usarían las instalaciones cada día para 2025, reduciendo la demanda en otros caminos del Valle. El Equipo del Proyecto también está considerando los horarios de viajes entre el hogar y el trabajo, y cuánto tiempo toma manejar de una ubicación a otra. Por ejemplo, se calcula que el tiempo de viaje en la actualidad a la hora pico matutina de la autopista I10 y Pecos Road a la autopista I-10 y Washington Street usando la autopista I-10, es de 30 minutos. En 2025, si nada se construye en el Corredor South Mountain, se espera que dicho tiempo de viaje aumente en un 23 por ciento a 37 minutos. Con instalaciones en South Mountain, se espera que dicho tiempo de viaje se reduzca a 28 minutos. Más aún, el tiempo de viaje actual a la hora pico matutina de Laveen al enlace de las autopistas I-17/ I-10, usando 51st Avenue y la autopista I-10, es de aproximadamente 31 minutos. En 2025, si nada se construye en el Corredor South Mountain, se espera que dicho tiempo de viaje aumente a más del doble, con un tiempo calculado de viaje de 64 minutos. Con instalaciones en South Mountain, se predice que dicho tiempo de viaje será reducido a 48 minutos. Existe un considerable problema de tráfico en el Valle … Es muy probable que empeorará en el futuro si ahora no se planea cómo enfrentarse al crecimiento. Además de analizar información de la población y del tráfico para la región, el Equipo del Proyecto se ha reunido con cientos de residentes en el área de estudio de South Mountain, así como con comités de Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003 Si se construye una autopista nueva en el Corredor South Mountain, es extremadamente importante planearla ahora. En el mejor de los casos, la construcción de algún tramo posiblemente podría comenzar en cinco años, pero considerando la planeación, el diseño, la adquisición de derechos de paso y la construcción de la conexión a la autopista I-10 se tomaría 20 años. ¿Qué Sucederá Después? El siguiente paso será evaluar cuidadosamente la gama completa de rutas alternas, incluyendo la ruta de 1988, y las consecuencias de no construir cosa alguna. La Declaración del Impacto al Medio Ambiente (EIS) examinará los impactos sociales, económicos y medioambientales potenciales de estas alternativas, así como formas de minimizar dichos impactos. Las rutas identificadas por grupos locales comunitarios, organizaciones y residentes interesados, se encuentran bajo consideración del Equipo del Proyecto. Más de 30 rutas alternas han sido sugeridas a través del área del estudio. El Equipo del Proyecto ha consolidado las rutas sugeridas en la porción oeste del área del estudio en cinco amplios corredores. Dichos corredores están siendo estudiados para determinar si cualquiera contiene obstáculos infranqueables. Actualmente, el Equipo del Proyecto está trabajando con la Comunidad India Gila River para identificar posibles corredores en terrenos tribales a ser estudiados. Una vez que dichas pláticas sean completadas, el Equipo del Proyecto programará otra serie de reuniones públicas para considerar las alternativas propuestas. Debido a la complejidad de este proyecto, es difícil predecir un período preciso de tiempo, pero para el primer trimestre de 2003, el Equipo del Proyecto espera tener alternativas que recomendará para un estudio más detallado. Continúe visitando el sitio en la red para obtener la información más actualizada del proyecto, o llame a la línea telefónica de información. Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain 9 • A745 A746 • Appendix 6-2 Alrededor del primer trimestre de 2003, el Equipo del Proyecto espera tener varias alternativas para recomendar un estudio más detallado. Alcance Con más de 50,000 hogares en el Corredor South Mountain, es crucial que los residentes reciban información y tengan toda oportunidad para que se respondan sus preguntas y se escuchen sus inquietudes. Antes de que comience el proyecto, el Equipo del Proyecto investigó los archivos de perió Escuela Desert Vista High School, reunión pública/casa abierta dicos para entender mejor los asuntos y las opiniones previamente expresadas con respecto a este proyecto. Se lleva a cabo una amplia gama de actividades para llegar al público en varias formas. Inicio Oficial Público/Agencia En el otoño de 2001, gente de 95 agencias locales, regionales, estatales y federales, oficiales de la ciudad, y muchas otras personas, asistieron a una reunión de dos días para recopilar información. Además, se contactaron a 40 líderes de opinión del área, para ayudar a identificar a grupos de interés, asuntos, inquietudes, problemas, deseos, y necesidades en el corredor. Reuniones Públicas Se llevaron a cabo dos reuniones públicas en noviembre de 2001 en Ahwatukee y Phoenix. Miembros del Equipo del Proyecto dieron un panorama del mismo, moderaron una sesión de preguntas y respuestas, y hablaron con gente cara a cara sobre asuntos e inquietudes. Boletín Informativo del Proyecto Un boletín informativo en inglés y español fue entregado casa por casa a 28,500 residencias y negocios en el área del estudio, además de ser insertado en los periódicos Ahwatukee Foothills News y Gila River Indian Newspaper. Los boletines informativos también fueron distribuidos en los centros de servicio de distrito, oficinas de correo, y en reuniones y festivales comunitarios de la Comunidad India Gila River (GRIC). 10 Sitio en la Red. Correo Electrónico, y Línea Telefónica de Información Un sitio en la red (accesado en www.dot.state.az.us) provee actualizaciones y un domicilio de correo electrónico para hacer preguntas. El número de una línea telefónica de información (602-712-7006) es publicado en el boletín informativo, en las tarjetas de presentación del proyecto, otros materiales, y el sitio en la red. Encuesta de los Residentes Tanto la encuesta del boletín informativo como la del sitio en la red, preguntó a las personas sobre la necesidad del proyecto, alternativas a considerar, y comentarios sobre el estudio. Reuniones Comunitarias Locales y Eventos Públicos El Equipo del Proyecto ha hecho presentaciones a muchos grupos de vecindarios, comités de planeación, clubes sociales y cámaras de comercio. Se erigieron puestos de información en ferias y celebraciones comunitarias. Comunidad India Gila River (GRIC) Los miembros de la comunidad GRIC han sido incluidos en el proceso del estudio desde su inicio. Además de las reuniones mensuales regulares de coordinación con el personal de la comunidad GRIC, se han realizado presentaciones en reuniones comunitarias en los siete distritos de la comunidad GRIC, así como en varios comités de asesoría comunitaria y asociaciones. Equipo de Asesoría de Residentes de South Mtn. Una forma de entender a fondo las inquietudes y los deseos de los residentes, es por medio de las personas dispuestas a dedicarse a largo plazo a participar en el proyecto. A principios de 2002, se formó un Equipo de Asesoría de Residentes de South Mountain (SMCAT) para satisfacer dicha necesidad. Los miembros de SMCAT ayudan a proveer comunicación continua entre los residentes y el Equipo del Proyecto, y actúan como caja de resonancia de ideas para el Equipo. Ellos revisan información medioambiental y técnica, criterios de diseño, alternativas, y otros asuntos del proyecto. El propósito de SMCAT es el de:  Proveer asesoría y opiniones al Equipo del Proyecto; Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003    Actuar como un conducto de información entre ADOT/FHWA y las organizaciones comunitarias; Proveer asesoría en reuniones públicas y de agencias, y cómo presentar efectivamente información a ser distribuida al público; Ayuda al Equipo del Proyecto a entender inquietudes y asuntos comunitarios. Hechos y Preguntas y Respuestas Frecuentes Gente a través del área del estudio ha posado numerosas preguntas. Algunas no pueden ser contestadas completamente sino hasta que se tenga más información. Una lista completa está disponible en el sitio de South Mountain en la red, en www.dot.state.az.us. ¿Ya se ha decidido el corredor a lo largo de Pecos Road? No. La ruta de Pecos Road fue identificada como resultado de la Evaluación Medioambiental a nivel estatal de 1988. Esta ruta es una de las alternativas que serán estudiadas, así como otras alternativas, y las consecuencias de no construir cosa alguna. ¿Se puede cambiar el corredor de Pecos Road ? Sí. El corredor de Pecos Road fue identificado como la alternativa más apropiada en 1988. Sin embargo, la Declaración del Impacto al Medio Ambiente considerará una gama de alternativas razonables de la actualidad. Qué Dice la Gente Muchas personas tienen sentimientos muy fuertes con respecto a la posibilidad de tener una autopista en el área. Por medio de entrevistas, reuniones públicas, llamadas telefónicas y notas de correo electrónico, la gente ha provisto una variedad de opiniones.  Muchos residentes del área sur de Ahwatukee han expresado su oposición a cualquier alineación de la autopista que pudiese incluir a Pecos Road. En general, las personas que viven más cerca a Pecos Road son los que más se oponen.  La gente a través del área tiene inquietudes con respecto a problemas potenciales de tráfico de camiones, ruido, y calidad del aire, que puedan resultar de una autopista nueva.  Muchas personas desean asegurar que el parque South Mountain sea protegido.  Han salido a la luz preguntas concernientes con el sitio exacto en el cual una autopista pueda conectarse con el lado oeste de la autopista I-10.  A la gente viviendo en Laveen y Tolleson les preocupa cómo podría una autopista dividir potencialmente en forma física a sus comunidades. Inquietudes específicas que han sido expresadas por personas en la Comunidad India Gila River (GRIC) sobre la posibilidad de una alineación en terrenos tribales.  Los miembros de la Tribu desean asegurarse de que los propietarios privados de terrenos en GRIC sean compensados en forma justa.  Los miembros de la Comunidad se preocupan por proteger sus sitios sagrados, históricos y culturales.  A los residentes del Distrito 6 les preocupa particularmente el área de St. Johns y el tráfico actual de camiones en 51st Avenue. ¿Se considerará un corredor en la Comunidad India Gila River? Si la Comunidad es receptiva a una Organizaciones Representadas por los Miembros del Equipo ruta que pueda cruzar sus terrenos, de Asesoría de Residentes de South Mountain se considerarán alternativas. Los miembros de la Comunidad India Asociación Ahwatukee Foothills Comité de Planeación de la Aldea Laveen Gila River asisten a las reuniones Homeowners Association Village Asociación Ahwatukee Lakewood Comité de Planeación de la Aldea South del proyecto. Sin embargo, como Homeowners Association Mountain Village un país soberano, si la Comunidad Asociación Arizona Motor Transport Assoc. Compañía Accomazzo Company no desea que un corredor cruce Asociación Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Comunidad India Gila River, District 4 sus terrenos, dicha alternativa ya Association Comunidad India Gila River, District 6 Asociación United Arizona Dairymen Comunidad India Gila River, District 7 no sería viable. ¿Qué factores serán considerados al seleccionar una alternativa? Un factor principal es, qué tan bien pueda mejorar una alternativa la movilidad y ayudar a resolver futuros problemas de tráfico en el área de Phoenix, mientras que Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003 Asociación Valley Forward Association Cámara de Comercio Ahwatukee Foothills Cámara de Comercio South Mountain/ Laveen Cámara de Comercio Southwest Valley Comité de Planeación de la Aldea Ahwatukee Foothills Village Comité de Planeación de la Aldea Estrella Village Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain Comunidad India Gila River, Grupo de Inquietudes de Personas Mayores Concilio de Preservación de las Montañas de Phoenix Escuela Kyrene de los Lagos Elementary Grupo Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development Oficina Agrícola del Condado Maricopa Organización Sierra Club 11 Appendix 6-2 South Mountain Corridor Team HDR Engineering, Inc. 2141 E. Highland Ave., Ste. 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 minimiza los impactos al medio ambiente. Algunos factores que serán considerados incluyen los impactos sociales, económicos y medioambientales, las regulaciones medioambientales, la reubicación de hogares y negocios existentes, qué tan práctico pueda ser construirla, el costo, e inquietudes y preferencias del público. ¿El público tendrá una voz al seleccionar una alternativa? Sí. Un amplio esfuerzo está en camino para continuar manteniendo al público informado sobre el progreso del estudio, y para obtener el comentario público. Las inquietudes, las preferencias y los problemas expresados por los residentes serán considerados en la decisión final de construir o no una instalación nueva, qué debería construirse y dónde debería ubicarse. ¿La calidad del aire, el ruido y la calidad visual será impactada por la construcción de una autopista o un camino nuevo? Un propósito principal de este estudio es el de determinar los impactos potenciales a la calidad del aire, del ruido y visual, y buscar formas para minimizar dichos impactos. ¿Se construirá algo a través del parque South Mountain Park? Restricciones federales prohíben la intrusión de un proyecto 12 federal como éste en un parque como South Mountain, a menos que se pueda comprobar que no existe una alternativa factible y prudente para evitar dicha intrusión. ¿Dónde se uniría una nueva autopista a la autopista I-10 en el oeste de Phoenix? No se sabe. El corredor posiblemente se uniría a la autopista I-10 en algún lugar entre 43rd Avenue y 107th Avenue. Uno de los principales propósitos de este estudio es el de buscar ubicaciones potenciales. ¿Por qué construir esto si Ahwatukee no lo necesita? A pesar de que el impacto de un mejoramiento de transporte en el área de Ahwatukee es un componente de este estudio, es sólo un factor considerando las necesidades de transporte de toda el área metropolitana de Phoenix. El uso de terrenos y los patrones de viajes en el futuro serán mucho muy distintos a los que existen en la actualidad, y estas instalaciones serían construidas para ayudar a servir dichas necesidades futuras. Sus opiniones son importantes para este proceso. Por favor contáctenos con sus asuntos, inquietudes o preguntas. Encuentre en nuestro sitio en la red actualizaciones regulares e información, o llame en cualquier momento a nuestra línea telefónica de información. Estudio del Corredor de South Mountain Otoño/Invierno de 2002-2003 • A747 A748 • Appendix 6-2 The Alternatives 0\'er the past several months, numerous potential alternatin:s have been suggested. K orkshops were held with citizens; ciTic o rganizatio ns; the _\hwatukec, Estrella, La,·een and Sou th .\[ountain village planning committees; ~ [;uico pa County Farm Bureau; and, th e Southwest i\fayors and i\Ianagers g roup. Participants were un-ited to ch-mv alig nments o n study area maps and aerial photos. and to indicate cultural or environmental constraints. From these workshops mo re thw 30 potential alternatives were identitied for the western leg of the freeway. The alternatives can be best described by where they connect with I- 10 on the west side. Each alternatiYe goes south from the connection point to the Gila River Indian Community boundary, at whid1 location each alternati,·e pru:allels the Community boundary as follows: These 30 public alternati,·es were grouped into corridors for re,;ew· by the tedmical ream, which then narrowed them to nine "Tedmical .-\lternatives." The nine alig nments were presented to the po tentially affected local jurisdictio ns, including Tolleson, _-h -ondale. Goodyear, Ch;mdler, Phoenix, ;\[aricopa Co unty, ~ L \G ;md G RIC. Because coordination with G RIC regarding alternati,·es on its la nds is o n-going, all o f the nine technical altemati,es lie outside the resen .--\yenue (with direct connectio n ramps to Loop 101). Road and proceed west along Pecos Road to the G JU C border. During eadr 2003, the potential impacts o f the nine teclmical alternati\es were analp:ed and evalua ted. This analysis indicated which alternatives were appropriate to move forward into the next stage o f the process. The critet;a used to evaluate the a lternatives included their potential impacts o n: • • • • • • • • _-\ir quality; Cultural sites : Jurisdic tio nal waters; Environmental Justice: Thee::~tened and endangered specie~: Po tential hazardous waste sites; Residential and business displacements; F.x i~ting utilities: 111e one area where the alternatives showed Jisrim:r differences \ViiS in their impacts ro tL-;tffic on I- 10 from the Loop 101 interchange to the l -17 interchange. •-\sophisticated traffic computer modeling program shows how traftlc fun ctions now, how it ·would function in the rear 2025 without a South .\[ountain Freeway. and how it wo uld func tion in 2025 if different Soud1 :\fountain Freeway alternatives were built. T he results indicate: • _-\connection to T-10 at Loop 10l could work well but would require majo r i.Inprove ments to bo th Loop lOl and T-10. • _-\ny o ther connection to r- IO should be m o re than 3 miles away from Loop 101 and T- 17 , but could work with imp.-ovements (widening) to T-1 0. I I •·oioo= _ .:=::i.lllllliMileS 1 2 1 I ' A ~~ ~ ADOT ..~- · - · - - - - -- - --\ 2 J()//r/' JloltllftiiJI Corridnr StJtr/) FtJ!II tr'inter 2tX)J S t11dh •I {QJtJ/Ittill Comd(Jr S tllf!l } Appendix 6-2 • A749 A750 • Appendix 6-2 Estudio del Corredor de Transporte South Mountain í South Mountain Otoño/Invierno 2005 corridor team Estudio de la Autopista South Mountain En 1985, los electores del Condado Maricopa aprobaron un sistema Regional de Autopistas, el cual incluyó a una sección en South Mountain conectando a la autopista Interestatal 10 al sur y oeste de la ciudad. En 1988, la Junta de Transporte de Arizona aprobó un alineamiento para la Autopista South Mountain de este a oeste a lo largo de Pecos Road, y de norte a sur entre 55th Avenue y 63rd Avenue. En 2001, el Departamento de Transporte de Arizona (ADOT por sus siglas en inglés) y la Administración Federal de Autopistas (FHWA por sus siglas en inglés), empezaron a preparar una Declaración de Impacto Medioambiental (EIS por sus siglas en inglés) para determinar si dicha autopista todavía es necesaria, dónde debería ubicarse, y cuáles serían los efectos medioambientales, sociales y económicos que podría tener una construcción como esa. Hemos visto mucho en los últimos cuatro años. Este boletín proporciona una visión general y actualizada del estudio. Por Favor Acompáñenos Por favor acompáñenos para hablar sobre el Corredor de Transporte South Mountain. La información recabada en estas reuniones será usada para evaluar las alternativas. Reunión Estilo Casa Abierta: Mediodía - 8 p.m. cada día Martes 15 de noviembre de 2005 Estrella Vista Reception Center 1471 N. Eliseo C Felix Jr. Way, Avondale Miércoles 16 de noviembre de 2005 Corona Ranch 7611 S. 29th Avenue, Laveen Jueves 17 de noviembre de 2005 Hotel Grace Inn 10831 S. 51st Street, Ahwatukee Estudio Medioambiental Un Estudio del Impacto Medioambiental de esta magnitud envuelve a docenas de científicos e ingenieros, y considera las opciones para la ubicación de la autopista. También considera los impactos, si los hubiese, que dichas opciones podrían tener en el medioambiente, incluyendo aspectos tales como: calidad del aire, ruido, sitios culturales, justicia ambiental (imparcialidad para todos), especies amenazadas o en peligro de extinción, sitios de desperdicios potencialmente peligrosos, planes locales de uso de terrenos, reubicación de viviendas o negocios, terrenos agrícolas, costo de la construcción, qué tan bien se movilizaría el tránsito, y varios otros asuntos técnicos. Otra consideración importante es cómo se podría diseñar la autopista para adecuarse a la comunidad. Es un proceso muy complejo, dinámico y que requiere mucho tiempo. En cada reunión habrá una sesión estilo casa abierta del mediodía a las 8 p.m. para permitir suficiente tiempo para preguntas y comentarios. Las presentaciones continuas proporcionarán la misma información durante el transcurso de estas reuniones. (Por favor vea los mapas de las ubicaciones en la página 12.) Please see pages 1-4 for this document in English. ¿Por Qué Se Lleva Tanto Tiempo Este Estudio? Éste es un proyecto de investigación que cambia constantemente. Los ingenieros, investigadores y científicos medioambientales deben determinar el impacto de la nueva información que se va descubriendo durante el proceso. Por ejemplo, los nuevos datos del censo y las proyecciones actualizadas de tránsito han cambiado la manera como se espera que se vea el Valle dentro de 25 años. Por lo tanto, mucha de la información para este proyecto debe actualizarse para incluir la mejor información disponible. El equipo de estudio considera los impactos que pueden resultar tanto de las secciones bajo nivel y superficiales de la autopista, así como de las intersecciones de tránsito construidas sobre o bajo las calles actuales. Deben tomarse en cuenta las consecuencias de las opciones y las necesidades de los residentes y viajeros del Valle, y desafortunadamente, esto toma tiempo. www.SouthMountainFreeway.com Appendix 6-2 Sigue Aumentando el Congestionamiento de Tránsito Mientras esto sucede, la población crece, trayendo más vehículos y más congestionamiento de tránsito al Valle. Mientras el tránsito planeado del tranvía ligero y los autobuses debe ser parte de la solución a nuestro futuro en el transporte, los resultados del estudio muestran claramente una necesidad regional de construir una nueva autopista en el área de South Mountain. La Autopista South Mountain ha sido planeada como parte del Sistema Regional de Autopistas desde la década de los 80s, y sigue siendo una conexión crítica para las necesidades de transporte de la región. El proceso de identificar rutas alternas para la Autopista South Mountain ha sido abierto y exhaustivo. El estudio ha incluido a gobiernos locales, negocios, la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa (MAG), la Comunidad India Gila River (GRIC por sus siglas en inglés), así como información e ideas de miles de residentes. ¿Dónde Podría Conectarse la Autopista I-10 en el Oeste? Después de cuatro años de un complejo estudio técnico y cientos de reuniones con los residentes, funcionarios políticos y otros, se están estudiando las alternativas con gran detalle para las conexiones potenciales en el oeste de la autopista I-10, cerca de 55th Avenue, 71st Avenue ó la conexión actual del anillo de circunvalación Loop 101, la cual tiene tres opciones en sí misma. Pecos Road al norte de la frontera de la comunidad GRIC, siguiendo ese alineamiento al este, hacia la actual intersección de tránsito I-10/Loop 202. Comunidad India Gila River Desde el principio del estudio en 2001, ADOT y FHWA han trabajado con la comunidad GRIC, para determinar si la porción de la autopista puede ser ubicada en tierras de la GRIC, al sur de Pecos Road. A la fecha, ninguna de las opciones de la Comunidad ha sido aprobada por dicha comunidad para continuar con estudios posteriores. La Comunidad India Gila River tiene la autoridad única y exclusiva para decidir si y dónde podrían hacerse estudios o construirse una autopista en sus terrenos. Por lo tanto, si se debe identificar una preferencia para el lado este sin considerar las alternativas de la comunidad GRIC, las opciones incluirían ya sea la alineación en Pecos Road, o el no construir la Autopista South Mountain. ¿No Construir Una Autopista Es Realmente una Opción? No construir una autopista sigue siendo una opción. Si se elige esta opción, el proyecto propuesto completo no se llevaría a cabo, y se evaluarían los efectos ambientales de no tomar acción alguna. Es posible, sin embargo, que se inicie un nuevo estudio para el área en algún momento en el futuro. Equipo de Asesoría de Ciudadanos ¿Cuáles Son las Principales Diferencias en Estas Conexiones? Las conexiones de 55th Avenue, 71st Avenue y el anillo de circunvalación Loop 101 difieren en cuanto a su proximidad al centro de Phoenix. Cada una de ellas cuenta con distintos impactos sociales y económicos para los vecindarios, y cada una afecta al tránsito de manera diferente a lo largo de la autopista I-10 y otros segmentos del Sistema Regional de Autopistas. década de los 80s. Las tres alternativas podrían resultar en reubicaciones residenciales y de negocios. La ubicación de las alternativas y sus distancias a los centros de trabajo y residenciales, cambiarían la estructura del tránsito usando la autopista propuesta, así como el destino de dicho tránsito. El tránsito operaría de manera diferente en cada alternativa. Basados en las proyecciones de tránsito para el año 2030:  50 por ciento del tránsito en una conexión de South Mountain a la autopista I-10 en 55th Avenue vendría de o iría hacia el este (centro de Phoenix) por la autopista I-10.  Con una conexión a la autopista I-10 en 71st Avenue, cerca del 40 por ciento del tránsito de la Autopista South Mountain se dirigiría hacia el este por la autopista I-10.  Con una conexión a la autopista I-10 en el anillo de circunvalación Loop 101, cerca de 33 por ciento del tránsito de la Autopista South Mountain viajaría hacia y desde el este por la autopista I-10, y la mayoría del resto de los vehículos usarían el anillo de circunvalación Loop 101. Cada alternativa podría tener distintos efectos en las comunidades a las que da servicio, posiblemente dividiendo distritos escolares y vecindarios, o proporcionando acceso directo a la autopista a los centros propuestos de las aldeas (como el Centro de la Aldea Laveen en Dobbins Road y 59th Avenue). Las tres alternativas cruzan una variedad de usos de terreno actuales y propuestos. Algunas tienen mayor impacto en futuros terrenos residenciales, mientras que otras impactan la futura propiedad comercial o industrial. Los futuros usos de terrenos han sido planeados cerca del alineamiento original de 55th Avenue, lo cual es similar al alineamiento propuesto a mediados y finales de la Mientras que las tres requerirían mejoramientos a la autopista I-10 y posiblemente al anillo de circunvalación Loop 101, la ubicación de los mejoramientos cambiará de acuerdo a la ubicación de la conexión. ¿Dónde Podría Conectarse a la Autopista I-10 en el Este? Si se construyese la Autopista South Mountain, probablemente se conectaría en el este de la autopista IOtoño/Invierno 2005 River (GRIC por sus siglas en inglés), en un esfuerzo por determinar si el equipo de estudio puede examinar los terrenos de la comunidad GRIC como una posible opción para la autopista. La única otra opción conectaría con • Desde principios de 2002, ADOT ha estado trabajando con un Equipo de Asesoría de Ciudadanos (CAT por sus siglas en inglés) formado por personas del suroeste del Valle, Laveen, la asociación Valley Forward Association, Ahwatukee, la Comunidad India Gila River, la organización Sierra Club, los representantes de la asociación de propietarios de viviendas, y muchas otras a través de toda el área del estudio. El equipo CAT actúa como tornavoz y ayuda al equipo del proyecto a entender los asuntos y las inquietudes de la comunidad. El grupo se reúne regularmente para revisar los datos técnicos y medioambientales, para hablar sobre los intereses e inquietudes de sus comunidades individuales, y para ayudar a encontrar una solución en consenso para este proyecto tan complejo. Este grupo ha dedicado una gran cantidad de tiempo a estudiar las proyecciones detalladas de tránsito, los impactos potenciales en las comunidades locales, y las consecuencias de las opciones y alternativas. Finalmente, el equipo CAT hará una recomendación a ADOT, sin embargo, la recomendación del equipo de El Equipo de Asesoría de Ciudadanos de South Mountain incluye a 26 representantes de a través de toda el área de estudio del proyecto. asesoría será sólo uno de muchos factores que ADOT y FHWA considerarán al seleccionar una alternativa preferida. ¿Y Ahora Qué? Después de revisar los comentarios públicos y la recomendación del equipo CAT, ADOT y FHWA identificarán una alternativa preferida para una conexión en el oeste de la autopista I-10. Una vez que se haya completado sustancialmente el Borrador de la Declaración del Impacto Medioambiental (DEIS por sus siglas en inglés) en 2006, ADOT y FHWA identificarán una alternativa preferida para el lado oeste. Entonces, el borrador DEIS estará disponible durante 45 días para que el público lo revise. Durante ese periodo de comentarios de 45 días, se llevará a cabo una audiencia pública para considerar el contenido del borrador DEIS. Cuando esté terminado, el público tendrá otra oportunidad de 30 días para comentar sobre la declaración EIS final. Los comentarios recibidos durante los periodos de comentarios de 45 y 30 días serán usados por las agencias para tomar su decisión con respecto al proyecto. La decisión final será presentada en el Registro de Decisión final por la FHWA, lo cual se espera que suceda en 2007. 10 en la intersección con el anillo de circunvalación Loop 202. Continúan las pláticas con la Comunidad India Gila Estudio del Corredor de Transporte South Mountain página 9 página 10 Estudio del Corredor de Transporte South Mountain Otoño/Invierno 2005 A751 Appendix 6-2 Click on the project website at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com for complete details, past newsletters, frequently asked questions and their answers, and regular updates. Presione sobre el nombre del proyecto en el sitio web www.SouthMountainFreeway.com para detalles completos, boletines previos, preguntas frecuentes y sus respuestas, y actualizaciones regulares. Please e-mail your comments to us at SouthMountain@azdot.gov or call our project information telephone number at 602-712-7006. U.S. Postal Mail can be addressed to: South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR Engineering 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 Por favor envíenos una nota con sus comentarios por correo electrónico a SouthMountain@azdot.gov, ó llame a nuestro número telefónico de información al 602-712-7006. La correspondencia usando el Servicio Postal de los Estados Unidos puede dirigirse a: Be Part of the Process Sea Parte del Proceso Please join us to discuss the South Mountain Transportation Corridor. Input gathered at these meetings will be used to evaluate the alternatives. Each meeting will feature an open house from noon-8 p.m. to allow ample time for questions and comments. Ongoing presentations will provide the same information throughout the course of these meetings. Por favor acompáñenos para hablar sobre el Corredor de Transporte South Mountain. La información recopilada en estas reuniones será usada para evaluar las alternativas. En cada reunión habrá una sesión estilo casa abierta del mediodía a las 8 p.m. para permitir suficiente tiempo para preguntas y comentarios. Las presentaciones continuas proporcionarán la misma información durante el transcurso de estas reuniones. Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2005/ Martes 15 de noviembre de 2005 Estrella Vista Reception Center 1471 N. Eliseo C Felix Jr. Way, Avondale South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR Engineering 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005/ Miércoles 16 de noviembre de 2005 Corona Ranch 7611 S. 29th Avenue, Laveen Southern Ave. I-10 29th Ave. 27st Ave N Baseline Rd. 35th Ave. Eliseo C. Felix Jr. Way El Mirage Rd. Van Buren St. Dysart Rd. Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005/ Jueves 17 de noviembre de 2005 Grace Inn 10831 S. 51st Street, Ahwatukee N Elliot Rd. 51st St. Para Más Información Warner Rd. I-10 For More Information 48th St. • Comments/Comentarios Please share your comments regarding the alternatives and options being considered in the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study/Por favor comparta sus comentarios con respecto a las alternativas y opciones se considerando en el Estudio del Corredor de Transporte South Mountain: Please return the completed form to/Por favor regrese la forma completa a: South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 Address/Domicilio: ___________________________________________ City/Ciudad: ___________________________ This comment form and opportunity to join the mailing list are also available on our website: www.dot.state.az.us./Esta forma de comentarios y oportunidad de unirse a la lista de correspondencia también está disponible en el sitio en la red: www.dot.state.az.us. Fall/Winter 2005 (Optional/Opcional) Name/Nombre: ______________________________________________ ZIP/Código Postal: ___________  State/Estado: ________ Phone/Teléfono: _________________ Please add me to the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study mailing list./Por favor agréguenme a la lista de correspondencia del Estudio del Corredor de Transporte South Mountain. South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study page 11 South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 A752 N Appendix 6-2 South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR, Inc. 3200 E. Camelback Rd ., Ste. 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 February 2006 Febrero 2006 ADOT Needs Your Input ADOT Necesita Su Opinion The Arizona Department of Transportation is considering three locations for the potential Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway to connect to Interstate 10 on the west side of the Valley. Public meetings will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway might affect I-10 access. El Departamento de Transporte de Arizona (ADOT por sus siglas en ingh~s) esta considerando tres ubicaciones potenciales para el anillo de circunvalacion Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway para conectar a Ia Interestatal10 en el oeste del Valle. Se llevaran a cabo reuniones publicas para considerar como Ia autopista a South Mountain Freeway pod ria afectar el acceso a Ia autopista interestatal I-10. Each of the alternatives for connecting to I-10 would require approximately 9 miles of improvements and widening to I-10. The options include: • • 55th Avenue Connection -- would change existing access to I-10 between 67th Avenue and 43rd Avenue and would limit local access at 63rd Avenue and 43rd Avenue. 71st Avenue Connection -- would change existing access to I-10 between 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue and would limit local access at 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue. Loop 101 Connection-- would change access to the freeway from 99th Avenue and require reconstruction of ramps at the I10/Loop 101 interchange. Should I attend? If you home or business would be affected, or if your usual travel routes would change, ADOT would like to hear from you. Please consider attending one of the upcoming meetings shown below. Each presentation will contain the same information. Tuesday, March 7 Open House 4-7 p.m. Presentations: 5p.m. &6p.m. Holiday Inn Phoenix West 1500 N. 51st Avenue McDowell Rd. 1-10 Wednesday, March 8 Open House 5·8 p.m. Presentations: 6p.m. &7p.m. Santa Maria Middle School 7250 W. Lower Buckeye Road L er Buckeye Rd. Cada una de las alternativas requeriria aproximadamente nueve millas de mejoramientos, ademas del ensanchamiento de Ia autopista I-10. Las opciones son: Martes 7de marzo Casa Abierta: 4 a7p.m. Presentaciones: 5p.m. y6p.m. Hotel Holiday Inn Phoenix West 1500 N. 51st Avenue Conexi6n con 55th Avenue -cambiaria el acceso actual a Ia autopista I-10 entre 67th Avenue y 43rd Avenue, y limitaria el acceso McDowell Rd. local en 63rd Avenue y 43rd Avenue. 1-10 Conexi6n con 71st Avenue -cambiaria el acceso actual a Ia autopista I-10 entre 59th Avenue y 83rd Avenue, y limitarfa el acceso local en 59th Avenue y 83rd Avenue. Miercoles 8de marzo Conexi6n con e/ anillo de Casa Abierta: 5a8p.m. circunva/aci6n Loop 101 -Presentaciones: 6p.m. y7p.m. modificarfa el acceso a Ia autopista Escuela Santa Maria Middle School desde 99th Avenue y reconstruira las 7250 W. Lower Buckeye Road rampas en Ia interseccion de Ia I10/Loop 101. L wer Buckeye Rd. lDebo asistir? ONTHEMOIIf ~~!11 Si su hogar o su negocio seran afectados, o si sus rutas usuales de viaje cambiaran, a ADOT le gustaria escuchar su opinion. Por favor trate de asistir a una de las reuniones que se muestran abajo. Cada una de las presentaciones contendra Ia misma informacion. A. DOT ~ ONTHEMOVf ~~!11 For More Information Para Mas Informacion Click on the project website at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com for complete details, past newsletters, frequently asked questions and their answers, and regular updates. Presione sobre el nombre del proyecto en el sitio web www.SouthMountainFreeway.com para detalles completes, boletines previos, preguntas frecuentes y sus respuestas, y actual izaciones regulares. Please e-mail your comments to us at SouthMountain@azdot.gov or call our project information telephone number at 602-7127006. Por favor envfenos una nota con sus comentarios por correo electr6nico a SouthMountain@azdot.gov, 6 llame a nuestro numero telef6nico de informacion al 602-7127006. U.S. Postal Mail can be addressed to : La correspondencia usando el Servicio Postal de los Estados Unidos puede dirigirse a: South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR Engineering 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 South Mountain Corridor Team c/o HDR Engineering 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2311 • A753 A754 • Appendix 6-2 Febrero 2006 February 2006 ADOT Necesita Su Opinion ADOT Needs Your Input The Arizona Department of Transportation is considering three locations for the potential Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway to connect to Interstate 10 on the west side of the Valley. Public meetings will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway might affect I-10 access. El Departamento de Transporte de Arizona (ADOT por sus siglas en ingiE~s) esta considerando tres ubicaciones potenciales para el anillo de circunvalacion Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway para conectar a Ia Interestatal 10 en el oeste del Valle . Se llevaran a cabo reuniones publicas para considerar como Ia autopista a South Mountain Freeway podrfa afectar el acceso a Ia autopista interestatal 1-10. Each of the alternatives for connecting to 1-10 would require approximately 9 miles of improvements and widening to I-10. The options include : Cada una de las alternativas requerirfa aproximadamente nueve millas de mejoramientos, ademas del ensanchamiento de Ia autopista 1-10. Las opciones son: • • • 55th Avenue Connection-would change existing access to I-10 between 67th Avenue and 43rd Avenue and would limit local access at 63rd Avenue and 43rd Avenue . 71st Avenue Connection -would change existing access to I-10 between 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue and would limit local access at 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue. Loop 101 Connection-- would change access to the freeway from 99th Avenue and require reconstruction of ramps at the I-10/Loop 101 interchange. Should I attend? If you home or business would be affected, or if your usual travel routes would change, ADOT would like to hear from you. Please consider attending one of the upcoming meetings shown below. Each presentation will contain the same information. Project Information 602-712-7006 * • Tuesday, March 7 Open House 4-7 p.m. Presentations: 5 p.m. & 6 p.m. Holiday Inn Phoenix West 1500 N. 51st Avenue McDowell Rd. • 1-10 Wednesday, March 8 Open House S-8 p.m. Presentations: 6 p.m. & 7 p.m. Santa Maria Middle School 7250 W. Lower Buckeye Road .,; Q) - ~ ~ ~ ..::::: ....,. -= www.SouthMountainfreeway.com • Conexi6n con 55th Avenue-cambiarfa el acceso actual a Ia autopista I-10 entre 67th Avenue y 43rd Avenue, y limitarfa el acceso local en 63rd Avenue y 43rd Avenue . Conexi6n con 71st Avenue-cambiarfa el acceso actual a Ia autopista 1-10 entre 59th Avenue y 83rd Avenue, y limitarfa el acceso local en 59th Avenue y 83rd Avenue . Conexi6n con el anillo de circunvalaci6n Loop 101 -modificarfa el acceso a Ia autopista desde 99th Avenue y reconstruira las rampas en Ia interseccion de Ia 1-10/Loop 101. Martes 7 de marzo Casa Abierta: 4 a 7 p.m. Presentaciones: 5 p.m. y 6 p.m. Hotel Holiday Inn Phoenix West 1500 N. 51st Avenue McDowell Rd. 1-10 Miercoles 8 de marzo Casa Abierta: 5 a 8 p.m. Presentaciones: 6 p.m. y 7 p.m. Escuela Santa Maria Middle School 7250 W. Lower Buckeye Road l.Debo asistir? Si su hogar o su negocio seran afectados, o si sus rutas usuales de viaje cambiaran, a ADOT le gustarfa escuchar su opinion. Por favor trate de asistir a una de las reuniones que se muestran abajo . Cada una de las presentaciones contendra Ia misma informacion . Mas informacion al 602-712-7006 * ~ /.\DDT ONTHEMOVf '~!1= PAR HIERS IN PR O GRESS www.SouthMountainfreeway.com Appendix 6-2 A r i z o n a De p a r t m e n t of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n M e e t i n g s P u b l i c South Mountain Corridor Study Public Scoping Meetings Thursday, November 8, 2001 Fowler Elementary School, Cafeteria 6707 W. Van Buren St., Phx. Tuesday, September 30, 2003 Cesar Chavez High School 3921 W. Baseline Rd., Phoenix both evenings: 6:30-7 p.m. Presentation, 7-9 p.m. Q&A/Open House @p‘ iMQP f•ž’ˆ˜ e’ˆ“ˆ”š„˜ N dˆ™ˆ˜š iMQP@@ vŒ™š„@hNsN v„”@b›˜ˆ” Cesar Chavez H.S. Southern Ave. Desert Vista H.S. Ray Rd. Tolleson H.S. Mo McDowell Rd. unt ain adotL@Œ”@†•”Ž›”†šŒ•”@žŒš‹@š‹ˆ@fˆ‡ˆ˜„’@hŒŠ‹ž„ @a‡“Œ”Œ™š˜„šŒ•”L@Œ™@ …ˆŠŒ””Œ”Š@„”@ˆ”ŠŒ”ˆˆ˜Œ”Š@„”‡@ˆ”œŒ˜•”“ˆ”š„’@™š›‡ @‘”•ž”@„™@„”@ e”œŒ˜•”“ˆ”š„’@i“–„†š@sš„šˆ“ˆ”š@š‹„š@žŒ’’@ˆŸ„“Œ”ˆ@š˜„”™–•˜š„šŒ•”@ ”ˆˆ‡™@Œ”@š‹ˆ@†•˜˜Œ‡•˜@„”‡@ˆœ„’›„šˆ@„’’@˜ˆ„™•”„…’ˆ@ž„ ™@š•@“ˆˆš@š‹ˆ“L@ Œ”†’›‡Œ”Š@ž‹ˆš‹ˆ˜@š‹ˆ˜ˆ@Œ™@„@”ˆˆ‡@‰•˜@„@“„Ž•˜@š˜„”™–•˜š„šŒ•”@ Œ“–˜•œˆ“ˆ”š@Œ”@š‹ˆ@†•˜˜Œ‡•˜N t‹ˆ@–›˜–•™ˆ@•‰@š‹Œ™@“ˆˆšŒ”Š@Œ™@š•@Œ”‰•˜“@–ˆ•–’ˆ@•‰@š‹ˆ@™š„š›™@•‰@š‹ˆ@ s•›š‹@m•›”š„Œ”@c•˜˜Œ‡•˜@sš›‡ L@š„‘ˆ@—›ˆ™šŒ•”™@„”‡@–˜•œŒ‡ˆ@„”™žˆ˜™L@ „”‡@‹ˆ„˜@†•““ˆ”š™@„”‡@†•”†ˆ˜”™N@@p›…’Œ†@–„˜šŒ†Œ–„šŒ•”@Œ™@„”@Œ“–•˜š„”š@ –„˜š@•‰@š‹ˆ@–˜•Žˆ†š@ˆœ„’›„šŒ•”@–˜•†ˆ™™@„”‡@„’’@Œ”šˆ˜ˆ™šˆ‡@–„˜šŒˆ™@„˜ˆ@ ˆ”†•›˜„Šˆ‡@š•@„ššˆ”‡@š‹ˆ@‹ˆ„˜Œ”ŠN@ pˆ˜™•”™@žŒš‹@„@‡Œ™„…Œ’Œš @“„ @˜ˆ—›ˆ™š@˜ˆ„™•”„…’ˆ@„††•““•‡„šŒ•”™L@ ™›†‹@„™@„@™ŒŠ”@’„”Š›„Šˆ@Œ”šˆ˜–˜ˆšˆ˜L@… @†•”š„†šŒ”Š@t‹ˆ˜ˆ™„@g›””L@ g›””@c•““›”Œ†„šŒ•”™@i”†NL@XVRY@wN@a’ˆŸ@aœˆ”›ˆL@pˆ•˜Œ„L@az@XUSXRL@ –‹•”ˆZ@HVRSI@SVRMQUYWL@‰„ŸZ@HVRSI@SVRMQWRQN@@rˆ—›ˆ™š™@™‹•›’‡@…ˆ@ “„‡ˆ@„™@ˆ„˜’ @„™@–•™™Œ…’ˆ@š•@„’’•ž@šŒ“ˆ@š•@„˜˜„”Šˆ@„††•““•‡„šŒ•”™N@ t‹Œ™@”•šŒ†ˆ@Œ™@„œ„Œ’„…’ˆ@Œ”@„’šˆ˜”„šŒœˆ@‰•˜“„š™@… @†•”š„†šŒ”Š@t‹ˆ˜ˆ™„@ g›””@„š@š‹ˆ@”›“…ˆ˜@˜ˆ‰ˆ˜ˆ”†ˆ‡@„…•œˆN f•˜@„‡‡ŒšŒ•”„’@Œ”‰•˜“„šŒ•”@•˜@š•@™›…“Œš@†•““ˆ”š™@Œ”@ž˜ŒšŒ”ŠL@†•”š„†š@ š‹ r„’–‹@e’’Œ™L@adot@e”œŒ˜•”“ˆ”š„’@p’„””Œ”Š@g˜•›–L@RPU@sN@QW @aœˆNL@ md@VQYeL@p‹•ˆ”ŒŸL@az@XUPPWL@–‹•”ˆZ@@HVPRI@WQRMXSUSL@‰„ŸZ@@HVPRI@ WQRMSPVVL@•˜@™ˆˆ@žžžN‡•šN™š„šˆN„¡N›™N@@t‹Œ™@„‡@Œ™@„’™•@„œ„Œ’„…’ˆ@„š@ žžžN„‡•šˆ”œŒ˜•”“ˆ”š„’N†•“N@ pˆ˜˜ @p•žˆ’’ @@@@@@@@@m„˜ @aN@vŒ–„˜Œ”„@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e‡ž„˜‡@dN@w˜ŒŠ‹š dŒ™š˜Œ†š@e”ŠŒ”ˆˆ˜@@@@@@@@@@@@@p˜•Žˆ†š@m„”„Šˆ˜@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@sš„šˆ@e”ŠŒ”ˆˆ˜ @ t˜„†™@n•N@RPRl@ma@PUT@hUWVT@PQl Dobbins Rd. N Pecos Rd. 40th St. t‹ˆ@a˜Œ¡•”„@dˆ–„˜š“ˆ”š@•‰@t˜„”™–•˜š„šŒ•”@HadotI@žŒ’’@†•”‡›†š@–›…’Œ†@ ™†•–Œ”Š@“ˆˆšŒ”Š™@‰•˜@š‹ˆ@s•›š‹@m•›”š„Œ”@t˜„”™–•˜š„šŒ•”@c•˜˜Œ‡•˜@ sš›‡ N@@t‹ˆ@–›…’Œ†@“ˆˆšŒ”Š™@žŒ’’@…ˆ@‹ˆ’‡@•”@m•”‡„ L@n•œˆ“…ˆ˜@UL@ RPPQ„š@š‹ˆ@dˆ™ˆ˜š@vŒ™š„@hŒŠ‹@s†‹••’@a›‡Œš•˜Œ›“@„”‡@•”@t‹›˜™‡„ L@ n•œˆ“…ˆ˜@XL@RPPQ@„š@š‹ˆ@f•ž’ˆ˜@e’ˆ“ˆ”š„˜ @s†‹••’@c„‰ˆšˆ˜Œ„N@@e„†‹@ –›…’Œ†@“ˆˆšŒ”Š@žŒ’’@–˜•œŒ‡ˆ@š‹ˆ@™„“ˆ@Œ”‰•˜“„šŒ•”@žŒš‹@„@–˜ˆ™ˆ”š„šŒ•”@ ‰˜•“@VZSPMW@–N“N@„”‡@„@—›ˆ™šŒ•”@„”‡@„”™žˆ˜@™ˆ™™Œ•”O•–ˆ”@‹•›™ˆ@ ‰˜•“@WMY@–N“N 35th Ave n 32nd St. Baseline Rd. b›†‘ˆ ˆ 43rd Ave n UYš‹@aœˆ Chandler Blvd. I-10 Pky . I-10 N Van Buren St. 91st Ave „Œ” VWš‹@aœˆ ›”š Thursday, October 2, 2003 Tolleson High School 9419 W. Van Buren St., Tolleson Each evening: 6-8 p.m. Open House, 6:30 p.m. Presentation m†d•žˆ’’ WUš‹@aœˆ pˆ†•™@r‡N SR”‡@sšN RTš‹@p’N c‹„”‡’ˆ˜@b’œ‡N m• TPš‹@sšN r„ @r‡N Wednesday, October 1, 2003 Desert Vista High School, 16440 S. 32nd St., Ahwatukee 99th Ave Monday, November 5, 2001 Desert Vista High School, Auditorium 16440 S. 32nd St., Ahwatukee M e e t i n g s South Mountain Corridor Study Public Meetings 24th Pl. P u b l i c A ri z o n a D e pa rt m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Buckeye Rd. N The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will conduct public meetings to obtain public input on alternatives for the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study. The public meetings will be held on Tuesday, September 30 at Cesar Chavez High School, 3921 W. Baseline, Phoenix; Wednesday, October 1 at Desert Vista High, 16440 S. 32nd Street, Ahwatukee; and Thursday, October 2 at Tolleson High School, 9419 W. Van Buren, Tolleson. Each public meeting will provide the same information from 6-8 p.m. starting with an open house and a presentation and question and answer session at 6:30 p.m. ADOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, is conducting an engineering and environmental study known as an Environmental Impact Statement that will examine transportation needs in the corridor and evaluate all reasonable ways to meet them, including whether there is a need for a major transportation improvement in the corridor. The purpose of this meeting is to provide people with information on the alternatives that are being studied for a South Mountain Freeway, take questions and provide answers, and hear comments and concerns. Public participation is an important part of the alternative evaluation process and all interested parties are encouraged to attend the hearing. Persons with a disability may request reasonable accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting Theresa Gunn, Gunn Communications Inc., 8629 W. Alex Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85382, phone: (623) 362-1597, fax: (623) 362-1721. Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange accommodations. This notice is available in alternative formats by contacting Theresa Gunn at the number referenced above. For additional information or to submit comments in writing, contact Thor Anderson, ADOT Environmental & Enhancement Group, 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 619E, Phoenix, AZ 85007, phone: (602) 712-8637, fax: (602) 712-3066, or see www.dot.state.az.us. This ad is also available at www.adotenvironmental.com. Perry Powell District Engineer Floyd Roehrich Project Manager Tracs No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L William J. "Bill" Higgins Acting State Engineer • A755 Appendix 6-2 En 2001 el departamento ADOT, en cooperación con la administración FHWA, empezó a preparar el Reporte de Concepto de Ubicación/Diseño y la Declaración del Impacto Medioambiental para determinar si tal autopista todavía se necesita, dónde debería ubicarse, y cuáles podrían ser los impactos sociales, económicos y al medio ambiente que dichas instalaciones podrían ocasionar. Martes 15 de noviembre Estrella Vista Reception Center 1471 N. Eliseo C. Felix Jr. Way Avondale I-10 Eliseo C. Felix Jr. Way El Mirage Rd. Van Buren St. N Miércoles 16 de noviembre Corona Ranch 7611 S. 29th Avenue, Laveen Baseline Rd. 29th Ave. 27st Ave Se llevarán a cabo reuniones públicas para presentar las alternativas y proporcionar una oportunidad para recibir información de los ciudadanos. Se realizarán presentaciones y sesiones de preguntas y respuestas durante el día, así como una reunión continua al estilo casa abierta. Cada una de las reuniones contendrá la misma información. Asistirán representantes del departamento ADOT y de la administración FHWA. CASA ABIERTA: Mediodía - 8 p.m. cada día Dysart Rd. El Departamento de Transporte de Arizona (ADOT por sus siglas en inglés) y la Administración Federal de Autopistas (FHWA por sus siglas en inglés), están evaluando rutas alternas para la Autopista South Mountain, el segmento de autopista del anillo de circunvalación Loop 202, conectando a la autopista Interestatal 10 al sur de Phoenix con la autopista Interestatal 10 al oeste de la ciudad. N Jueves 17 de noviembre Hotel Grace Inn 10831 S. 51st Street, Ahwatukee I-10 51st St. Las personas con una discapacidad pueden solicitar adaptaciones razonables, Elliot Rd. tales como un intérprete de lenguaje a señas, comunicándose con Theresa Gunn, Gunn Communications Inc., 8629 W. Alex Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85382, Warner Rd. teléfono: (623) 362-1597, fax: (623) 362-1721. Las solicitudes deben hacerse N cuanto antes posible, dando tiempo para hacer los arreglos para las adaptaciones. Este aviso está disponible en formatos alternos, llamando a Theresa Gunn en el número que aparece arriba. Para información adicional o para presentar comentarios por escrito, comuníquese con Ralph Ellis, ADOT Environmental & Enhancement Group, 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 619E, Phoenix, AZ 85007, teléfono: (602) 712-6161, fax: (602) 712-3066, correo electrónico: rellis@azdot.gov. www.SouthMountainFreeway.com Perry Powell Ingeniero de Distrito Mike Bruder Gerente del Proyecto Tracs No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Sam Elters Ingeniero del Estado PUBLIC MEETINGS South Mountain Corridor Study The Arizona Department of Transportation is considering three locations for the potential Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway to connect to Interstate 10 in the West Valley. Public meetings will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway might affect I-10 access. Each of the presentations will contain the same information. Representatives from ADOT and FHWA will be in attendance. South Mountain/ I-10 Access Open House Tuesday, March 7, 2006 Open House 4-7 p.m. Presentations: 5 p.m. & 6 p.m. Holiday Inn Phoenix West 1500 N. 51st Avenue McDowell Rd. Each of the alternatives would require I-10 improvements and widening. The options include: I-10 51st Ave. Estudio del Corredor South Mountain Loop 101 Connection -- would change access to the freeway from 99th Avenue and reconstruct ramps at the I-10/Loop 101 interchange. 71st Avenue Connection -- would change existing access to I-10 between 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue and would limit local access at 59th Avenue and 83rd Avenue. 55th Avenue Connection -- would change existing access to I-10 between 67th Avenue and 43rd Avenue and would limit local access at 63rd Avenue and 43rd Avenue. If you home or business would be affected, or if your usual travel routes would change, ADOT would like to hear from you. Please consider attending one of the upcoming meetings. N Wednesday, March 8, 2006 Open House 5-8 p.m. Presentations: 6 p.m. & 7 p.m. Santa Maria Middle School 7250 W. Lower Buckeye Road Lower Buckeye Rd. 67st Ave REUNIONES PÚBLICAS ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 75th Ave. DEPARTAMENTO DE TRANSPORTE DE ARIZONA 35th Ave. • 48th St. A756 N Persons with a disability may request reasonable accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting Theresa Gunn, Gunn Communications Inc., 8629 W. Alex Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85382, phone: (623) 362-1597, fax: (623) 362-1721. Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange accommodations. This notice is available in alternative formats by contacting Theresa Gunn at the number above. For additional information or to submit comments in writing, contact Ralph Ellis, ADOT Environmental & Enhancement Group, 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 619E, Phoenix, AZ 85007, phone: (602) 712-6161, fax: (602) 712-3066, e-mail: rellis@azdot.gov. www.SouthMountainFreeway.com Perry Powell District Engineer Mike Bruder Project Manager Tracs No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Sam Elters State Engineer Appendix 6-2 Transportation Corridor Study Transportation Corridor Study GLENDALE Study Area Existing freeway Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community boundary boundary Maricopa County line Maricopa County line Western Section Western Section W55 Alternative W55 Alternative W71 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section Eastern Section E1 Alternative E1 Alternative Black Canyon 17 Freeway Bethany Home Road 43rd Avenue 27th Avenue 35th Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue 67th Avenue Indian School Road Thomas Road AVONDALE LOOP 101 GOODYEAR Agua Fria Freeway McDowell Road Papago 10 Freeway TOLLESON Van Buren Street W101 Alternative DOWNTOWN PHOENIX Approximate scale Ap proximate scale W55 Alternative Buckeye Road (Preliminary preferred) Estrella Village 1 1 3 miles miles 3 Lower Buckeye Road 143 Hohokam Freeway Broadway Road 24th Street 16th Street 7th Street 7th Avenue Baseline Road Laveen Village 19th Avenue W71 Alternative Southern Avenue TEMPE 60 Superstition Freeway Dobbins Road Elliot Road Pecos Road E1 Alternative Sierra Estrella Be ltli ne Estrella Drive 48th Street 40th Street Ahwatukee Foothills Village 32nd Street ser t Par Foot kw hills ay De 17th Avenue Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Ray Road Chandler Boulevard CHANDLER LOOP 202 Kyrene Road n io ct n SSe ttio n rn eecc teer S esst nnS We stteerr W s a EEa Elliot Road Maricopa 10 Freeway 56th Street Gila River Indian Community Santan Freeway Rural Road 75th Avenue 83rd Avenue 91st Avenue 99th Avenue Camelback Road 107th Avenue Avondale Boulevard 60 Queen Creek Road Ro ad Alternatives studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement What has been happening? The study team, led by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has completed the technical reports in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), developed the administrative Draft EIS for ADOT and FHWA review and developed the Location and Design Concept Report. Throughout the study process, ADOT and FHWA have continued coordination with the public and local, regional, state and federal agencies. Since 2002, ADOT and FHWA have worked with a Citizens Advisory Team (CAT) that represents various groups in the South Mountain Freeway Study Area. In 2006, the CAT completed its evaluation of the Western Section alternatives and November 2008 A757 South Mountain South Mountain Glendale Avenue • recommended the W101 Alternative. In doing so, the CAT emphasized the importance of addressing long-term regional mobility issues, but also expressed concern regarding the possible impacts on community character and cohesion. While taking the CAT recommendation into account, ADOT ultimately identified the W55 Alternative as its preliminary preferred alternative. ADOT’s decision was based on overall regional transportation needs; a comprehensive evaluation of social and economic conditions; public and agency comments; engineering elements, such as evaluating traffic data; project costs and environmental factors. The CAT currently is evaluating the proposed freeway to recommend whether it should be built. Following the public release of the Draft EIS, the CAT will provide a final recommendation of “action” or “no-action” for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. For information regarding CAT membership, please visit the project Web site at www. SouthMountainFreeway.com. Addressing mobility needs in the MAG region Seventy-five percent of vehicles forecast to use the proposed freeway were shown to have origins and/or destinations near the proposed South Mountain Freeway. A freeway would be used by vehicles from the east and west areas of the MAG region, and would address eastwest mobility needs. Future CAT meetings are currently unscheduled and will be determined according to the release of the Draft EIS. Members of the community are welcome to attend the CAT meetings when scheduled. The information to be discussed at these upcoming meetings, and the information presented at the previous meetings, can be found on the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. PEORIA <1% A Draft EIS presents information about the study’s purpose and need; alternatives developed (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 public and agency outreach. Purpose and Need Almost 50 percent of projected increases in population, housing and employment from 2005 to 2030 for the entire Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) region is expected to occur in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area (see the graphic addressing 1983 1985 1988 The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepares planning studies for the Phoenix metropolitan area that identify corridors for an integrated freeway network. Maricopa County voters approve a half-cent sales tax to fund the MAG’s Regional Freeway System. A Design Concept Report (DCR) and a statelevel Environmental Assessment (EA) are completed for the South Mountain Freeway. <1% 2% SCOTTSDALE GLENDALE <1% GOODYEAR TOLLESON AVONDALE <1% <1% TEMPE 1% 10% 29% FOUNTAIN HILLS <1% PARADISE VALLEY PHOENIX 10% MESA CHANDLER GILBERT 26% Proposed action QUEEN CREEK What is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that EISs be prepared for all major federal actions (or those involving federal funding) that could have a significant effect on the environment. <1% SURPRISE 1% Central West Valley Southwest Valley Ahwatukee/Gila River Indian Community Chandler/Gilbert/Queen Creek PINAL COUNTY 5% Approximate scale 1 5 miles mobility needs above). The proposed freeway would serve the projected increases in these areas. Alternatives Development To identify the alternatives to be studied in detail in the Draft EIS, a process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives (including non-freeway alternatives). In addition to the most recent alternatives presented (see the map on the first page), the No-Action Alternative is being studied in detail. Potential Impacts The social, economic and environmental consequences of selecting the Action or No-Action alternatives were evaluated based on a number of elements. These elements include, but are not limited to, land use, social conditions, economics, air quality, noise, cultural resources, visual resources and biological resources. 1994 Due to a funding shortfall, ADOT identifies the South Mountain Freeway as an “unfunded segment.” 1996 A consortium of private companies proposes to build the South Mountain Freeway as a toll road. The consortium would later withdraw its proposal. 1999 ADOT announces plans to resume completion of the Regional Freeway System, including an unspecified portion of the South Mountain Transportation Corridor. 2001 ADOT begins preparing a new L/DCR and EIS to examine a broad range of alternatives to address the transportation needs in the southwest valley. Public input efforts begin. Summer/Fall Fall/Wi The study team collects baseline information and issues on the transportation corridor. The study tea determines th there is a purp and need to c the study. 9 plans to on of the y System, pecified uth ortation A758 • Appendix 6-2 South Mountain PRESORTED FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 Transportation Corridor Study What are the next steps? Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act protects the use of public recreational land, historic resources and traditional cultural properties (TCPs). This includes an evaluation of Section 4(f) resources, a determination of impacts and an evaluation of measures available to minimize impacts, when warranted. Public and Agency Outreach Since ADOT and FHWA began preparing the Draft EIS in 2001, they have worked to engage and provide study information to the public and agencies. Some of the outreach included holding public meetings in November 2005 to discuss and receive information regarding the proposed alternatives. Approximately 2,600 people attended these meetings. Public meetings also were held in March 2006 to discuss how Interstate 10 might be affected by each of the potential connection options in the West Valley. Nearly 400 people attended these meetings. Public and agency outreach will continue through the next steps in study process (see the graphic on this page). 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released for public review 90-day review period Development of Final EIS 2001 Summer/Fall Fall/Winter Fall 2003 Fall 2004 The study team collects baseline information and issues on the transportation corridor. The study team determines that there is a purpose and need to continue the study. ADOT, FHWA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concur on the three build alternatives plus options. These are carried forward into the Draft EIS for more detailed analysis. Voters approve funding MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan – including the South Mountain Freeway. For more information regarding this study, please visit the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. Final EIS released for public review How to Contact Us 60-day review period Public comments on Final EIS evaluated The exact timeframe is unknown for the completion of the review process; however, when the review is completed and approved for distribution by ADOT and FHWA, it will be available to the public for review and comment. ADOT and FHWA are working as quickly as possible to complete this complex and important study process. ADOT begins preparing a new L/DCR and EIS to examine a broad range of alternatives to address the transportation needs in the southwest valley. Public input efforts begin. Public Hearing and CAT Recommendation Public comments on Draft EIS evaluated What is the status of the Draft EIS? ADOT and FHWA currently are reviewing the technical information in the Draft EIS for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. During the review process, ADOT and FHWA are working with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to address the status of the South Mountains as a TCP. A TCP is a site that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs. Consultation on this issue with GRIC is necessary to complete the technical review. 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1923 Final decision on proposed freeway is made We are here Fall 2005 Public information meetings held. Expansive public input efforts continue throughout the study. June 2006 ADOT announces the W55 (55th Avenue) Alternative as the “preliminary preferred alternative” based on community input, economic impacts, environmental factors, and traffic analysis. 2009 Expected publication of Draft EIS and public hearing. 2010 Expected final decision on the South Mountain Freeway. For more information regarding this study, please visit the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. ! e d i s n i k o o L If you have any questions or comments about the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study, please contact: S tud yma tion . . . inf or Hotline: Web site: Fax: E-mail: Mail: 602.712.7006 www.SouthMountainFreeway.com 602.385.1620 ADOT@PolicyDevelopmentGroup.com South Mountain Corridor Study Team 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1923 This document is available in Spanish by calling: 602.712.7006. Este documento está disponible en Español llamando 602.712.7006. Appendix 6-2 South Mountain South Mountain Study Area Existing freeway Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community boundary boundary Maricopa County line Maricopa County line Western Section Western Section W55 Alternative W55 Alternative W71 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section Eastern Section E1 Alternative E1 Alternative GLENDALE Black Canyon 17 Freeway Bethany Home Road 43rd Avenue 27th Avenue 35th Avenue 51st Avenue Indian School Road Thomas Road AVONDALE LOOP 101 GOODYEAR Agua Fria Freeway McDowell Road Papago 10 Freeway TOLLESON Van Buren Street W101 Alternative Estrella Village DOWNTOWN PHOENIX Approximate scale Ap proximate scale W55 Alternative Buckeye Road (Preliminary preferred) 1 1 3 miles miles 3 Lower Buckeye Road 143 Hohokam Freeway Broadway Road Laveen Village 24th Street 7th Street 16th Street 7th Avenue Baseline Road TEMPE 19th Avenue W71 Alternative Southern Avenue 60 Superstition Freeway Dobbins Road Elliot Road Pecos Road E1 Alternative Sierra Estrella Be ltli ne Estrella Drive 48th Street 40th Street Ahwatukee Foothills Village 32nd Street ser t Par Foot kw hills ay De 17th Avenue Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Ray Road Chandler Boulevard CHANDLER LOOP 202 Kyrene Road n io ct on Se n S cctti n r r tee See esst nnS We stteerr W as a E E Elliot Road Maricopa 10 Freeway 56th Street Gila River Indian Community Santan Freeway Rural Road 59th Avenue 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 83rd Avenue 91st Avenue 99th Avenue Camelback Road 107th Avenue Avondale Boulevard 60 Queen Creek Road Ro ad Las Alternativas estudiadas en el Giro de Declaración de Impacto Ambiental ¿Qué ha estado sucediendo? El equipo del estudio, dirigido por el Departamento de Arizona de Transporte (ADOT) y la Administración Federal de Carreteras (FHWA), ha completado los informes técnicos a favor del Giro de Declaración de Impacto Ambiental; (EIS) desarrolló el adiminstrativo Giro de EIS para el reviso de ADOT y FHWA y desarrolló el Informe de Concepto de Ubicación y Diseño. A través del proceso del estudio, ADOT y FHWA han continuado coordinación con el público y agencias locales, regionales, estatales y federales. Desde el 2002, ADOT y FHWA han trabajado con un Equipo Consultivo de Ciudadanos (CAT) que representa a varios grupos en el Area del Estudio de la Autopista South Mountain. En el 2006, el CAT completó su evaluación de las alternativas de la Sección noviembre del 2008 A759 Estudio del Pasillo de Transporte de Estudio del Pasillo de Transporte de Glendale Avenue • Occidental y recomendó la Alternativa W101. A hacer así, el CAT acentuó la importancia de dirigir asuntos regionales a largo plazo de movilidad, pero también expresó concierne con respecto a los impactos posibles en el carácter y la cohesion de la comunidad. Al tomar la recomendación de CAT en cuenta, ADOT últimamente identificó la Alternativa W55 como su preliminar alternativa preferida. La decisión de ADOT fue basada en necesidades regionales generales de transporte; una evaluación completa de condiciones sociales y económicas; comentarios del público y de agencias; elementos de ingeniería, como evaluar los datos de tráfico; costos de proyecto y factores ambientales. El CAT actualmente esta evaluando la autopista propuesta para recomendar si debe ser construida. Después de hacer público el Giro de EIS, el CAT proporcionará una recomendación final de “acción” o de “ningún-acción” para la propuesta Autopista South Mountain. Para información con respecto a la membresía del CAT, por favor visite el sitio web del proyecto en www. SouthMountainFreeway.com. Dirigir las necesidades de movilidad en la región de MAG El setenta y cinco por ciento de vehículos pronosticados para utilizar la autopista propuesta fueron mostrados de tener orígenes y/o destinos cerca de la propuesta Autopista South Moutain. Una autopista sería utilizada por vehículos de las áreas oriental y occidental de la región de MAG, y dirigiría las necesidades de movilidad al este-oeste. Futuras reuniones del CAT actualmente están imprevistas y serán determinadas según la publicación del Giro de EIS. Los miembros de la comunidad están bienvenidos a asistir las reuniones de CAT cuando sean programadas. La información que se va a discutir en estas próximas reuniones, y la información presentada en las reuniones anteriores, se puede encontrada en el sitio web del estudio en www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. PEORIA Propósito y Necesidad Casi 50 por ciento de aumentos proyectados en la población, vivienda y el empleo del 2005 al 2030 para la region entera de la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa (MAG) es esperada ocurrir en las porciones del sudoeste y del sudeste de la área metropolitana de Phoenix SCOTTSDALE 10% <1% GOODYEAR TOLLESON AVONDALE 29% <1% <1% TEMPE 1% 10% FOUNTAIN HILLS <1% PARADISE VALLEY PHOENIX MESA CHANDLER GILBERT Proposed action 26% QUEEN CREEK 1% Un Giro de EIS presenta información sobre el propósito y necesidad del studio; alternativas desarrolladas (estudiadas en detalle); impactos potenciales al medio social, económico y natural, incluso medidas para evitar, reducir o de otro modo para mitigar impactos; evaluación de la Sección 4(f); y el alcance del público y de agencias. <1% 2% GLENDALE ¿Qué es el Giro de Declaración de Impacto Ambiental? El Acto Nacional de la Política Ambiental (NEPA) requiere que se prepare un EIS para todas acciones mayores federales (o esas que impliquen la financiación federal) que podrían tener un efecto significativo en el ambiente. <1% SURPRISE <1% Central West Valley Southwest Valley Ahwatukee/Gila River Indian Community Chandler/Gilbert/Queen Creek PINAL COUNTY 5% Approximate scale 1 5 miles (vea el gráfico arriba que dirige las necesidades de movilidad). La autopista propuesta serviría los aumentos proyectados en estas áreas. Desarrollo de Alternativas Para identificar las alternativas para ser estudiadas con todo detalle en el Giro de EIS, un proceso fue utilizado para desarrollar y evaluar una gama de alternativas (inclusive alternativas sin autopista). Además de las alternativas más recientes presentadas (vea el mapa en la primera página), la Alternativa de Ninguna-Acción se está estudiando con todo detalle. Impactos Potenciales Las consecuencias sociales, económicas y ambientales de seleccionar las alternativas de Acción o Ninguna-Acción fueron evaluadas basado en varios elementos. Estos elementos incluyen, pero no son limitados a, la utilización de la tierra, condiciones sociales, la economía, calidad aérea, el ruido, recursos culturales, recursos visuales y recursos biológicos. 1983 1985 1988 1994 1996 La Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa (MAG) prepara estudios de planeación para la area metropolitana de Phoenix que identifica pasillos para una red integrada de autopistas. Los votantes del Condado de Maricopa aprueban un impuesto de ventas de mediocentavo para financiar el Sistema Regional de Autopistas de MAG. Un Informe de Concepto de Diseño (DCR) y una Evaluación Ambiental (EA) al nivel del estado se completan para la Autopista South Mountain. Debido a una insuficiencia de financiación, ADOT identifica la Autopista South Mountain como un segmento no consolidado. Un consorcio de empresas privadas propone construir la Autopista South Mountain como una carretera de peaje. El consorcio retiraría luego su propuesta. 1999 ADOT anuncia planes para reasumir la finalización del Sistema Regional de Autopistas, inclusive una porción no específicada del Pasillo de South Mountain. 2001 ADOT empieza a preparer un nuevo L/DCR y EIS para examinar una amplia gama de alternativas para dirigir las necesidades de transporte en el sudoeste del valle. Esfuerzos de recibir la aportación del público empiezan. Verano/Otoño Otoño/I El equipo del estudio colecta información básica sobre asuntos del pasillo de transporte. El equipo de determina q hay un prop y necesidad continuar el para ón de una da del ntain. A760 • Appendix 6-2 Estudio del Pasillo de Transporte de South Mountain Evaluación de la Sección 4(f) La Sección 4(f) del Acto de Transporte del Departamento de los Estados Unidos protege el uso de tierra recreativa pública, recursos históricos y propiedades culturales tradicionales (TCPs). Esto incluye una evaluación de recursos de la Sección 4(f), una determinación de impactos y una evaluación de medidas disponibles para minimizar impactos, cuando sea justificado. Alcance del Público y de Agencia Desde que ADOT y FHWA empezaron a preparar el Giro de EIS en el 2001, ellos han trabajado para captar y proporcionar información del estudio al público y agencias. Parte del alcance incluyó tener reuniones públicas en noviembre del 2005 para discutir y recibir información con respecto a las alternativas propuestas. Aproximadamente 2,600 personas asistieron estas reuniones. También se tuvieron reuniones públicas en marzo del 2006 para discutir cómo la Interestatal 10 quizás sea afectada por cada una de las opciones potenciales de conexión en el valle occidental. Casi 400 personas asistieron estas reuniones. El alcance del público y de agencias continuará por los próximos pasos en el proceso del estudio (vea el gráfico en esta página). ¿Qué son los proximos pasos? 2009 Giro de Declaración de Impacto Ambiental (EIS) soltado para la revisión pública Período de 90 días de revisión Desarollo del EIS Final Para más información sobre este estudio, por favor visite el sitio web del estudio en www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. El EIS Final es soltado para la revisión pública ADOT empieza a preparer un nuevo L/DCR y EIS para examinar una amplia gama de alternativas para dirigir las necesidades de transporte en el sudoeste del valle. Esfuerzos de recibir la aportación del público empiezan. Verano/Otoño Otoño/Invierno El equipo del estudio colecta información básica sobre asuntos del pasillo de transporte. El equipo del studio determina que hay un propósito y necesidad de continuar el estudio. Otoño del 2003 ADOT, FHWA y el Cuerpo del Ejército de Ingenieros de los Estados Unidos están de acuerdo sobre las tres alternativas construidas más opciones. Estas son llevadas hacia adelante en el Giro de EIS para el análisis más detallado. Comentarios del Público sobre el EIS Final son evaluados Se hace la decisión final sobre la autopista propuesta Estamos Aquí Otoño del 2004 Otoño del 2005 Los votantes aprueban la financiación del Plan Regional de Transporte de MAG – inclusive la Autopista South Mountain. Cómo Contactarnos Período de 60 días de revisión La agenda exacta para la terminación del proceso de revision es desconocida; sin embargo, cuando la revisión sea completada y aprobada para la distribución por ADOT y FHWA, estará disponible al público para revisión y comentario. ADOT y FHWA estan trabajan tan rápido como puedan para completar este complejo y importante proceso del estudio. 2001 Sesión Pública y Recomendación del CAT Comentarios del Público sobre el Giro EIS son evaluados ¿Qué es el estatus del Giro de EIS? ADOT y FHWA actualmente estan revisando la información técnica en el Giro EIS para la propuesta Autopista South Mountain. Durante el proceso de revisión, ADOT y FHWA van a trabajar con la Comunidad India del Río Gila (GRIC) para dirigir el estatus de South Mountain como un TCP. Un TCP es un sitio que es eligible para la inclusión en el Registro Nacional de Lugares Históricos a causa de su asociación con prácticas o creencias culturales. La consulta sobre este asunto con GRIC es necesaria para completar la revisión técnica. 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1923 Tuvieron reuniones de información pública. Esfuerzos expansivos de la aportación del público continúan a través del estudio. Junio del 2006 ADOT anuncia la Alternativa W55 (la Avenida 55) como la “alternativa preliminar preferida” basada en la aportación de la comunidad, impactos económicos, factores ambientales, y en análisis de tráfico. 2009 La publicación esperada del Giro EIS y sesión pública. 2010 La esperada decisión final sobre la Autopista South Mountain. Para más información sobre este estudio, por favor visite el sitio web del estudio en www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. ! o r t n e d Mire a n ó i c a m r Inf o s tud io… del e Si usted tiene cualquier pregunta o comentarios acerca del Estudio del Pasillo de Transporte de South Mountain, por favor contacte a: Línea Directa: 602.712.7006 Sitio web: www.SouthMountainFreeway.com Fax: 602.385.1620 E-mail: ADOT@PolicyDevelopmentGroup.com Correo: South Mountain Corridor Study Team 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1923 Appendix 6-2 Alternatives studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Study Area Existing freeway Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community boundary boundary Maricopa County line Maricopa County line Western Section Western Section W55 Alternative W59 Alternative W71 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section Eastern Section E1 Alternative E1 Alternative Glendale Avenue Black Canyon Bethany Home Road 27th Avenue 35th Avenue 43rd Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 91st Avenue 83rd Avenue 99th Avenue Camelback Road 107th Avenue Avondale Boulevard 60 Indian School Road Thomas Road LOOP Agua Fria 101 Freeway McDowell Road Papago 10 Freeway TOLLESON AVONDALE Van Buren Street GOODYEAR W101 Alternative DOWNTOWN PHOENIX W59 Alternative Buckeye Road (Preferred) Estrella Village Approximate scale Ap proximate scale 1 1 Laveen Village 24th Street 16th Street 7th Street 7th Avenue 19th Avenue Be ltli What is the status of the study? The study team, led by the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, continues to follow the federal process defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, to complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study. Currently, ADOT is revising the Administrative Draft EIS, and Location and Design Concept Report to include changes to the Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan. These changes include reducing the overall “footprint” of the freeway to eight lanes (three generalpurpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) and evaluating a revised connection with Interstate 10 at 59th Avenue. Maricopa County’s half-cent sales tax for transportation projects, approved through ne Estrella Drive Ray Road Chandler Boulevard CHANDLER LOOP Santan Rural Road 202 Freeway Kyrene Road 56th Street 48th Street 40th Street Ahwatukee Foothills Village 32nd Street ser t Par Foot kw hills ay E1 Alternative Sierra Estrella Why have these changes occurred? De 17th Avenue Pecos Road Elliot Road Maricopa 10 Freeway Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve E Queen Creek Road Ro ad $0 2009 Estimated cost to complete Regional Transportation Program $13.2b* Prop 400 Regional Transportation Program $9.4b $3.0 $6.0 $9.0 (in billions) $12.0 $15.0 Estimated freeway program costs examining and refining a range of appropriate alternatives (including nonfreeway alternatives) through use of an Alternatives Development process. The alternatives to be studied in detail (see map on the first page) includes an option of not implementing the project; this is known as the No Action Alternative. The Draft EIS also documents potential impacts of the alternatives to the social, economic and natural environment, and includes measures to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate impacts. Finally, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act seeks to protect the use of public recreational land, significant wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic resources by determining impacts and evaluating measures available to minimize impacts to these resources. 60 Superstition Freeway Elliot Road n io ect on SS i rnn eecctt r e SS stte ees teerrnn W W asst Ea February 2010 TEMPE Dobbins Road Gila River Indian Community Budget Deficit $6.6b *Does not include projects obligated through 2011 143 Hohokam Freeway Broadway Road Baseline Road Cost 3 miles miles 3 Lower Buckeye Road W71 Alternative Southern Avenue Funding Currently available $6.6b Source: Maricopa Association of Governments 2009 Transportation Corridor Study Transportation Corridor Study 17 Freeway A761 South Mountain South Mountain GLENDALE • Proposition 400 in 2004, is the RTP’s major funding source and provides more than half of the revenue. Responding to the budget shortfall created by declining revenue, MAG began to study methods to reduce freeway project costs. Additionally, during the South Mountain Freeway study the public expressed concern about the number of proposed residential and business acquisitions and about some of the potential impacts of the proposed freeway. Acknowledging these community concerns and addressing declining revenues, strategies were examined to reduce impacts including project costs and needed right-of-way. For the South Mountain Freeway Study, this analysis resulted in two key changes: • reduce the proposed freeway to eight lanes (from the previous 10-lane concept), thereby reducing the right-of-way needed; and • shift the Western Section alignment between Lower Buckeye Road and I-10 to connect at 59th Avenue (rather than 55th Avenue). In October 2009, MAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the revised regional plan which included these changes. For more information regarding the RTP, please visit the MAG Web site at www.mag.maricopa.gov. PEORIA Determination of what type of project would best meet the identified project purpose and need involves <1% 2% SCOTTSDALE GLENDALE What is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? The National Environmental Policy Act requires that EISs be prepared for all major federal actions (or those involving federal funding) that could significantly affect the environment. The initial assessment of significant environmental impacts is published as a Draft EIS for public and agency review and comment. In its Purpose and Need chapter, the Draft EIS documents the need(s) for the proposed project, describes what the purpose of the project is, and discusses the likely societal, transportation, and economic consequences of not implementing the proposed project. <1% SURPRISE <1% <1% GOODYEAR TOLLESON AVONDALE 29% <1% <1% TEMPE 1% 10% FOUNTAIN HILLS <1% PARADISE VALLEY PHOENIX 10% MESA CHANDLER GILBERT Proposed action PINAL COUNTY 26% QUEEN CREEK 1% 5% Approximate scale Central West Valley Southwest Valley Ahwatukee/Gila River Indian Community Chandler/Gilbert/Queen Creek 1 5 miles Addressing mobility needs in the MAG region Seventy-five percent of vehicles forecast to use the proposed freeway were shown to have origins and/or destinations near the proposed South Mountain Freeway. A freeway would be used by vehicles from the east and west areas of the MAG region, and would address east-west mobility needs. 1983 1985 1988 1994 1996 1999 2001 The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepares planning studies for the Phoenix metropolitan area that identify corridors for an integrated freeway network. Maricopa County voters approve a halfcent sales tax to fund the MAG’s Regional Freeway System. A Design Concept Report (DCR) and a state-level Environmental Assessment (EA) are completed for the South Mountain Freeway. Due to a funding shortfall, ADOT identifies the South Mountain Freeway as an “unfunded segment.” A consortium of private companies proposes to build the South Mountain Freeway as a toll road. The consortium would later withdraw its proposal. ADOT announces plans to resume completion of the Regional Freeway System, including an unspecified portion of the South Mountain Transportation Corridor. ADOT begins preparing a new L/DCR and EIS to examine a broad range of alternatives to address the transportation needs in the southwest valley. Public input efforts begin. Summer/Fall 2001 The study team collects baseline information and issues on the transportation corridor. Fall/Winter 2001 The study team determines that there is a purpose and need to continue the study. A762 • Appendix 6-2 South Mountain udy Since 2001, ADOT and FHWA have implemented an extensive public and agency outreach program. Next steps and future opportunities to participate in the study process are outlined in the graphic on this page. Citizens Advisory Team Since 2002, ADOT and FHWA have worked with a Citizens Advisory Team that represents various groups in the South Mountain Freeway Study Area, holding approximately 56 meetings. Beginning in early 2010, the CAT will resume its work to review aspects of the proposed freeway and recommend whether it should be built. Following the public release of the Draft EIS, the CAT will provide a final recommendation of “action” or “no-action” for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. TTSDALE FOUNTAIN HILLS <1% <1% PE Upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIS, it will be reviewed by FHWA and other governmental agencies. Following federal approval for public release of the Draft EIS, at least one public hearing will be held with an associated 90-day public comment period. The Final EIS will be available for public review during a 60-day comment period. After considering comments received on the Final EIS, FHWA will issue a Record of Decision. The Record of Decision will identify the selected alternative for the proposed project. If a build alternative is selected, MAG will allocate funding. In addition, 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. MESA DLER GILBERT PINAL COUNTY 26% QUEEN CREEK 5% Approximate scale 1 n Community eek 5 miles 2001 ADOT begins preparing a new L/DCR and EIS to examine a broad range of alternatives to address the transportation needs in the southwest valley. Public input efforts begin. Summer/Fall 2001 The study team collects baseline information and issues on the transportation corridor. Fall/Winter 2001 The study team determines that there is a purpose and need to continue the study. 3200 East Camelback Road Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 What are the next steps? Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released for public review 90-day public review period Public Hearing and CAT Recommendation Public comments on Draft EIS evaluated Members of the community are welcome to attend the CAT meetings; time is generally available at the end of each meeting for public comments and questions. The information to be discussed at these upcoming meetings, and the information presented at the previous meetings, can be found on the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com or by calling the project hotline. <1% RADISE ALLEY PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOEnIx, AZ PERMIT nO. 815 Transportation Corridor Study Development of Final EIS For more information regarding this study, please visit the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. Final EIS released for public review 60-day public review period How to Contact Us Public comments on Final EIS evaluated Final decision on proposed freeway is made We are here Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 June 2006 ADOT, FHWA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concur on the three build alternatives plus options. These are carried forward into the Draft EIS for more detailed analysis. Voters approve funding MAG’s Regional Transportation Plan – including the South Mountain Freeway. Public information meetings held. Expansive public input efforts continue throughout the study. ADOT announces the W55 (55th Avenue) Alternative as the “preliminary preferred alternative” based on community input, economic impacts, environmental factors, and traffic analysis. Fall 2009 MAG revises the RTP to include changes to South Mountain Freeway to include reducing the freeway to eight lanes and shifting the Western Section alignment to 59th Avenue (W59). 2010 ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ Publication of Draft EIS and public hearing(s). Expected final decision on the South Mountain Freeway. For more information regarding this study, please visit the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. ! e d i s n i k o o L If you have any questions or comments about the South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study, please contact: S tudy . . . n o i t a m r o f n i ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH 202-D(ADY) Hotline: Web site: Fax: E-mail: Mail: 602.712.7006 www.SouthMountainFreeway.com 602.522.7707 ADOT@hdrinc.com South Mountain Corridor Study Team 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 This document is available in Spanish by calling 602.712.7006. Este documento está disponible en Español llamando 602.712.7006 February 2010 Appendix 6-2 Estudio del Corredor de Transportación Estudio del Corredor de Transportación Área del Estudio Existing freeway Autopista Existente Gila River Indian Community Comunidad boundaryIndia del Rio Gila Glendale Avenue Black Canyon 17 Freeway Bethany Home Road Maricopa County line Línea del Condado de Maricopa Western Section Sección Occidental W55 Alternative Alternativa W59 W71 Alternative Alternativa W71 W101 Alternative Western Option Alternativa W101 Opción Occidential W101 Alternative Central Option Alternativa W101 Opción Central W101 Alternative Eastern Option Alternativa W101 Opción Oriental Eastern Section Seccion Oriental E1 Alternative Alternativa E1 27th Avenue 35th Avenue 43rd Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 91st Avenue 83rd Avenue 99th Avenue Camelback Road 107th Avenue Avondale Boulevard 60 Indian School Road Thomas Road LOOP Agua Fria 101 Freeway McDowell Road Papago 10 Freeway TOLLESON AVONDALE Van Buren Street GOODYEAR Alternativa W101 Estrella Village Alternativa W59 Buckeye Road (Preliminar Preferida) DOWNTOWN PHOENIX Approximate scale Ap proximate scale 1 1 ¿Qué es el estatus del estudio? Be El equipo del estudio, dirigido por el Departamento de Arizona de Transportación (ADOT) y la Administración Federal de Carreteras (FHWA), continúa seguiendo el proceso federal definido por la Acta Ambiental Nacional de Política (NEPA), para completar un Borrador de Declaración de Impacto Ambiental (EIS) para el estudio. Actualmente, ADOT esta revisando el Borrador Administrativo del EIS, y el Reporte de la Ubicación y Concepto de Diseño para incluir los cambios en el Plan Regional de Transportación de la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa (MAG). Estos cambios incluyen la reducción de la “huella” general de la autopista a ocho carriles (tres carriles de uso general y un carril de HOV en cada dirección) y la evaluación de una conexión revisada con la Interestatal 10 en la Avenida 59. Freeway.com com dor Study Team oad, Suite 350 ¿Por qué han ocurrido estos cambios? 2.712.7006 Los impuestos de ventas de medio-centavo del Condado de Maricopa Condado para proyectos de transportación, aprobado por la Proposición 400 en el 2004, son la fuente o original escrito en inglés. política de este estado. febrero de 2010 ltli ne 7th Street 16th Street 24th Street Elliot Road Maricopa Estrella Drive Ray Road Chandler Boulevard CHANDLER LOOP Santan Rural Road 202 Freeway Kyrene Road 56th Street 48th Street 40th Street Ahwatukee Foothills Village 32nd Street ser t Par Foot kw hills ay Alternativa E1 Sierra Estrella $0 Prop 400 Programa Regional de Transportación $9.4b $3.0 $6.0 $9.0 $12.0 (en miles de billones) $15.0 Costos estimados de programas de autopistas En octubre del 2009, el Consejo Regional de MAG votó para aprobar el plan revisado regional que incluyó estos cambios. Para más información con respecto al RTP, visite por favor el sitio web de MAG en www.mag.maricopa.gov. apropiadas (incluyendo alternativas de ninguna autpista) a través del uso de un proceso de Desarollo de Alternativas. Las alternativas que se estudiarán en detalle (vea el mapa en la primera página) incluye una opción de no implementar el proyecto, esto se conoce como la Alternativa De No Acción. El Borrador de EIS también documenta los impactos potenciales de las alternativas para el medio ambiente social, económico y natural, e incluye medidas para evitar, reducir o mitigar los impactos. Por último, la Sección 4(f), de la Acta del Departamento de Transportación de los Estados Unidos tiene por objeto proteger el uso de las tierras públicas de recreo, vida silvestre significativa y refugios de aves acuáticas, o los recursos históricos por determinar los impactos y evaluar las medidas disponibles para minimizar los impactos a estos recursos. pasos y oportunida estudio están resum Desde el 2001, ADOT y FHWA han implementado un programa amplio de alcance al público y a las agencias. Próximos Los miembros de l las reuniones del C al final de cada reu público. La inform reuniones, y la info anteriores, se pued en www.SouthMo directa del proyect Equipo Consu Desde el 2002, AD Equipo Consultivo a varios grupos de Mountain, se tuvie partir de principio examinar los aspec si debe ser constru Borrador de EIS, e de “acción” o de “n Autopista South M 10 Freeway Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Pecos Road omentarios ansportación te: 7th Avenue Elliot Road al nnt ioe ccitd tnal c e o in OS nn ercite ieór csct nn SO See tceiró W esc ESa De ntainFreeway.com. 60 Superstition Freeway Dobbins Road 17th Avenue Gila River Indian Community TEMPE 19th Avenue Baseline Road Presupuesto *No incluye a proyectos obligados hasta el 2011 143 Hohokam Freeway Broadway Road Laveen Village Déficit $6.6b 2009 Costo Estimado para completar Costos el Programa Regional de Transportación $13.2b* 3 miles miles 3 Lower Buckeye Road Alternativa W71 Southern Avenue Fondos Actualmente Disponible $6.6b Fuente: Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa, 2009 Alternativas estudiadas en el Borrador de la Declaración de Impacto de Ambiental GLENDALE A763 South Mountain South Mountain PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOEnIx, AZ ERMIT nO. 815 • Queen Creek Road y mayor de fondos para el Plan Regional de Transportación ad proporciona más que la mitad de los ingresos. Ro Respondiendo a la insuficiencia de presupuestos creados por los ingresos disminuidos, MAG comenzó a estudiar métodos para reducir costos de proyectos de autopistas. Adicionalmente, durante el estudio de la Autopista South Mountain el público expresó preocupación por el número de adquisiciones residenciales propuestas de negocios y acerca de algunos de los impactos potenciales de la autopista propuesta. Reconociendo estas preocupaciones de la comunidad y dirigiendo los ingresos disminuidos, estrategias fueron examinadas para reducir los impactos incluyendo los costos del proyecto y la necesidad de derecho de paso. Para el Estudio del South Mountain, este análisis resulto en dos cambios clave: • reducir la autopista propuesta a ocho carriles (del concepto anterior de 10 carriles), con lo cual reduciendo el derecho de paso necesitado; y • cambiar la alineación Occidental de la Sección entre la Calle Lower Buckeye y I-10 para conectar la Avenida 59 (en lugar de la Avenida 55). PEORIA ¿Qué es el Borrador de Declaración de Impacto Ambiental? <1% <1% SURPRISE <1% 2% SCOTTSDALE GLENDALE La Acta Política Nacional Ambiental exige que las Declaraciones de Impacto Ambientales sean preparadas para todas las acciones federales principales (o las involucradas con fondos federales) que podrían afectar significativamente al medio ambiente. La evaluación inicial de los impactos ambientales significativos esta publicada como un Borrador de EIS para la revision y comentario del público y de la agencia. En el capítulo de Propósito y Necesidad, el Borrador de EIS documenta la(s) necesidad(es) del proyecto propuesto, describe el propósito del proyecto, y discute la probabilidad de consequencias de la sociedad, el transporte, y la economía si no se implementa el proyecto propuesto. Determinación del tipo de proyecto que podría satisfacer mejor el propósito y la necesidad del proyecto identificado consiste en examinar y refinar una serie de alternativas 1983 1985 1988 1994 La Asociación de Maricopa de Gobiernos (MAG) prepara estudios de planeación para el área metropolitana de Phoenix que identifica corredores para una red integrada de autopistas. Los votantes del Condado de Maricopa aprueban un impuesto de ventas de mediocentavo para financiar el Sistema Regional de Autopistas de MAG. Un Reporte del Concepto del Diseño (DCR) y una Evaluación Ambiental (EA) del nivel del estado son completados para la Autopista South Mountain. Debido a una insuficiencia de fondos, ADOT identifica a la Autopista South Mountain como un “segmento no financiado.” <1% GOODYEAR TOLLESON AVONDALE 29% <1% <1% 1% 10% TEMPE MESA CHANDLER GILBERT Acción Propuesta PINAL COUNTY 26% QUEEN CREEK 1% Al finalizar el Borr por FHWA y otras aprobación federal EIS, por lo menos período asociado de EIS Final estará di periodo de 60 días los comentarios rec un Récord de Deci la alternativa selecc alternativa construi Además, ADOT y público, de las agen autopista propuesta una alternativa de c FOUNTAIN HILLS <1% PARADISE VALLEY PHOENIX 10% 5% Approximate scale Valle Central Oeste Valle Sudoeste Ahwatukee/Comunidad India del Rio Gila Chandler/Gilbert/Queen Creek 1 5 miles Dirigiendo Necesidades de movilidad en la región de MAG El setenta y cinco por ciento de vehículos pronosticados para utilizar la autopista propuesta fueron mostrados de tener orígenes y/o destinos cerca de la Autopista South Mountain. Una autopista sería utilizada para vehículos de las áreas orientales y occidentales de la región de MAG, y dirigiría las necesidades de movilidad del este-oeste. 1996 Un consorcio de empresas privadas propone construir la Autopista South Mountain como una carretera de peaje. El consorcio luego retiraría su propuesta. 1999 ADOT anuncia planes para reasumir terminación del Sistema Regional de Autopistas, inclusive una porción inespecífica del Corredor de Transportación de South Mountain. 2001 ADOT empieza a preparar un nuevo L/ DCR y EIS para examinar un amplio espectro de alternativas para dirigir las necesidades de transportación en el sudoeste del valle. Los esfuerzos de opiniones públicas empiezan. Verano/ Otoño/ Otoño 2001 Invierno 2001 El equipo del estudio colecciona información de línea y asuntos en el corredor de transportación. El equipo del estudio determina que hay un propósito y necesidad de continuar el estudio. Para más información co A764 • Appendix 6-2 South Mountain n ninguna autpista) llo de Alternativas. alle (vea el mapa en e no implementar el ativa De No Acción. El s impactos potenciales te social, económico reducir o mitigar , de la Acta del Estados Unidos tiene úblicas de recreo, vida acuáticas, o los recursos evaluar las medidas a estos recursos. pasos y oportunidades futuras de participar en el proceso del estudio están resumados en el gráfico de esta página. mplementado un a las agencias. Próximos Los miembros de la comunidad están invitados a asistir a las reuniones del CAT; en general el tiempo está disponible al final de cada reunión para comentarios y preguntas del público. La información que se discutirá en estas próximas reuniones, y la información presentada en las reuniones anteriores, se puede encontrar en el sitio del estudio de web en www.SouthMountainFreeway.com o llamando a la línea directa del proyecto. Equipo Consultivo de Ciudadanos Desde el 2002, ADOT y FHWA han trabajado con un Equipo Consultivo de Ciudadanos (CAT) que representa a varios grupos del Área de Estudio de la Autopista South Mountain, se tuvieron aproximadamente 56 reuniones. A partir de principios del 2010, el CAT reanudar su labor para examinar los aspectos de la autopista propuesta y recomendar si debe ser construido. Tras el lanzamiento público del Borrador de EIS, el CAT elevará una recomendación final de “acción” o de “no acción” para el proyecto propuesto de la Autopista South Mountain. % ALE Al finalizar el Borrador de EIS de Administración, será revisado por FHWA y otras agencias gubernamentales. Después de la aprobación federal para el lanzamiento público del Borrador de EIS, por lo menos una junta pública se llevará a cabo con un período asociado de 90 días para comentarios del público. El EIS Final estará disponible para revisión pública durante un periodo de 60 días para comentarios. Después de considerar los comentarios recibidos sobre el EIS Final, FHWA emitirá un Récord de Decisión. El Récord de Decisión identificará la alternativa seleccionada para el proyecto propuesto. Si una alternativa construida es seleccionada, MAG asignará fondos. Además, ADOT y FHWA continuarán a buscar la opinión del público, de las agencias, y de las jurisdicciones con respecto a la autopista propuesta durante la fase de diseño y construcción, si una alternativa de construcción es seleccionada. FOUNTAIN HILLS <1% E % PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOEnIx, AZ PERMIT nO. 815 Estudio del Corredor de Transportación MESA GILBERT PINAL COUNTY 6% EEN CREEK 5% Approximate scale 1 Rio Gila 5 miles la región de MAG osticados para utilizar la er orígenes y/o destinos utopista sería utilizada ntales de la región de MAG, e-oeste. 2001 OT empieza a parar un nuevo L/ R y EIS para examinar amplio espectro alternativas para gir las necesidades ransportación en el oeste del valle. Los erzos de opiniones licas empiezan. Verano/ Otoño/ Otoño 2001 Invierno 2001 El equipo del estudio colecciona información de línea y asuntos en el corredor de transportación. El equipo del estudio determina que hay un propósito y necesidad de continuar el estudio. Otoño 2003 ADOT, FHWA y el Army Corps de los Estados Unidos de Ingenieros están de acuerdo con las tres alternativas de construir más opciones. Estos son llevados hacia adelante en el Borrador EIS para análisis más detallado. Otoño 2004 Los votantes aprueban la financiación del Plan Regional de Transportación de MAG – incluyendo a la Autopista South Mountain. Otoño 2005 Se tuvieron reuniones públicas de información. Esfuerzos de opinión pública expansivos continúan a través del estudio. 3200 East Camelback Road Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 ¿Qué es los próximos pasos? Borrador de Declaración Ambiental de Impacto (EIS) hecho público para revisión 90 días de período público de revisión Junta Pública y Recommendación del CAT Commentarios del público del Borrador EIS Desarollo del EIS Final Para más información con respecto a este estudio, visita por favor el sitio web del estudio en www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. EIS Final soltado para revisión final 60 días de período público de revisión Cómo Contactarnos Comentarios del público en el EIS Final evaluados Decisión final en la autopista propuesta es hecha Estamos aquí junio 2006 ADOT anuncia la Alternativa (la Avenida 55) W55 como la “alternativa preliminar preferida” basada en la opinión de la comunidad, impactos económicos, factores ambientales, y en análisis del tráfico. Otoño 2009 MAG revisa el RTP para incluir los cambios a la Autopista South Mountain para incluir la reducción de la autopista de ocho carriles y cambiar la alineación de la Sección Occidental a la Avenida 59 (W59). 2010 ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ La publicación del Borrador EIS y juntas públicas. La decisión final esperada sobre la Autopista South Mountain. Para más información con respecto a este estudio, visita por favor el sitio web del estudio en www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. ! o r t n e d ¡Mire a ción Informa io. . . d u t s e l e d Si usted tiene cualquier pregunta o comentarios acerca del Estudio del Corredor de Transportación de South Mountain, por favor contacte: ¿Q El Ar Fe pro de De est Ad Co Re de de (tr dir In Línea directa: 602.712.7006 Sitio web: www.SouthMountainFreeway.com Fax: 602.522.7707 Correo electrónico: ADOT@hdrinc.com Dirección: South Mountain Corridor Study Team 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 ¿P Este documento está disponible en inglés llamando al 602.712.7006 No. de Proyecto ADOT 202L MA 054 H5764 01L No. de Proyecto Federal NH 202-D(ADY) Lo de ap Descargo de responsabilidad: Este documento es una traducción del texto original escrito en inglés. Esta traducción no es oficial y no es vinculante a este estado o subdivisión política de este estado. febrero de 2010 Appendix 6-2 SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY 59TH AVENUE CONNECTION MEETING AUTOPISTA SOUTH MOUNTAIN REUNIÓN DE LA CONEXIÓN DE LA AVENIDA 59 Your property may be impacted! ¡Su propiedad puede ser impactada! Please join us for a public information meeting to discuss how the proposed South Mountain Freeway connection at 59th Avenue and Interstate 10 might affect you and your property. Acompañenos por favor para una reunión de información pública para discutir cómo la conexión propuesta de la Autopista South Mountain en la Avenida 59 y la Interestatal 10 quizás le afecten a usted y su propiedad. Buckeye Road Broadway Road W59 Alternative Right-of-way Meeting Location For additional study and meeting information or to submit comments in writing, please contact ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018; e-mail: ADOT@hdrinc.com; phone: 602.712.7006; or fax: 602.522.7707. Written comments should be submitted by February 24, 2010. El propósito de la reunión es de proporcionar una vista general del estudio y la conexión propuesta en la Avenida 59, discutir los procesos del derecho de paso y el programa, y proporcionar la oportunidad para miembros de la comunidad de hacer preguntas y proporcionar su opinión. Una presentación breve con respecto a las recomendaciones será hecha en la reunión, seguida por una casa abierta donde representantes del equipo de estudio estarán presentes para contestar preguntas. Van Buren Street 51st Avenue 10 59th Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue Van Buren Street 10 de febrero de 2010 6 P.M.—8 P.M. Presentación a las 6:15 P.M. Sunridge Elementary School Cafetería 6244 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ Buckeye Road 67th Avenue The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the study and the proposed connection at 59th Avenue, discuss the right-of-way processes and schedule, and provide the opportunity for members of the community to ask questions and provide input. A brief presentation regarding the recommendations will be made at the meeting, followed by an open house where representatives from the study team will be present to answer questions. 10 67th Avenue February 10, 2010 6 P.M.—8 P.M. Presentation at 6:15 P.M. Sunridge Elementary School Cafeteria 6244 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ Broadway Road W59 Derecho de Paso Para información adicional del estudio y la reunión Alternativo o para presentar comentarios por escrito, por favor Ubicación de la Reunión contacte a ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018. Correo electrónico ADOT@hdrinc.com; tel: 602.712.7006; o fax: 602.522.7707. Los comentarios por escrito deberán ser presentados antes del 24 de febrero de 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by calling 602.712.7006. Requests should be made as early as possible to arrange the accommodation. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting Heather Honsberger at the telephone number referenced above. Acta de los ciudadanos americanos con limitaciones físicas (ADA): las personas con alguna limitación física pueden solicitar adaptación razonable tal como un intérprete en lenguaje de signos, llamando al 602.712.7006. Las solicitudes deben ser presentadas lo antes posible para organizar el alojamiento. Este documento está disponible en formatos alternativos contactando a Heather Honsberger al número telefónico descrito arriba. Este documento está disponible en español llamando 602.712.7006. Este documento está disponible en español llamando 602.712.7006. For more information, please visit www.SouthMountainFreeway.com ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) February 2010 • Para más información, por favor visite a www.SouthMountainFreeway.com Descargo de responsabilidad: Este documento es una traducción del texto original escrito en inglés. Esta traducción no es oficial y no es vinculante a este estado o subdivisión política de este estado. No. de Proyecto ADOT 202L MA 054 H5764 01L No. de Proyecto Federal NH-202-D(ADY) febrero del 2010 A765 Appendix 6-2 South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2010 6 P.M.-8 P.M. PRESENTATION AT 6:15 P.M. PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY UPDATE 59th Avenue Connection Meeting Papago 10 Freeway Van Buren Street Buckeye Road I-10 62nd Avenue Roosevelt Street 61st Avenue 63rd Avenue Lower Buckeye Road Latham Street Meeting Location Sunridge Elementary School Broadway Road 51st Avenue • 59th Avenue A766 The Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration continue to study the proposed South Mountain Freeway and invite you to attend a public meeting to learn about recent changes to the proposed connection with Interstate 10. In response to declining funding for regional projects, the Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Council voted in October 2009 to approve the revised regional plan. The following changes were included for the South Mountain Freeway: • Reduce the proposed freeway to eight lanes (from the previous 10-lane concept) • Shift the Western Section alignment between Lower Buckeye Road and I-10 to connect at 59th Avenue (rather than 55th Avenue) Sunridge Park Sunridge Elementary School Cafeteria 6244 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ te! a d p U S tudy Southern Avenue W59 Alternative Right-of-way ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH 202-D(ADY) This public information meeting will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway connection at 59th Avenue might affect you and your property. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the study and the proposed connection at 59th Avenue, discuss the study and right-of-way processes and schedule, and provide the opportunity for members of the community to ask questions and provide input. A brief presentation regarding the recommendations will be made at the meeting, followed by an open house where representatives from the study team will be present to answer questions. For additional study and meeting information or to submit comments in writing, please contact ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018; e-mail: ADOT@hdrinc.com; phone: 602.712.7006; or fax: 602.522.7707. Written comments should be submitted by February 24, 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by calling 602.712.7006. Requests should be made as early as possible to arrange the accommodation. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting Heather Honsberger at the telephone number referenced above. Este documento está disponible en español llamando 602.712.7006. For more information regarding this study, please visit the study Web site at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com. Appendix 6-2 ReuniÓn de infoRmaciÓn pÚblica 10 de febrero, 2010 6 p.m.-8 p.m. presentaciÓn a las 6:15 p.m. Reunión de la Conexión de la Avenida 59 Papago 10 Freeway Van Buren Street Buckeye Road I-10 62nd Avenue Roosevelt Street 61st Avenue 63rd Avenue Latham Street Meeting Location Sunridge Elementary School Lower Buckeye Road Broadway Road ión c a z i l a ¡Actu tudio! del Es El Departamento de Transporte de Arizona y la Administración Federal de Autopistas continúan estudiando la propuesta para la autopista South Mountain, y le invita a asistir a la reunión pública para aprender acerca de recientes cambios sobre la conexión propuesta con la Interestatal 10. En respuesta a fondos disminuyéndose para proyectos regionales, el Consejo Regional de la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa, votó en octubre del 2009 para aprobar el plan regional revisado. Los siguientes cambios fueron incluidos para la autopista South Mountain: • Reducir la autopista propuesta a ocho carriles (del concepto previo a 10-carriles) Sunridge Park Sunridge Elementary School Cafetería 6244 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ A767 actUaliZaciÓn de la aUtopista soUth moUntain 51st Avenue Estudio del Corredor de Tranportación PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 59th Avenue South Mountain • Southern Avenue W59 Derecho de Paso Alternativo Descargo de responsabilidad: Este documento es una traducción del texto original escrito en inglés. Esta traducción no es oficial y no es vinculante a este estado o subdivisión política de este estado. • Mover el alineamiento de la sección oeste entre la Calle Lower Buckeye y la I-10 para conectar con la Avenida 59 (en lugar de la Avenida 55) Esta reunión de información pública se realizará para discutir cómo una conexión de la autopista South Mountain con la Avenida 59 le pudiera afectar a usted y su propiedad. El propósito de la reunión es proporcionar una visión general del estudio y la conexión propuesta con la Avenida 59, discutir el estudio y los procesos del derecho de paso y el horario, así como ofrecer la oportunidad a los miembros de la comunidad para hacer preguntas y proporcionar su opinión. Se dará una presentación breve de las recomendaciones en la reunión, después seguirá una casa abierta donde los representantes del equipo de estudio estarán presentes para responder a preguntas. Para información adicional del estudio y la reunión o para presentar comentarios por escrito, por favor contacte a ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018. Correo electrónico ADOT@hdrinc. com; tel: 602.712.7006; número de fax: 602.522.7707. Los comentarios por escrito deberán ser presentados antes del 24 de febrero, 2010. Acta de los ciudadanos americanos con limitaciones físicas (ADA): las personas con alguna limitación física pueden solicitar adaptación razonable tal como un intérprete en lenguaje de signos, llamando al 602.712.7006. Las solicitudes deben ser presentadas lo antes posible para organizar el alojamiento. Este documento está disponible en formatos alternativos contactando a Heather Honsberger al número telefónico descrito arriba. Este documento está disponible en español llamando 602.712.7006. No. de Proyecto ADOT 202L MA 054 H5764 01L No. de Proyecto Federal NH 202-D(ADY) Para más información con respecto a este estudio, visite por favor el sitio web del estudio en www.southmountainfreeway.com. Appendix 6-2 ariZona departMent oF tranSportation and FederaL highway adMiniStration ARIZONA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION AND fEDERAl hIghwAy ADMINISTRATION puBLiC inForMation Meeting This public information meeting will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway connection at 59th Avenue might affect you and your property. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the study and the proposed connection at 59th Avenue, discuss the study and right-of-way processes and schedule, and provide the opportunity for members of the community to ask questions and provide input. A brief presentation regarding the recommendations will be made at the meeting, followed by an open house where representatives from the study team will be present to answer questions. Van Buren Street Buckeye Road Broadway Road W59 Alternative Right-of-way Meeting Location For additional study and meeting information or to submit comments in writing, please contact ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018; e-mail: ADOT@hdrinc.com; phone: 602.712.7006; or fax: 602.522.7707. Written comments should be submitted by February 24, 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by calling 602.712.7006. Requests should be made as early as possible to arrange the accommodation. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting Heather Honsberger at the telephone number referenced above. Este documento está disponible en español llamando 602.712.7006. JULIE KLIEWER ADOT Phoenix District Engineer MICHAEL BRUDER FLOYD ROEHRICH ADOT Project Manager ADOT State Engineer THIS NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT www.southmountainfreeway.com. ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) 59th avenue Connection Meeting The Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration continue to study the proposed South Mountain Freeway and invite you to attend a public meeting to learn about recent changes to the proposed connection with Interstate 10. In response to declining funding for regional projects, the Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Council voted in October 2009 to approve the revised regional plan. The following changes were included for the South Mountain Freeway: • Reduce the proposed freeway to eight lanes (from the previous 10-lane concept) • Shift the Western Section alignment between Lower Buckeye Road and I-10 to connect at 59th Avenue (rather than 55th Avenue). This public information meeting will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway connection at 59th Avenue might affect you and your property. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the study and the proposed connection at 59th Avenue, discuss the study and right-of-way processes and schedule, and provide the opportunity for members of the community to ask questions and provide input. A brief presentation regarding the recommendations will be made at the meeting, followed by an open house where representatives from the study team will be present to answer questions. wednesday, February 10, 2010 6 p.m.—8 p.m. presentation at 6:15 p.m. Sunridge elementary School Cafeteria 6244 w. roosevelt Street phoenix, aZ 10 Van Buren Street 51st Avenue • Reduce the proposed freeway to eight lanes (from the previous 10-lane concept) • Shift the Western Section alignment between Lower Buckeye Road and I-10 to connect at 59th Avenue (rather than 55th Avenue). 10 Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway update 59th Avenue The Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration continue to study the proposed South Mountain Freeway and invite you to attend a public meeting to learn about recent changes to the proposed connection with Interstate 10. In response to declining funding for regional projects, the Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Council voted in October 2009 to approve the revised regional plan. The following changes were included for the South Mountain Freeway: 51st Avenue Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway update 59th avenue Connection Meeting wednesday, February 10, 2010 6 p.m.—8 p.m. presentation at 6:15 p.m. Sunridge elementary School Cafeteria 6244 w. roosevelt Street phoenix, aZ Buckeye Road 67th Avenue PUBlIC INfORMATION MEETINg 59th Avenue • 67th Avenue A768 Broadway Road W59 Alternative Right-of-way For additional study and meeting information or to submit Meeting Location comments in writing, please contact ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018; e-mail: ADOT@hdrinc.com; phone: 602.712.7006; or fax: 602.522.7707. Written comments should be submitted by February 24, 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by calling 602.712.7006. Requests should be made as early as possible to arrange the accommodation. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting Heather Honsberger at the telephone number referenced above. Este documento está disponible en español llamando 602.712.7006. JULIE KLIEWER ADOT Phoenix District Engineer MICHAEL BRUDER FLOYD ROEHRICH, JR. ADOT Project Manager ADOT State Engineer THIS NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT www.southmountainfreeway.com. Arizona Republic – January 27 and February 3, 2010 ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Arizona Informant – January 27 and February 3, 2010 Appendix 6-2 ariZona departMent oF tranSportation and FederaL highway adMiniStration puBLiC inForMation Meeting Sunridge Elementary School Cafeteria 6244 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ 10 Van Buren Street 51st Avenue Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6 p.m—8 p.m. Presentation at 6:15 p.m. 59th Avenue Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway update 59th avenue Connection Meeting 67th Avenue Buckeye Road The Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration continue to study the proposed South Mountain Freeway and invite you to attend a public meeting to learn about recent changes to the proposed Broadway Road connection with Interstate 10. In response to declining funding for regional projects, W59 Alternative Right-of-way the Maricopa Association of Governments’ Meeting Location Regional Council voted in October 2009 to approve the revised regional plan. The following changes were included for the South Mountain Freeway: • Reduce the proposed freeway to eight lanes (from the previous 10-lane concept) • Shift the Western Section alignment between Lower Buckeye Road and I-10 to connect at 59th Avenue (rather than 55th Avenue). This public information meeting will be held to discuss how a South Mountain Freeway connection at 59th Avenue might affect you and your property. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the study and the proposed connection at 59th Avenue, discuss the study and right-of-way processes and schedule, and provide the opportunity for members of the community to ask questions and provide input. A brief presentation regarding the recommendations will be made at the meeting, followed by an open house where representatives from the study team will be present to answer questions. For additional study and meeting information or to submit comments in writing, please contact ADOT c/o Heather Honsberger, HDR Engineering, Inc., 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018; e-mail: ADOT@hdrinc.com; phone: 602.712.7006; or fax: 602.522.7707. Written comments should be submitted by February 24, 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by calling 602.712.7006. Requests should be made as early as possible to arrange the accommodation. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting Heather Honsberger at the telephone number referenced above. JULIE KLIEWER ADOT Phoenix District Engineer MICHAEL BRUDER ADOT Project Manager FLOYD ROEHRICH, JR. ADOT State Engineer THIS NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT www.southmountainfreeway.com ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) Prensa Hispana – January 27 and February 3, 2010 This page intentionally left blank • A769 Appendix 6-2 JUNTA DE INFORMACIÓN PÚBLICA souTh mounTain Freeway updaTe February 2011 Martes, 22 de febrero, 2011 6 p.M.—8 p.M. presentación a las 6:15 p.M. South Mountain Avenue Avenida 55th Calle Beverly Avenida 56th 9th Dobbins Road Preparatoria Betty H. Fairfax A v e n ida 5 Avenida 59th Calle Baseline Avenida 59th Proposed freeway alignment through Laveen Baseline Road Olney Avenue Avenida South Mountain Elliot Road Preparatoria Betty H. Fairfax Cafetería, Edificio #600 8225 South 59th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85339 dio u t s E e d n ó i c a z ! i Actuarlea de Laveen de A NORTH W59 Alternative (common to both options) 63rd Avenue option 61st Avenue option 55th Avenue Transportation Corridor Study PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 59th Avenue South Mountain 61st Avenue • 63rd Avenue A770 The Arizona Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and the Maricopa Association of Governments, in conjunction with the City of Phoenix, invite you to attend a public information meeting to learn about recent proposed options to the South Mountain Freeway through Laveen. made at the meeting. ADOT will also provide information regarding the 63rd Avenue and 61st Avenue alternative options. An open house will be held following the presentations. In addition, members of the community will have the opportunity to ask questions and provide input during the meeting. The purpose of this public information meeting is to present the W59 Alternative and two proposed options between Baseline and Elliot roads, from 63rd Avenue east to 61st Avenue. A brief presentation by the City of Phoenix regarding their recommendations will be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by calling 602.712.7006. Requests should be made as early as possible to arrange the accommodation. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting the team at 602.712.7006. Este documento está disponible en español llamando al 602.712.7006. For additional study and meeting information or to submit comments in writing, please contact: E-mail: ADOT@hdrinc.com South Mountain Corridor Team Phone: 602.712.7006 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350 Fax: 602.522.7707 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Please submit written comments by March 8, 2011. ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Federal Project No. NH 202-D(ADY) For more information regarding this study, please visit the study Web site at www.southmountainFreeway.com Appendix 6-2 Febrero 2011 Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6 p.m.–8 p.m. presenTaTion aT 6:15 p.m. Avenida 63rd Avenida South Mountain Calle Dobbins Betty H. Fairfax High School 55th Avenue Beverly Road 56th Avenue 5 9 th nue Ave 59th Drive Baseline Road 59th Avenue Alineamiento propuesto del autopistaa través de Laveen Calle Baseline Avenida Olney South Mountain Avenue Calle Elliot Betty H. Fairfax High School Cafeteria, Bldg. #600 8225 South 59th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85339 ea r A n e e Lav dyUpdate! S tu NORTE Alternativa W59 (Común para ambas opciones) Opción Avenida 63rd Opción Avenida 61st Avenida 55th public information meeting A771 inforMación MÁs reciente-aUtopista 202 soUtH MoUntain Avenida 59th Transportation Corridor Study PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 Avenida 61st South Mountain • El Departamento de Transporte de Arizona, la Administración Federal de Autopistas y la Asociación de Gobiernos de Maricopa, en conjunto con la Ciudad de Phoenix, le invitan para que asista a la junta de información pública para conocer las opciones más recientes que se han propuesto del autopista South Mountain a través de Laveen. de la Ciudad. ADOT también proporcionará información en cuanto a opciones alternativas de la Ave 63 y la Ave 61. Una casa abierta se realizará despues de las presentaciones. Además, miembros de la comunidad tendrán la oportunidad de hacer preguntas y propias aportaciones durante la junta. Acta de Ciudadanos Americanos con Limitación Física (ADA): Personas con limitación física pueden solicitar alguna adaptación El propósito de esta junta pública informativa es razonable tal como un Intérprete en Lenguaje de Signos llamando al 602.712.7006. Cualquier solicitud debe ser hecha lo antes posible presentar la alternativa W59 y 2 opciones que para ordenar cualquier adaptación. Este documento está disponible han sido propuestas entre las calles de Baseline en formato alternativo o contactando al grupo encargado al 602.712.7006. y Elliot, desde la Ave 63 Este hacia la Ave 61. La Descargo de responsabilidad: Este documento es una traducción del Ciudad de Phoenix hará una presentación breve texto original escrito en inglés. Esta traducción no es oficial y no es vinculante a este estado o subdivisión política de este estado. en la junta, de las recomendaciones por parte Para información adicional de la junta y del estudio o presentar comentarios por escrito, favor contacte: Correo electrónico: ADOT@hdrinc.com South Mountain Corridor Team Teléfono: 602.712.7006 3200 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 350 Fax: 602.522.7707 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Favor presentar comentarios por escrito antes del 8 de marzo, 2011. Proyecto ADOT No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L Proyecto Federal No. NH 202-D(ADY) Para más información con respecto a este estudio, visite por favor el sitio web del estudio en www.southMountainfreeway.com A772 • Appendix 6-2 • A8 UWQZ VIERNES11DEFEBRERODE2011 ICA1l'llltJ111 ARIZONA "~'~1n:raetnrren:cmra;~~.LY!:m-teur·~1f~P"'f'6~'"'"'1'ffta~we,s7l!Jfifg:tt?at:J:'O'fi71it?gta'V~:::""·~n.W"'H'·ercaso:,.,--*:"'~w~-""'"""""'""''w"w""l'0Wi!Wt""No));Cj*"~a'Sa;;'(fe~'LOugntl~CfOUde"V1Vf.i"'COil'*'t~dlstnto"f01lllROll'YUU~ayuaante'~d(t'""' ,~ hace desde afuera, smo a traves de dad-de-la-distanc1a.htm Los mvesl!gadores entrevista- "sus padres y Ie confiscaron per- Giffords, Gabe Zimmerman. ron a testigos y tenencias como una computadora Esta previsto que una nueva quesobrevivientes y notas manuscri~ que fueron rella reincorpore esas acusaciones del · at~ntado a encontradas en una caja fuerte. En de homicidio. Piden apoyo para nino quemado su cue:rpo, establecieron Una Cuenta de banco pata =udar fondos pata los gastos m&licos. Eljoven se encuentra en condicion , Familiares del critica en el Centro de Quemaduras de menorJoeAnthoriy Ariwna, donde · Fe:mandez, de 11 do 28 de enero afios, quien conva.. quemadoras en Ieee debido a que- cuerpo en un accidente en el ttaspatio maduras graves en de su casaen Youngtown. . De acuerdo con reportes, Joe Anthony se El regato cJe San Valentin encontrabaentmareuoi.On que seguro adorarin.:.. fumiliar cuando ocurri6la tiagedia ElmeiJ.orintenroechar gasolina a un quernadOr de gas provocando una SoloDomltlgo·.:Jui:\a llamaJada que 1e produjo ~lkata.riia~ quemaduras serias en ca$ ARIZONA todo su CUCipO. Meses MOVNTlUN antes, en !a misma cuadra del domicilio de !a fumiINN ReDta de cabinas aiojamiento y Jia, nn joven fue victima de$ayuno induido. en F1apt:aH de un accidente similar. •Ullicadoen13acresdep:noponderosa En ese caso, el menor •Tota!menteamuebJadosyconchimenea Oscar Fuentes, de 14afios •?errosbierweflklos no sobrevivi6. (9:&8) 774·89$9 Los fumiliares de Joe 1\\lw.arizonamoontaininn,com Expira 3/3/U. Anthony se eiicuentran PORSAMUEL MURILLO ElpropOsitodeestojUntapUb!iroinformotiva es presentor fa aherno.tivo: W59 y 2opdones que han sido propuestas entre !os ca!!es da Baseline yElliot, desde Ia AvB ,63 ESfe~cia fa Ava 61.la Qudad de Phoenix harQ uno presentaciOn breve en In [unto, de l~r&omendaciones par parte de Ia Gudnd. AOOTtombien proPf!rcionart:i informatiOn en tiJanto oopqOnes a!ternalivas de !a Avr:r 63 y I~ Ave 6L Una coso: ab~eJftise rea!izorQ-despues de los presentaciones.AdemJis, mfembros de kt wmunidod tend ron Ia oportunidod de hocer pregunlosypropiosoportadonesdurontelajunfa. Especial Porainformi6nUdidonoldela[unfo,delestudiDopresenJarcomentariosporescrito, favor comorte ol grupo de South Moun!Oin Corridor, 3200 EComeloock Rd., Ste 350, Phoenix, AZ 15018; corroo elertr6nico: ADOT@hdrinccom; telifoou: 602112.7006; ofax: 601.522.7707. Favor pre,sentor wmenlori?S por esa~o antes deJa ~e marz~, 20ll. 2 p<:>r 1 ActadeGudmlonosAr ~1ronos:o:n:~~~~~l!.~i~~~~~:li;~±~~~;~~~ adaplud6orozcoohletolcomo ~ 1 ~~~ JULIE KliEWER logeoie(()/Distd:o Cooslrocc16n'Phoenix:·ADOT @II CHAUN Hill ADOT Dire<:tor-?royecto ADOT lngeniero/Esla-do ESTE AVISO DEL PER!6D!CO Y OTRA INFORN\AC!6N DEL PROYEGO ESTAN D!SPONIBl.ES EN; www.SoulhMountainfreewzyy.com AriwnoR.epub)ic-5defebrcro,2011y!.aVo:.;-llde EL JOE ANTHONY FERNANDEZ SE ENCUENTRA EN ESTADO CRi'nCO EN EL CENIRO DE QUEMADURAS DE ARIZONA EN PHOENIX. consteiiJados por el accidente y hasla el memento no ban querido dar declamciones a los medios. Sin embargo, con apoyo de pernonal del Centro M&lico del Condsdo Maricopa, accedieron a dar a conocer !a apertura de una cuenta a nombre de Joe Anlhony en el banco Wells Fargo. Si usted desea apoyar a esta fumiJia, visite cnalquier sucursal de Wells Fargo y enlregue su donative. Contacte al reporte10: samuet.murillo@lavozarizona.com El periodico The Arizona Republic. del domingo Appendix 6-3 APPENDIX 6-3 SOUTH MOUNTAIN CITIZENS ADVISORY TEAM Appendix 6-3, Citizens Advisory Team, includes examples of public questions submitted at SMCAT meetings, the criteria for evaluating alternatives developed by the SMCAT and the SMCAT letter to ADOT identifying the western section preferred build alternative. Public Questions and Comments Received at SMCAT Meetings The South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team began accepting public comments at the meeting held April 22, 2004. The summary below includes all meetings from that time through the April 27, 2006 meeting. 4-22-04 David Folts, Concerned Families along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: You state that the projected traffic for South Mountain Loop 202 would be 155,000 vehicles a day. Knowing this, is it possible to have up to 400 vehicles or more a minute traveling this road during heavy vehicle flow periods; i.e. 6-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. Response: Theoretically, 400 cars per minute could use the ramp during rush hour, but there would be no cars throughout the day. This additional technical information was provided after the meeting and will be distributed to the public at the next scheduled CAT meeting. Based on computer traffic modeling calculated in 2001, it is estimated that a South Mountain Freeway would carry approximately 155,000 vehicles per day in 2025. This could equate to 39 vehicles per lane, per minute during the sing busiest hour of the day. To put this in perspective, 155,000 vehicles per day is the approximate level of traffic for I-10 between Ray Road and Warner today, in 2004. Question: With the vehicle numbers and type from proposed I-10 reliever not being included at this specific time, would this have an improved effect on the air quality projections for the Environmental Impact Statement on this project? Response: We will use traffic numbers with the I-10 reliever corridor included in the model. Question: Is I-10 reliever new? Response: Yes, part of the regional plan but needs to be developed through a similar planning process. 6-24-04 Shea Stickler, Citizen Question: Since the onset of this project/committee, how many new homes have been sold and build between 38th Avenue to 99th Avenue north of Dobbins and South of I-10? Question: How many homes are sold/built between each meeting; and by the time the project is defined, how much money will have been expended buying up newly sold land to make way for the route? Response: We are not sure. Question: If this project is to be funded by a county sales tax; where is the county’s representation and what is its viewpoint? Response: Monthly Progress Team meetings are held and there are local and county representatives at those meetings. The intent of the CAT was to have representation from the general public. • A773 A774 • Appendix 6-3 J. Pima, Citizen Question: At what point will the pursuit of “other” alternative routes be closed in the decision-making process? When will the draft report be published? Response: Draft EIS identifies preferred alternatives and final selection is the Record of Decision. Draft EIS for the West side would be early next year and full draft by end of 2005 depending on East side alternatives. The study has been boiled down to 3 reasonable build alternatives on the west side. Comment: When my neighborhood does not show upon a map that is supposed to represent the route’s impact on my neighbors, you send the message that we aren’t important. Response: The team routinely updates aerial maps of the study area. Maps shown tonight were schematic and not intended to show every neighborhood. Technical analysis uses more detailed maps. West Side changes are happening rapidly and we work to stay current. Chris Bale, Citizen Question: Has the FHWA been involved in the design/construction of other noninterstate freeways? Response: Yes. Question: Will this section of the 202 receive more funding from the Federal Government? If so, is this whole process being additionally held up because this freeway is I-10 to I-10? Response: The process makes this freeway eligible for federal money. Conducting a federal level EIS to make it eligible for federal money is a state decision. The Red Mountain and Santan freeways have all gone through NEPA process. Tim, Citizen Question: Do the traffic projections reflect the distribution of traffic bypassing Phoenix versus “internal” (within the county) traffic? Which use has priority in terms of routing (i.e., Pecos, Queen Creek, Riggs)? Response: Traffic numbers are for total traffic. We have estimated the percentage that is pass through vs. local. We have not studied traffic for Queen Creek or Riggs Road because they are not part of the current analysis. Kent Oertle, Citizen Question: We need a traffic study that is current in order to plan properly. How long would it take to complete a traffic analysis which includes 30-year population projects? Since it will take 10-15 years to complete, 30-year projections may not be enough. Response: In the past we have used 20-year projections and are now change to 25-year projections to meet traffic needs 20 years after the project is built. MAG is working to establish a model that can handle 2030. We do not have an estimate of when we will get the 2030 from MAG. 7-22-04 Ross Hendrix, Ahwatukee Question: What percent is “pass through,” that is Tucson to California traffic? Response: The great bulk of the traffic is local or regional traffic. MAG estimates that only about three percent of the traffic would be “pass through.” 9-23-04 Wilfred Wellington, Sacaton Question: Is the same formula used in land appraisals on reservation lands? Response: The same formula is used to appraise land on or off the reservation. Bill Ramsay, Phoenix Question: 1) Please describe methodology used to calculate traffic volumes. 2) Is the resulting number a (a) mean or (b) median? Response: Information to be provided at the next meeting. (Anonymous) Question: What is the cost difference between at, above and below grade elevation? Response: Numerous factors determine construction costs. Typically, the least expensive is at grade and the most expense is depressed. 12-2-04 Larry Lee, Phoenix Question: Is there a study to show us the crime statistics? Response: This is not traditionally studied in an EIS. However, this comment will be taken under consideration by the study team. Question: Is there any thought to making use of light rail along the Pecos route? Response: Light rail corridors are identified by MAG and Valley Metro. Currently I-10 west is the only corridor being pursued. Question: I heard Pecos has already been selected by ADOT. Response: This is not true. David Folts, Ahwatukee Question: Is it possible to use South Mountain as a secondary route to Canamex? Response: SR85 to US93 is under study as the Canamex. Question: What percentage of commercial traffic would use South Mountain as a bypass? Response: Initial analysis shows about 10 percent, which is comparable to many current Valley freeways. We will continue to look at this issue and the information will be brought to this group. Question: How many vehicles per minute can we expect? Response: The original projection was about 150,000 vehicles per day, and now we are looking at about 170,000. Peak hours are usually at about 10 percent of that figure. Appendix 6-3 Question: How many acres of South Mountain Park will be taken? Response: The original study showed 40-50 acres. Question: What approvals would be needed to build a highway through South Mountain Park? Have any already given their approval? Response: FHWA would have to approve a 4(f). There would be many agencies involved including EPA and the Department of the Interior. Question: How many feet wide will South Mountain Loop be including on and off ramps. Response: 800 feet is typical; 1800 feet if the area is skewed. Question: Will air quality improve, get worse, or stay the same within a half-mile of the freeway? Response: Air quality will be analyzed in the EIS. Bill Ramsay, Phoenix Question: What is the total number of vehicles – commercial and private passenger – expressed as a percentage of the total number of vehicles on Maricopa County Freeways, that the South Mountain Freeway is expected to carry per day? Response: I don’t know. We will get back to you on this question. 1-27-05 David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: Many questions concerning the human environment were submitted and asked to be included in the EIS. Is there a section on the EIS for Human Environment? (lungs, asthma, crime pollutants ingested by living near and breathing this air for 20 years) If not, why? Response: Information not available at this meeting will address at the February meeting. Question: About ½ way down Pecos Road in Ahwatukee, there is a portable box 8’X12’ structure that resembles an Environmental Sampling station. 1) Did ADOT or an agent of ADOT put this structure here? 2) What specific functions are happening in this structure? Response: The box is a cell phone tower and has nothing to do with ADOT. Question: With all the growth beyond the boundaries of loops 202 and 303 happening today (SanTan, Maricopa, etc.) why isn’t ADOT planning highways beyond these areas to stay ahead of the curve instead of shoe horning a highway into a heavily populated area? Response: The Regional Transportation Plan (Prop 400) adopted by the voters does include studies beyond the Loop 303. Question: How close can this highway and interchanges be built to a home or school? Is there a buffer or minimum distance for any aspect of this highway that will border school or private homes? Response: Like to have a clear zone between road and end of right-ofway where possible. There is no standard or policy on the distance. Question: Will hazardous cargo be allowed on this highway and if so will there be a plan/procedure in place to lessen or eliminate injuries or fatalities for spills or accidents? Response: We do not know at this time. Question: Will the incidence of asthma increases in children living along ½ mile South Mountain Loop 202 and if so by what amount? Response: Information not available at this meeting will address at the February meeting. Question: Will birth defects be more prevalent among pregnant women living within ½ mile of this highway and if so what would the most predominant birth defect? Response: Information not available at this meeting will address at the February meeting. Question: If someone lived within a ¼ mile of this highway for 20 years, would he see decreased lung function from living so close to South Mountain Loop 202 being that this highway could be used as a bypass for commercial diesel traffic? Response: Information not available at this meeting will address at the February meeting. Question: Can you name some of the pollutants from this highway that would find its way into a human’s bloodstream and urine for people living within ½ mile of this highway? Response: Information not available at this meeting will be addressed at the February meeting. Question: If you are certain as to where the intersections will be on the Ahwatukee section of proposed South Mountain Loop 202 where are the drawing showing all this? Sure you must have at least a single line AutoCAD drawing showing this proposed highway. Why is ADOT still showing proposed South Mountain Loop 202 as a yellow line on today’s handout and not a more detailed drawing? Response: The alternative shapes shown on the handout represent the technical study right-of-way requirements for each of the action alternatives. Preliminary geometry was used to determine these shapes for EIS study purposes. Final design of the freeway mainline and all interchanges cannot and will not be completed until after the study process has resulted in a record of decision on the EIS. Preliminary geometry will be presented in ADOT’s Location / Design Concept Report. Detailed geometry will be determined during final design and presented at that time. Question: Because Ahwatukee schools are so close with one elementary school sitting alongside this proposed Highway what plans/procedures if any are in place to protect the children from adverse health effects from Highway pollution (diesel Exhaust) during high pollution advisories? Will the existing air filter system (HVAC) protect our children from PM 10 and PM 2.5? Response: Information not available at this meeting will address at the February meeting. Question: Why aren’t any of these CAT meeting for proposed South Mountain Loop 202 being held in the village of Ahwatukee? After all these residents will also be directly affected in many ways from this highway. Response: The meetings are held in the central portion of the study area to be equally convenient to the southwest valley and Ahwatukee residents. • A775 A776 • Appendix 6-3 Question: How many acres of South Mountain Park will be taken to build this highway? Response: The study team is still investigating the potential land needed from South Mountain Park/Preserve associated with all action alternatives. For reference purposes, the 1988 alignment required approximately 40-50 acres of land from South Mountain Park/Preserve. Dave Vontersch Question: So is it a done deal that Pecos Road west of I-10 will be the location for freeway development? Please place a stake in the ground as far as final alignment and schedule and stick to it, there seems to be excess mods, changes, amendments, waffling and/or supplements! Response: A decision has not been made. ADOT is continuing to meet with Gila River Indian Community. 2-24-05 David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: On 4/6/02 Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 send 13 questions concerning the human environment via Registered Certified US mail through the US Postal Service to EPA, ADOT, FHWA, HDR Engineering, AZ Gov, etc. In this letter we asked to share all 13 Questions included in the South Mountain EIS. I have recently found out some or most of the above mentioned questions will not be included in the EIS. Why? What could be in these questions to where the answers wouldn’t be included in the EIS. Please explain. Response: The project team has received and reviewed Mr. Folts letter with 13 questions. There will be a response to the questions in the draft EIS. Question: If proposed South Mountain Loop 202 is built through South Mountain Park would there be any attempt to block this highway view from people enjoying the vistas of this park? Response: Visual impact is one of the technical studies currently underway. The findings of that study will be shared with the SMCAT. Question: Are there plans to close and rebuild relocate Lagos Elementary School while will sit right alongside this highway and if so why? Response: If there is a direct impact on the school, the team will identify the impact and then evaluate potential mitigation measures. Journal of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, authored by Frederica Perera, Director of Columbia University Center for Children’s Environmental Health. Response: The project team will review this study. Question: Will the fuel line that resides along proposed South Mountain Loop 202 have to moved, reclassified or other infrastructure put in place because of this proposed highway? Response: Utility conflicts and potential relocations are one of the technical studies currently underway. The findings of the study will be shared with the SMCAT. Question: If proposed South Mountain Loop 202 is not built can the city turn the excess land along Pecos Road into a greenway with walking and biking trails for everyone to enjoy possibly connecting the above-mentioned hiking trail to a trail in South Mountain Park? Response: The City of Phoenix would need to address this issue. Question: Would the City of Phoenix City Council have to approve the transfer of land from South Mountain Park to build this highway? Response: The City of Phoenix would need to address this issue. Question: Why was all of the information on proposed South Mountain Loop 202 removed from ADOT’s main web? Should someone deny this please see attached e-mail from ADOT and read the response aloud. Response: The information was not removed from the ADOT website. However, a recent redesign of the ADOT website has made it difficult to find the website. The public is encouraged to use the address www.southmountainfreeway.com to obtain direct access to the website. ADOT staff has been notified of this. 3-24-05 David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: Which agency completes the paperwork and process of (4f) of using South Mountain Parkland for this proposed highway? Which branch and department is responsible to see this process along? Response: For Arizona Department of Transportation projects, FHWA has ultimate authority to deal with Historical Sites and Parks. Question: With Lagos Elementary School sitting right alongside proposed South Mountain Loop 202 is there a sufficient indoor HVAC air filtration system in place to filter out PM 2.5 and PM 10 mostly from diesel exhaust so this cannot enter the lungs of our children? Response: The project team does not have the information to address this issue. Question: What safeguards are in place if North American Indian Artifacts are found? Will there be enough time allotted to properly reclaim these items? Response: The process to address cultural resources includes several steps. 1) Archeologists research documentation followed by field visits to document findings. 2) The report is reviewed by all recognized tribes and federal and state agencies. 3) Additional testing is done by digging small trenches. 4) The team creates a data recovery plan and all recovered artifacts will be handled per the approved plan. Question: I am asking ADOT to include and publish the results from the following study in the EIS and to the SMCAT members: “Links in the Womb Chromosome Damage to Elevated Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons,” published in February’s Question: It appears that ADOT will need more land then the additional 50 acres stated by ADOT earlier. Last week I was shown additional acreage on the west end of South Mountain Loop 202 being reserved as a right of way. How many more additional acres of Appendix 6-3 South Mountain Park will be needed then previously stated? Response: We are still looking at alternatives to minimize impacts to the park and will report back on the impacted acreage. Question: How many cubic yards of soil must be removed from South Mountain Park as to construct this highway through South Mountain Park? Response: The number has been calculated but is not available tonight. We will post to the website. Question: Will noise levels in the classrooms at Lagos school before and after highway construction? If levels are above Federal permissible limits what action is planned? Response: We will ask noise author to address when the noise analysis is presented. Question: Since it is very possible for South Mountain Loop 202 to be used as a bypass around Phoenix with quite a bit of the traffic being trucks, is there a more specific study taking into account such as diesel soot/diesel exhaust finding its way into Ahwatukee residents lungs for a realistic span of 15-20 years, i.e., children growing up in this neighborhood? Response: We will have a detailed air quality presentation when the technical report is completed. Question: Was part of the decision to build South Mountain Loop 202 at or above grade along Pecos Road made to achieve better air quality standards? Does elevated or depressed highway design ever affect the air quality in the immediate area? Response: We will discuss this issue when we have the detailed air quality presentation. Question: Who if anyone will measure the turbidity of the water as mentioned by Ralph from ADOT? How often will the water be sampled and tested? Who forwards the results to the EPA? Response: Turbidity of water measures cloudiness and/or sedimentation. It is tested by qualified professionals as determined by a plan to be set up between the contractor and ADOT. Question: Is the Sierra Club member still a member of the SMCAT Group? Response: Yes. They will be appointing a replacement for Chad Campbell who is no longer able to attend the meetings. William Ramsay Question: How was the study area (red border on draft dated January 2005) determined? Response: We used the purpose and need to identify a geographic area. Some technical reports will look outside the study area, i.e., air quality. Please identify the street that constitutes the study area in Ahwatukee (running EastWest). Response: It is approximately ½ mile North of Pecos Road. Question: What requirement does ADOT and FHWA have to notify residents within the study area? Response: We are required to notify within study area. There are established guidelines but not specific requirements. Question: Are realtors obligated to notify individuals purchasing homes within the study area of the potential impact of the proposed project? Response: It is common practice if a realtor has knowledge of a project, they should disclose. (Anonymous) Question: Why do the alternatives have to be south of Pecos? Response: Have looked at US60 extension to the west but didn’t meeting the purpose and need of regional mobility. 4-28-05 David Folts, Concerned Families along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: Why doesn’t ADOT how (publish on South Mountain web page) all the public meetings that they host or attend month by month; i.e., HOA, Village Committee, etc. thus allowing the public a chance to attend? Response: Any ADOT-hosted meetings are posted on the website. The team is invited to other meetings to present information and/or answer questions, but attendance at these meetings is determined by the host organization and may not be appropriate for the general public to attend. Question: Last week I heard a process described, I think it was part of the 4F process. I heard a statement that a visual check on the surface of the ground would be completed for Indian Artifacts which would include pottery, burial grounds, etc. With this area being so close to the Gila Nation. There is a better way to complete this. There is a multitude of tolls/devices that can sense many different masses or objects many feet below the surface. Response: We are consulting with the appropriate agencies regarding the best method to survey for and address any findings. Question: Will any test wells, i.e. ground contamination be affected by the construction of South Mountain Loop 202? If so, what process is used to insure that future data can still be tracked? Response: We will have to follow-up with that information. Question: If ADOT didn’t use any acreage from Alta Ridge of South Mountain Park, how many acres would still be needed on the southwest region of South Mountain Park to construct the South Mountain Loop 202? Response: That is still under study and is dynamic. We are looking at tunnels. Question: Will the cost per mile of South Mountain Loop 202 rule out a semi or fully depressed highway? Response: That is not a primary decision point. Question: Would the cost of tunneling through South Mountain Park overrule this type of construction on South Mountain Loop 202? Who would make the decision that this tunneling project would be too expensive? Response: “Extraordinary” costs will be discussed with the Federal Highway Administration. Question: If the decision is made not to build South Mountain Loop 202, what other plans are in place to improve existing highway traffic specifically the Broadway curve on I-10? Response: A study is underway from SR51 to Santan freeway. Current alternatives • A777 A778 • Appendix 6-3 are to build a CD roadway (parallel freeway system). The alternative assumes that the South Mountain freeway is built. Question: Does the Police Department have any data that show the incidence of crime (density) along existing highways? If they do can they please let our organization know how to get this information. Response: Ms. Navida provided her contact information. Larry Landry, Phoenix Resident Question: Isn’t it true that at the end of the process ADOT will present a draft EIS and FHWA will accept or not? Don’t all the consultants work for ADOT? When will a North/South freeway alignment be recommended by ADOT? 5-26-05 David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: What approximate date will the draft EIS be published? Response: Fall of 2006, however, this is subject to change. Question: How close will proposed South Mountain Loop 202 be to San Juan Drive in South Mountain Park? Response: We don’t have dimensions, this will vary based on the alternatives, such as a cut-section or tunnel. Question: You show projected traffic flows in 2025. Why not show the percent of cars and include the percent of trucks using South Mountain Loop 202 including the truck traffic from the I-10 Reliever? Response: This is the first phase of traffic information. More information is forthcoming. Clayton Danzeisen, Danzeisen Dairy and Maricopa County Farm Bureau Question: Who will make the final decision concerning the route South Mountain freeway will take? Response: This is a joint ADOT and FHWA decision. Question: Can ADOT eliminate the line starting with GRIC right now? Response: Due to South Mountain Park, we have to look at all options as long as they are a possibility. Question: Does the traffic model consider traffic coming through the valley from Quartzite, Tucson, or Flagstaff for instance? Response: Yes. Question: Traffic model bubble – Does it work to have three lines? Such as, I-10 at Broadway 2003/no-build/build. Response: This is a good suggestion. Question: Since the I-10 reliever will not be built until after South Mountain, wouldn’t it be better to leave it out of the model? Response: Model looks at full build out at 2030. Question: Do the traffic flow volumes also include traffic from the I-10 Reliever? Response: Yes, the model includes projected traffic from I-10 reliever. William Ramsay Question: If SMCAT concludes its meeting with the status of the South Mountain eastern terminus being undecided in the draft EIS, what public forum will be available for review and input on the final decision on the eastern alignment and terminus? Response: We would not say the CAT was finished with only a west side alternative. There would be ongoing public involvement. Question: Do the no-build traffic flow volumes take into account the improvements that are planned along I-10 that were discussed in last month’s meeting? Response: Yes. Question: Is Lagos Elementary School officially considered Section 4(f)? Response: No. However, the ball fields and playgrounds are Section 4(f). Question: At last month’s meeting I asked about the Section 4(f) process and how the procedure of a visual check for American Indian Artifacts was insufficient way to complete this with all the instruments now available to identify certain materials underground. Why isn’t ADOT FHWA and HDR Engineering using ground penetrating radar to identify any American Indian artifacts below the soil? Many of these tools sell for $3000-$4000 and many businesses perform this service in such a situation. I would like this question entered in the meeting minutes. Response: At this stage of the process research is performed and visual surface surveys. We don’t do more until we are on the property. Question: If so, what neighborhoods surrounding Lagos are being considered as part of the Section 4(f) study? Response: Section 4(f) applies to a neighborhood only when it is eligible for historic designation. Question: How many acres of South Mountain Park are taken to build SMCAT Alternative 1? Include areas used for drainage, lighting and right-of-way areas. Response: Don’t know at this time. This will be shown in the final analysis. Question: Does ADOT, FHWA or HDR Engineering do any geophysical surveys (ground penetrating radar) as a standard process before building a highway? If this is not a standard process what makes this tool necessary when designing and building a highway? Response: No. This is traditionally later in the process. 6-23-05 David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: If this highway is built and audible levels measured in Lagos school are higher than federal law allows (noise from highway) what will be done to alleviate this potential problem? Will sound readings be taken before and after the highway is built? Will ongoing sound testing be completed as traffic continues to build years in the future? Response: The Draft EIS includes noise analysis and mitigation information. Noise readings are also taken after a freeway is built. The ADOT noise policy exceeds the federal guidelines. (ADOT allows less noise). Appendix 6-3 Question: At what point in the design or build out of a highway in Arizona is a survey done to find out what is under the earth/soil where the highway will sit? What type of readings are taken to see if rock, soil or other types of earth lie underground thus giving a clear picture on what must be removed for building highways. Response: During the EIS, geotechnical reports are reviewed. At the design phase, there is a complete report that includes borings. Question: In a previous meeting I think possibly by HDR Engineering, they stated that 4 million cu. ft. of soil would need to be removed under one of the alternatives as the highway runs through South Mountain Park. What would ADOT or the contractor do with all this soil, gravel and rock where would it go? Response: The figure is 4 million cu. yards of soil. The contractor uses as much as possible within the project and makes the final determination on any remaining materials. Question: Do the traffic volume maps take into account the price of gas/fuel one, two, ten and twenty years out? I ask this because the cost of fuel will have a very substantial effect on highway volumes as fuel reaches possible $3 and $4 a gallon price or beyond. Response: I don’t believe this is an assumption, but will find out. Comment: Don’t forget to include the I-10 Reliever on the revised traffic volumes map. Response: This is included and appears on the copies of the maps, but unfortunately not on the map projected on the screen. Comment: Two meetings ago a request was made for crime data in relation to existing highways. The SMCAT members were told there would be a six-month wait. Attached to this question are nine separate 2004 City of Phoenix crime density maps with major highways shown. Each map consists of separate crimes from homicide, auto theft, assault etc. Please make copies of these color key maps and hand them out to all the SMCAT members should they wish to view these. Response: We will do so with the caveat to members that there may or may not be a correlation of crime to freeways. Matthew Alan Lord Comment: I hope that the SMCAT does not decide to hold closed meetings. They are responsible for making decisions governing the taxpayer’s money and residents’ communities. While inaccurate reporting in the press is unfortunate, that is a risk we take by having a free press. As a researcher and as a citizen, I urge the SMCAT not to hold closed meetings. Perhaps a better response is to write to the editors of the offending news outlet so that they can ensure accurate reporting in the future. Thanks! 7-28-05 David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: Is it possible for the SMCAT to come up with alternative to no-build without having a continuous highway from east to west? Response: While such a vote is possible, constructing only half of the freeway will not be considered. Question: Will the Co Nexus information gathered in the meetings be presented at public meetings other than the SM CAT meetings? Response: How the information will be presented has not been determined yet. However, some level of information will be included in the Draft EIS. Question: Is it possible for a participant just not to vote if any of the answers do not fit his or her response? Response: Every member will vote on each question. However, each question will have a “don’t know” option. Question: Maybe the SMCAT members should frame the questions. Response: The questions will be framed by the members. Question: ADOT made the statement that 25 tribes have been contacted about the cultural significance of South Mountain Park land. Can you please point out the land that is actually being considered and state why this land was selected for this process. What input if any will the 25 tribes have? Response: We do not know what land is significant to the individual tribes. That will be discussed during the consultation process. Question: An archeological dig is happening in many areas where the new light rail transit where reside (sic). This present situation is finding North American Indian artifacts. Why isn’t this being done along certain areas for South Mountain Loop 202? Response: During the study process, archeologists investigate previous studies within the potentially affected areas and perform non-ground disturbing field surveys. The determination of whether archeological digs are necessary or not would only be determined if a build alternative is selected. If digs are necessary, they would occur after this study process is complete. William Ramsay Question: Regarding voting model: Questions of safety should be deleted. 1. Safety is a given. Why wouldn’t want safe highways and why would ADOT not automatically (not legible) into (not legible). 2. SMCAT members are not responsible for determining safety. Panel members are being asked to consider other topics that are more relevant, such as (not legible), relocation, etc. Response: The criteria used by the SuperRedTan CAT were developed by the CAT members. The relative operational safety of the alternatives was determined by the group to be important enough to vote on. Safety may or may not be an issue that this group will include in the criteria. Charlotte Nahee Comment: Most people in District 6 object to the freeway, but it is badly needed. 8-25-05 Alan Mann Comment: My wife and I moved our family to Laveen in 1981, and have enjoyed raising our children in a rural setting. We know the changes are coming to our area. Laveen has • A779 A780 • Appendix 6-3 spent a lot of time and energy trying to plan for this. We would like to encourage you to choose the realignment for W55 to the west of the current proposal. To move to the east would destroy Laveen’s planning for a community. I would also support W71. David Folts, Concerned Families Along South Mountain Loop 202 Question: What percentage of the 160,000 vehicles that are passing through South Mountain Park are trucks and what percentage are vehicles that are just passing through Phoenix? Please enter these questions in the EIS. Response: About 10 percent trucks; pass-through will be determined. Comment: I would think it a good idea to allow a 10-minute discussion period before each Co Nexus vote so all the SMCAT members are up to speed on definitions and intent. Response: This is a good idea. date (for a recommendation) by this body make a recommendation more difficult and more out of date? Response: We try to provide the best information available. W. William Foster Question: Were developers along 55th Avenue notified of this 55th Avenue alignment? Why is new residential development allowed near these corridors when this has been planned for so long? Response: Developers were notified. ADOT can’t prohibit property purchases. Development is at the discretion of the cities. Once ADOT owns right-of-way, signs can be posted. Those that show “future home of South Mountain Freeway” are related to purchases from the original environmental assessment in 1988. ADOT has not purchase land for this project since this new process began. 9-22-05 Question: Since South Mountain Loop 202 bypasses the center of the city and resides on the southern border, will South Mountain Loop 202 be the new Hazardous Cargo Route? If this is selected as a Hazardous Cargo Route will radioactive materials be allowed? Please describe some of the present hazardous cargo being transported on Hazardous Cargo Routes. Please enter this question in the EIS. Response: This was addressed as a previous CAT meeting and can be found in past meeting notes. Question: What if Santa Maria was registered as a historical community? Response: Since it may be eligible for listing as a historic community the study team must look to avoid affects on it, including taking any property from within the community. Question: Concerning particulate pollutions, are ultra fine particle (2010 14:46 Apr 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 through steps other than those recommended by OCR.22 Finally, if OCR begins the procedure to deny, annul, suspend, or terminate EPA assistance, recipients may request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)23 and, if the ALJ’s decision upholds a finding of noncompliance, the recipient may then file exceptions with the Administrator.24 III. Proposed Position EPA has evaluated its current policy and practices on the role and opportunities of complainants and recipients in complaint processing and resolution efforts. The following is intended to clarify and expand on EPA’s existing policy and practices in this regard. EPA intends to follow these principles in the processing and resolution of Title VI complaints, as applicable and appropriate: A. Complaint Process 1. EPA may seek clarification from the complainants during its initial review of the administrative complaint. At the time they file a complaint, complainants should provide EPA any relevant information available to them which supports their claim(s). 2. Upon acceptance of a complaint, but prior to the initiation of an investigation, EPA will offer in appropriate cases, at EPA’s expense, complainants and recipients the opportunity to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution efforts. EPA considers the ADR process to be a viable option for complainants and recipients to address some, if not all, of the issues raised in a complaint. 3. EPA will continue its present practice of requesting additional information (e.g. interviews) from the complainants and recipients during the course of an investigation. 4. EPA will make information in its case tracking system available. B. Informal Resolution And/Or Voluntary Compliance EPA may, at any point prior to a preliminary finding of compliance, seek to informally resolve complaints of discrimination. Following issuance of a preliminary determination of noncompliance, EPA may enter into a voluntary compliance agreement with a recipient to resolve a complaint. Where EPA issues a preliminary finding of noncompliance, in addition to notifying the recipient, CFR 7.115(d)(2). CFR 7.130(b)(2). 24 40 CFR 7.130(b)(3). 23 40 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 per the regulations, EPA intends to notify complainant of said finding.25 EPA will also, at the appropriate time, notify the public of a preliminary finding of noncompliance by posting its decision on its public access Web sites. If resolution discussions are occurring between EPA and the recipient, EPA will use its discretion, when appropriate, to engage complainants who want to provide input on potential remedies, and EPA will determine based on its discretion when such engagement may occur during the process. For instance, EPA, in appropriate cases, may request and consider complainant’s input on potential remedies for the complaint and may forward the suggested remedies to the recipient for further discussion with EPA. Alternatively, depending on the complaint, EPA may seek and consider complainant’s input on potential terms of a settlement agreement. C. Alternative Dispute Resolution As stated above, EPA considers the ADR process to be a viable option for complainants and recipients to address some, if not all, of the issues raised in Title VI complaints. As appropriate, EPA may offer the complainant and the recipient an opportunity to engage in the ADR process at any stage in the complaint process, even if an investigation has started. Dated: April 16, 2013. Diane E. Thompson, Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator. [FR Doc. 2013–09922 Filed 4–25–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–9008–8] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 04/15/2013 Through 04/19/2013 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 25 When preliminary finding has been made and the EPA is engaging in voluntary compliance in accordance with 40 CFR 7.115(d), EPA retains the discretion to contact the Recipient first. 22 40 PO 00000 24743 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1 Appendix 6-4 24744 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 81 / Friday, April 26, 2013 / Notices on EISs are available at: http:// www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ eisdata.html. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to EPA’s agency-wide furlough day on Friday, May 24th and the Federal holiday on Monday, May 27th, all EISs must be filed with EPA by Thursday, May 23rd by 5:00 p.m. eastern time for publication under a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for Friday, May 31st. EIS No. 20130100, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Placer Vineyards Specific Plan (SPK–1999–00737), Comment Period Ends: 06/10/2013, Contact: William Ness 916–557–5268. EIS No. 20130101, Final EIS, BLM, NV, Proposed Sloan Hills Competitive Mineral Material Sales, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Shonna Dooman 702–515–5174. EIS No. 20130102, Final EIS, BLM, WY, Gateway West Transmission Line Project, Wyoming and Idaho, Review Period Ends: 06/28/2013, Contact: Walt George 307–775–6116. EIS No. 20130103, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Carrie Nordeen 978–281–9272. EIS No. 20130104, Draft EIS, FHWA, AZ, South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway), Comment Period Ends: 07/24/2013, Contact: Alan Hansen 602–382–8964. EIS No. 20130105, Draft EIS, FHWA, TX, US 281 from Loop 1604 to Borgfeld, Comment Period Ends: 07/ 01/2013, Contact: Mr. Salvador Deocampo 512–536–5950. EIS No. 20130106, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Peter Cooper 301–427–8503. EIS No. 20130107, Final EIS, NRCS, WY, Henrys Fork Salinity Control Project Plan and Irrigation Improvements, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Astrid Martinez 307–233–6750. EIS No. 20130108, Final EIS, USA, HI, Construction and Operation of a Platoon Battle Course at Pohakuloa Training Area, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Linda B. McDowell 210–466–1593. Dated: April 23, 2013. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 2013–09951 Filed 4–25–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Apr 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 Postponement Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee of the ExportImport Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 105–121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed to support the expansion of the Bank’s financial commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the Bank. Further, the Committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with SubSaharan Africa. Postponement: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States must postpone its Tuesday, April 30, 2013, Open Special Meeting until further notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Exa Richards, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565–3455. Sharon Whitt, Director, Information Quality and Records Management. [FR Doc. 2013–09868 Filed 4–25–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690–01–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimate; ways to enhance the PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before June 25, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202– 395–5167 or via Internet at Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, via the Internet at judith-b.herman@fcc.gov. To submit your PRA comments by email send them to: PRA@fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–0214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. Number of Respondents: 70 respondents; 70 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours. Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement and on occasion reporting requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i) and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Total Annual Burden: 280 hours. Total Annual Cost: $42,400. Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A. Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking OMB approval for an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from them. There are no changes to the E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM Appendix G: DEIS Distribution to Agencies 26APN1 South Mountain Freeway, Summary Report: Public Involvement for the DEIS Federal-aid Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) | ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L • A835 Craig Matt Rosalinda Bob Cecilia Carla Carolynn Jessica John Matt Pam Raymond Curtis Randy Willie Greg Adams Crain Federico Maxwell Martinez Cristelli Donnelly Herndon Holt Mueller Shields Suazo Elke Chandler Taylor Beatty Phoenix Area Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Arizona Ecological U.S. Department of the Office of Interior Environmental Policy U.S. Bureau of Arizona State Office Darcy Brock Steve Kevin Leroy Paul Matthew Brent Bob Dennis Linda Dale Ralph Rados Ruth Jennifer Chaun Barnhart Beasley Biesty Brady Burch Burdick Cain Cook Crandall Davis Drost Ellis Gluscevic Greenspan Grentz Hill First Anderson STATE AGENCIES Last Pavement Design Environmental Planning Group Communication and Community Urban Project Management Communication and Community Roadside Development Section Department Communication and Arizona Department of Community Transportation Partnerships Arizona Department of Urban Operations Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Drainage Design Transportation Section Arizona Department of Historic Preservation Transportation Team Arizona Department of Construction District Transportation Arizona Department of Environmental Transportation Planning Group Arizona Department of Traffic Transportation Arizona Department of Environmental Transportation Planning Group Communication and Arizona Department of Community Transportation Partnerships Arizona Department of Urban Project Transportation Management Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Organization AZ AZ CA 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM01 1655 W Jackson St. MD 126F 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM02 1615 W. Jackson St., MD 063R 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM02 2140 W. Hilton Ave, MD PM65 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM02 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 634E 2104 S. 22nd Ave. Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ 206 S. 17th Avenue, Room 131A, MD Phoenix 102A AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ State AZ AZ Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix City Phoenix Washingto D.C. n Glendale Phoenix San AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ State Phoenix 206 S. 17th Ave., Room #101, MD 118A 1221 N. 21st Ave., MD 068R 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM03 206 S. 17th Ave. MD 140A 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM01 1655 W Jackson St. MD 126F 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM02 Address 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103 1849 C Street, NW, MS 2462 6150 W. Thunderbird Rd. 230 N. First Ave., Suite 509 CMD-2, USEPA Region 75 Hawthorne St. CMD-2 Environmental Natural Resources Conservation Service Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix PO Box 6457 PO Box 6457 PO Box 6457 PO Box 6457 PO Box 6457 Phoenix Sacaton Sacaton Sacaton Sacaton Sacaton PO Box 8 PO Box 8 PO Box 8 PO Box 8 PO Box 8 PO Box 6457 Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix City 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite 900 4000 N. Central Ave., Suite 1500 4000 N. Central Ave., Suite 1500 4000 N. Central Ave., Suite 1500 Address Arizona State Office Arizona Division Arizona Division Arizona Division Department Bureau of Land Western Area Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Western Area Power Administration U.S. Bureau of Indian U.S. Bureau of Indian U.S. Bureau of Indian U.S. Bureau of Indian U.S. Bureau of Indian U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Highway Federal Highway Federal Highway Organization South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List Kathleen Tucker Last First FEDERAL AGENCIES Deitering Thomas Hansen Alan Yedlin Rebecca 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 85009 85007 85007 85009 85007 850073212 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 ZIP 85021 20240 85306- 850031733 84105- 85004- 85005 85005 85005 85005 85005 85005 85247 85247 85247 85247 85247 85012 850128501285012- ZIP shill@azdot.gov rgluscevic@azdot .gov rellis@azdot.gov bcook@azdot.go v dcrandall@azdot. gov ldavis2@azdot.go v ddrost@azdot.go v bcain@azdot.gov mburdick@azdot. gov BBarnhart@azdo t.gov SBeasley@azdot. gov kbiesty@azdot.g ov lbrady@azdot.go v pburch@azdot.g ov Email Greg_Beatty@fw muller@wapa.go v shields@wapa.go v HOLT@wapa.gov cristelli@wapa.go v Donnelly@wapa. gov Herndon@wapa. gov Craig.Adams@bia matt.crain@bia.g Rosalinda.Federic bob.maxwell@bi Cecilia.martinez kathleen.a.tucker @usace.army.mil rebecca.yedlin@ thomas.deitering Email CDs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 of 8 1 Hand Deliver 0 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 1 1 Hand Deliver 0 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver Notes 1 of 8 FHWA to FHWA to FHWA to To receive Section 4(f) FHWA to send FHWA to FHWA to Plus 1 hard copy Plus 1 hard Plus 1 hard copy Hand Deliver Hand Deliver Hand Deliver 1 1 1 1 Notes CDs • South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List A836 Appendix 6-4 Kwi-Sung Julie Merrisa James Velvet Tammy John Mohamed Ali Paul Scott Reggie Floyd Joe Rob Tim Jennifer Robert Kang Kliewer Marin Marino Mathew Mivshek Nelson Noun O'Brien Orrahood Rector Roehrich Salazar Samour Tait Toth Travis Last First Pe-Shen Larry Vanessa Yang Voyles Hickman Charles Dave Cato David Wiley Ray Myesha Shane Leticia Jason Andrews Fitzhugh Esquivel Ramirez Bearup Dovalina Harris Silsby Vargas Earp LOCAL AGENCIES Norm Wetz Viboolmate Navaphan Address 206 S. 17th Ave., MD 118A 1651 W. Jackson St., MD 121F 205 S. 17th Ave., 241, 633E Director's Office Right-of-Way 206 S. 17th Ave., MD 100A 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 612E 1615 W. Jackson St., MD 063R 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM02 Traffic 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 618E Environmental Planning Group 206 S. 17th Ave., MD 100A 1615 W. Jackson St., MD 063R 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM01 2302 W. Durango St, PM02 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 612E Utilities Director's Office Traffic Urban Project Management Right-of-Way State Engineer's Office 206 S. 17th Avenue, MD 172A Director's Office Director's Office Department City of Tolleson City of Phoenix City of Phoenix City of Phoenix City of Phoenix City of Phoenix City of Goodyear City of Goodyear City of Avondale City Goodyear Goodyear Avondale Avondale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix City Phoenix Phoenix Tolleson 200 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor Phoenix 200 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor Phoenix 200 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor Phoenix AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ State AZ AZ AZ Phoenix AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ 200 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor Phoenix 9555 West Van Buren Street State AZ Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix 200 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor Phoenix 195 N. 145th Ave., Building D 195 N. 145th Ave., Building D 11465 W Civic Center Dr. 11465 W Civic Center Dr. 1616 W. Adams St. Arizona State Land Department City of Avondale 5000 W. Carefree Highway 205 S. 17th Ave., 241, 633E 206 S. 17th Ave., MD 068R 205 S. 17th Ave., 241, 633E Arizona Game and Fish Department Organization Department Arizona Department of Bridge Transportation Arizona Department of Maintenance District Transportation Arizona Department of Bridge Transportation Address Roadside Development Section 1611 W. Jackson St., MD EM03 206 S. 17th Avenue, Room 131A, MD State Engineer's Office 102A Communication and Arizona Department of 206 S. 17th Ave., Room #101, MD Community Transportation 118A Partnerships Arizona Department of 206 S. 17th Avenue, Room 131A, MD State Engineer's Office Transportation 102A Arizona Department of Utilities 205 S. 17th Ave., MD 618E Transportation Organization Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List Steve Hull First Sheng-Yeng Hsu Last South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List ZIP 85353 85003 85003 85003 85003 85003 85338 85338 85323 85323 85007 85086 85007 85007 85007 ZIP 85007 85007 850073212 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 85009 85007 85007 85007 85007 85007 Email 1 3 jearp@tollesonaz .org 1 1 myesha.harris@p hoenix.gov shane.silsby@ph oenix.gov leticia.vargas@ph oenix.gov 3 1 3 1 cesquivel@goody earaz.gov david.ramirez@g oodyearaz.gov 1 3 1 1 1 CDs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Notes 1 4 of 8 Notes 3 of 8 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 Hand Deliver 1 CDs candrews@avon dale.org dfitzhugh@avond ale.org Email nviboolmate@az dot.gov nwetz@azdot.go v pyang@azdot.go v rtravis@azdot.go v TTait@azdot.gov MNoun@azdot.g ov po'brien@azdot. gov sorrahood@azdo t.gov RRector@azdot.g ov froehrich@azdot. gov JSalazar@azdot.g ov Rsamour@azdot. gov jkliewer@azdot.g ov Mmarin@azdot.g ov jmarino@azdot.g ov vmathew@azdot. gov tmivshek@azdot. gov kkang@azdot.gov shull@azdot.gov SHsu@azdot.gov Appendix 6-4 • A837 Greg Steven Barnaby Kyle Rudy Errol David Eric Dennis Bob Nathan Kelly Jones Johnson Lewis Woodson Mix Blackwater White Anderson Smith Hazlett Pryor Taft Organization 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments Wulf Grote Valley Metro Jeremy J. Andrew Dennis Lite Darling Haase VSI Southwest Heritage Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP AECOM Camilo LaQuinta Sandy Eric Chad Chris Diane Al Mike Acosta Allison Bahr Baim Blostone Boettcher Brossart Brown Buzinski Calabrea HOA AZ Forward (formerly Valley Forward) Arizona Public Health Association Lakewood HOA The Foothills HOA Silverado Ranch HOA Sierra Club Arlington Estates HOA Gila River Indian Community SOUTH MOUNTAIN CITIZENS ADVISORY TEAM Steve Wilcox Department 3048 Glenhaven Drive 3321 E. Rock Wren 3800 North Central Ave., Suite 1010 16005 S. 38th Street 14037 S. 12th Place 9007 S. 49th Lane 202 E. McDowell Road, #277 PO Box 1582 2314 E. Winston Drive 729 W. Lynwood St. 9606 Highland View Drive One South Church Avenue, Suite 1700 2325 East Camelback Road 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300 2901 W. Durango Address 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Maricopa Association of Governments P.O. Box 97 Community Manager Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Laveen Phoenix Sacaton Phoenix Phoenix Dallas Tucson Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix City Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Sacaton Sacaton P.O. Box 97 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Sacaton Sacaton Sacaton Phoenix Tolleson Sacaton 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Organization Maricopa County Department of Transportation City Tolleson Environmental Quality P.O. Box 97 Maricopa Association of Governments Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resources P.O. Box 2140 Management Program Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 2140 P.O. Box 97 Department of Transportation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community 2801 W. Durango Street Flood Control District of Maricopa County NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS John First Hauskins Last Address 9555 West Van Buren Street 9555 West Van Buren Street Department City of Tolleson City of Tolleson South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List Reyes Medrano First Chris Last Hagen State AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ TX AZ AZ AZ AZ State AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ ZIP 85045 85044 85012 85048 85048 85339 85004 85247 85042 85007 752381028 85701 85016 85003 85009 ZIP 85003 85003 85003 85003 85003 85247 85247 85247 85147 85147 85247 85009 85353 85353 dbrossart@arizo naforward.org albrown18@cox. net mbuzinski@yaho o.com Camilo.acosta@c ableone.biz loallison@lbidc.c om sandy.bahr@sierr aclub.org ecbaim@yahoo.c om ChadBlostone@c ox.net cpboettcher@cox .net jadarlin@swherit age.com steve.wilcox@aec om.com wgrote@metrolig htrail.org Email KTaft@azmag.go v npryor@azmag.g ov bhazlett@azmag. gov dsmith@azmag.g ov eanderson@azm ag.gov Steven.Johnson@ gric.nsn.us 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 CDs 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Email CDs chagen@tolleson 1 az.org rmedrano@tolles 1 onaz.org 6 of 8 Notes 5 of 8 Hand Deliver Hand Deliver Hand Deliver Hand Deliver Hand Deliver Notes • South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List A838 Appendix 6-4 Jeremy First Clayton Derrick Peggy Michael Michael Bryan Wes Nathaniel Danzeisen Denis Eastburn Goodman Hinz Kilgore Lines Percharo Timmothy Woody Jim Stone Thomas Welch Southwest Valley Chamber of Commerce Mountain Park Ranch HOA Ahwatukee Foothills Chamber of Commerce Cottonfields Community HOA City of Avondale Laveen Village Planning Committee Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development Foothills Reserve HOA Estrella Village Planning Committee Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council Foothills Club West HOA South Mountain Village Planning Committee Maricopa County Farm Bureau Last Keller First Tom KCA Organization Department City Phoenix Litchfield Park Laveen Phoenix Laveen Laveen Laveen 4809 E. Thistle Landing Dr., Suite 100 Phoenix Address 15425 S. 40th Place, Suite #4 220 Ancora Drive North P.O. Box 741 3921 E. Tano Street 3600 W. Elliot P.O. Box 202 5141 W Estrella Dr AZ State AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ Avondale AZ 12622 W Indianola Ave AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ State Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Tempe City 14850 S. 5th Avenue 9001 S. 27th Street 6314 W. Fillmore Street 3002 W. Ashurst Drive 6829 W. Broadway Road 3131 E. Camelback Road, #125 4425 E Agave Rd, #110 Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee Address 8700 S. Kyrene Road Department Kyrene School District Organization South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List Karen Starbowski Prendergast Laurie Tamala Daniels Beauchamp Melanie Calles Last South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Distribution List 85044 ZIP 85044 85340 85339 85044 85339 85339 85339 85392 85045 85042 85043 85045 85043 85016 85044 86284 ZIP Email woodfin.thomas @gmail.com jim@mtparkranc h.org kstarbowski@fin ancialguide.com timmothy1jrb@y ahoo.com jimprendergast20 @hotmail.com kilgorestudios75 mail@msn.com weslines@msn.co m tamalad@cox.net cdanzeisen@pro digy.net DerrickDenis@cs ceng.com peggyeastburn@ hotmail.com mpgood415@hot mail.com michaelhinz@cox .net 127 1 CDs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Email CDs Jcalles@kyrene.o rg 1 Melanie@beauch amplawoffice.co m 1 8 of 8 Notes 7 of 8 Notes Appendix 6-4 • A839 Appendix 6-4 Draft EIS Released ��r�����i�������nt LOOP 202 Freeway Study Learn about how to provide comments on the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study! Study Information LOOP 101 Agua Fria Freeway Indian School Road Black Canyon 17 Freeway Papago AVO� DALE Thomas Road McDowell Road 10 Freeway DO� � TO� � PHOE� I� Van Buren Street TOLLESO� � 59 Alternative Buckeye Road �Pre�erred Alternative� � 101 Alternative Lower Buckeye Road Laveen Village Dobbins Road Baseline Road 7th Street Baseline Road 7th Avenue Southern Avenue TEMPE 16th Street Broadway Road The proposed freeway is a key component ���t���r�gi�n�s�a���t������ti���a�� transportation plan and the Regional Freeway and Highway System and is the last piece to complete the Loop 202 system. � 71 Alternative Piestewa Freeway 60 Superstition Freeway Dobbins Road Maricopa Elliot Road 10 Freeway Elliot Road 48th Street 40th Street 32nd Street Ahwatukee Foothills Village Pecos Road Approximate scale 1 24th Street Gila River Indian Community sert Park Footh way ills Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve De GOOD�EAR Study Area Existing freeway Gila River Indian Community boundary Maricopa County line � estern Section W59 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section E1 Alternative 51 Camelback Road 35th Avenue 51st Avenue 43rd Avenue 59th Avenue 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 91st Avenue 83rd Avenue The Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration �a����na�i����a���tai������a��ati�n����t��� �r���s����r���a��t�r��g��t����r��arati�n� of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, or “Draft EIS.” 99th Avenue Bethany Home Road 17th Avenue Appendix H: Public Hearing Notification Mailer Alternatives studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 107th Avenue Chandler Boulevard CHA� DLER LOOP 202 Santan Freeway E1 Alternative �Pre�erred Alternative� 3 miles Draft EIS Public Comment Process �����ra�t�����is�a�ai�a������r�a�����a������i�������nt���ri����starting April 26, 2013, and ending on July 24, 2013. ��ring�t�is������nt���ri����t���������nt�is�a�ai�a�����n�in��(azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway) and at the ������ing�����i�����ati�ns� Sam Garcia Western Avenue Library 495 E. Western Ave. Avondale, AZ 85323 (623) 333-2665 ADOT Environmental Planning Group 1611 W. Jackson St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 712-7767 Call for appointment 59th Ave and I-10 (Liberty Fuel) Free Shuttle Bus Service to the Public Hearing �����a�ri���t��t�������i����aring�������is�����ring������ s��tt�����s�s�r�i���t��an���r���t�������i����aring�at� the Phoenix Convention Center from six Valley locations. ��r�i����i�������r��i����s���ra��ti��s�t�r��g���t�t����a�� �n��a������������s���t���ta������������r�ti��s�� 10 91st Ave and Van Buren (bus stop, northeast corner) Laveen (Southern Ridge Golf Club) Shuttle Bus Pickup/Drop-off Locations Baseline Road Pecos Road Komatke Boys and Girls Club For more information, please call 602.712.7006. ROUTE 1 South Mountain Freeway, Summary Report: Public Involvement for the DEIS Federal-aid Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) | ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L 2 3 PICK UP AND DROP OFF LOCATIONS NORTH Phoenix Convention Center DEPARTURE TIMES ��st������an���an���r�n����s�������t��n�n�rt��ast���rn�r� 9:30 ����� ���� ��t�������an��������s��t��ast���rn�r���i��rt��������ar�ing���t� 9:35 ����� ���� ���at������s�an���ir�s�������������������s���� 9:30 ����� ���� ���t��rn��i�g����������������������as��in����� 9:40 ����� ���� ����rnan�����nt�r���������������i���a�at�n 9:30 ����� ���� 40th St. and Pecos Rd. Park-and-Ride 9:55 ����� ���� 40th St Park-and-Ride Pecos Road 40th Street Phoenix Public Library Burton Barr Central Library 1221 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 262-4636 Tolleson Public Library ���������an���r�n��t� Tolleson, AZ 85353 (623) 936-2746 51st Avenue )HG([2IÀFH Print and Ship Center 4940 E. Ray Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480) 893-0700 59th Avenue Phoenix Public Library Ironwood Branch 4333 E. Chandler Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85048 (602) 262-4636 91st Avenue • Avondale Boulevard A840 DEPARTURE TIMES FROM CONVENTION CENTER ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� 10 Governance Center, Sacaton ARRIVAL TIMES ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� bold indicates a.m. times ADOT TRACS No.: 202L MA 054 H5764 01L ൟ Federal-aid Project No.: NH-202-D(ADY) azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway 2013 Appendix 6-4 Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study 1655 W. Jackson Street, MD 126F Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 nd o atte t n a l p g Please ublic hearin p the y 21! on Ma Appendix I: Newspaper Advertisements Public Hearing Location Phoenix Convention Center, North Ballroom 100 N. 3rd St., Phoenix, AZ 85004 Validated parking and transit vouchers will be provided. Adams yndha hoeni P yatt Regency hoeni 4 Washington Regency Garage ri ona Center Entrance to North Ballroom is here. North Garage 2 P 3 eritage Science Center Garage P Free Shuttle Bus Information $'27LVRIIHULQJFREEVKXWWOHEXVVHUYLFHWRDQG IURPWKH3XEOLF+HDULQJ For more information, see inside of this mailer or call 602.712.7006 North Garage 2 West Garage 3 Heritage & Science Center Garage eritage S uare 4 Regency Garage 5 East Garage ri ona Science Center LRT 5 Collier Center Jefferson 1 1 Phoenix Convention Center North Building Sy phony all 7th Street DP²SP erberger heatre 5th Street Monroe Chase o er Sheraton otel 3rd Street Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2nd Street Van Buren 1st Street DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING enotes entrance into garage ast Garage P Madison S ir ays Center LRT P efferson Garage Jackson lternate do nto n par ing garage Chase Field LRT Light rail station Although the hearing takes place over a 10-hour period, the same information and opportunity for comment will be available no matter what time you attend. 3HUVRQVWKDWUHTXLUHDUHDVRQDEOHDFFRPPRGDWLRQEDVHGRQODQJXDJHRUGLVDELOLW\ VKRXOGFRQWDFW$'27DWprojects@azdot.govRU5HTXHVWVVKRXOGEH PDGHDVHDUO\DVSRVVLEOHWRHQVXUHWKHVWDWHKDVDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRDGGUHVVWKH accommodation. 3HUVRQDVTXHUHTXLHUHQDVLVWHQFLDRXQDDGDSWDFLyQUD]RQDEOHSRUKDELOLGDG OLPLWDGDHQLQJOpVRGLVFDSDFLGDGGHEHQSRQHUVHHQFRQWDFWRFRQ$'27 (projects@azdot.govRU /DVVROLFLWXGHVGHEHQKDFHUVHWDQSURQWR FRPRVHDSRVVLEOHSDUDDVHJXUDUTXHHOHVWDGRWLHQHODRSRUWXQLGDGGHDERUGDU HODORMDPLHQWR Formal Public Hearing Comment Process Note that the public hearing provides the only opportunity for members of the public to make comments on the Draft EIS in front of a study team panel (within a three-minute time limit)&RXUWUHSRUWHUVZLOODOVREH DYDLODEOHWRWDNHLQGLYLGXDOYHUEDOFRPPHQWVFRPPHQWVSURYLGHGWRDFRXUWUHSRUWHUDUHQRWVXEMHFWWRWKH WKUHHPLQXWHOLPLW&RPPHQWIRUPVZLOOEHDYDLODEOHIRUZULWWHQFRPPHQWV Online Public Hearing All off the materials presented DWWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJLQFOXGLQJ DVWXG\YLGHRDQGFRPPHQW IRUPVZLOOEHDYDLODEOHIURP 0D\WR-XO\DW azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway. There are several RSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUWKH SXEOLFWRSURYLGH comments on the Draft EIS. All comment methods DUHFRQVLGHUHGHTXDO Community Forums &RPPXQLW\IRUXPVZLOOEHKHOGDW YDULRXVORFDWLRQVLQWKHVWXG\DUHD DIWHUWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJ7HFKQLFDO VWDIIZLOOEHDWWKHIRUXPVWRDQVZHU TXHVWLRQV6WXG\PDWHULDOVLQFOXGLQJ WKHVWXG\YLGHRZLOODOVREH DYDLODEOHWRYLHZ&RXUWUHSRUWHUV ZLOOEHDYDLODEOHWRWDNHLQGLYLGXDO YHUEDOFRPPHQWV:ULWWHQFRPPHQWV FDQDOVREHVXEPLWWHGEXWQR IRUPDO´KHDULQJµZLOORFFXUDWWKHVH FRPPXQLW\IRUXPPHHWLQJV)RUXP ORFDWLRQVZLOOEHSRVWHGDWazdot. gov/SouthMountainFreeway, emailed to the e-newsletter VXEVFULEHUVDQGSXEOLVKHGLQWKH QHZVSDSHUDQGORFDOSXEOLFDWLRQV Mail, E-mail, Phone $WDQ\WLPHGXULQJWKHGD\ comment period, comments FDQEHSURYLGHGLQWKHIROORZLQJ PHWKRGV ADOT Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study 1655 W. Jackson Street MD 126F Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 @ projects@azdot.gov 602.712.7006 @ azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway South Mountain Freeway, Summary Report: Public Involvement for the DEIS Federal-aid Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) | ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L • A841 Appendix 6-4 zŽƵ͛ƌĞŝŶǀŝƚĞĚ͊ >KKWϮϬϮ^Khd,DKhEd/E&Ztz^dhz LOOP 202 You’re invited! LOOP 202 SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY STUDY LOOP 202 ƌĂŌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚǀĂŝůĂďůĞ for Public Review and Comment McDowell Road 10 DOWNTOWN PHOENIX @ tϱϵůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ (WƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ) Broadway Road tϭϬϭůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ Southern Avenue tϳϭůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ Baseline Road 10 Pecos Road NORTH Gila River Indian Community ϭůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ ;WƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞͿ 48th Street 40th Street 32nd Street 24th Street Des ert Par Footh kw ay ills 17th Avenue Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve 40th Street 7th Street 16th Street 7th Avenue 48th Street Freeway Study WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶ ƩĞŶĚƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐ ƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƌĂŌ/^ƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕KdǁŝůůŚŽůĚone public hearing on the ƌĂŌ/^ĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƉƚĨŽƌŵĂůƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĐĂŶďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǀŝĂ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚĨŽƌŵ͕ǀĞƌďĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƚŽĂĐŽƵƌƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚƌĞĞͲŵŝŶƵƚĞ ǀĞƌďĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨĂƉĂŶĞůŽĨƐƚƵĚLJƚĞĂŵŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘dŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ ŝƐƚŚĞŽŶůLJŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJǁŚĞƌĞƚŚƌĞĞͲŵŝŶƵƚĞǀĞƌďĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĐĂŶďĞŐŝǀĞŶŝŶ ĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƉĂŶĞů͘dŚŝƐƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞŚĞůĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨ ƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘/ƚŝƐŶŽƚŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞĂƋƵĞƐƟŽŶͲĂŶĚͲĂŶƐǁĞƌƐĞƐƐŝŽŶ͘ ůůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĂƌĞ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘dŚĞƌĂŌ/^ ƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚǁŝůůĐůŽƐĞ on :ƵůLJϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϯ͘ůůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϵϬͲĚĂLJ ƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚǁŝůůďĞ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞĚƚŽŝŶ ƚŚĞ&ŝŶĂů/^͘ Van Buren Chase Tower Monroe Adams Wyndham Phoenix WƌĞͲZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌƚŽ^ƉĞĂŬ zŽƵĐĂŶƉƌĞͲƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌƚŽƐƉĞĂŬĂƚƚŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐďLJĐĂůůŝŶŐ;ϲϬϮ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϳϬϬϲͿŽƌďLJ ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͘WŚŽŶĞƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶǁŝůůĞŶĚĂƚŶŽŽŶ͕DŽŶĚĂLJ͕ DĂLJϮϬ͘ŌĞƌLJŽƵƉƌĞͲƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌ͕LJŽƵĐĂŶƐĞĞƚŚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐŽŶůŝŶĞ at ĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ͘ĂĐŚƐƉĞĂŬĞƌǁŝůůďĞĂůůŽĐĂƚĞĚƵƉƚŽ ϯŵŝŶƵƚĞƐƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŚŝƐŽƌŚĞƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘WƌĞͲƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐǁŝůůďĞůŝƐƚĞĚ ŽŶůŝŶĞƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĂŶĚĂƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͘ ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƌĂŌ/^ WƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƌĂŌ/^ĂŶĚŝƚƐĮŶĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐĂϵϬͲĚĂLJ ƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĐĂŶďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŵĞƚŚŽĚƐ͗ ` At the public hearing @ ` /ŶǁƌŝƟŶŐ͗ ADOT Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study 1655 West Jackson Street, MD 126F Phoenix, AZ 85007 @ ` Through the study website and online public hearing: azdot.gov/ SouthMountainFreeway ` Email: projects@azdot.gov ` Phone: 602.712.7006 All comment methods are considered equal.dŚĞƌĂŌ/^ƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚǁŝůůĐůŽƐĞŽŶ:ƵůLJϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϯ͘ůůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϵϬͲĚĂLJ ƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚǁŝůůďĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞĚƚŽŝŶƚŚĞ&ŝŶĂů/^͘ ^ŝƵƐƚĞĚŶĞĐĞƐŝƚĂĂLJƵĚĂĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůƉĂƌĂƉŽĚĞƌƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƌĞŶůĂƌĞƵŶŝſŶƉƷďůŝĐĂ͕ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĞĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐΛ ĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀŽϴϱϱ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϴϱϯϬ͘>ĂƐƐŽůŝĐŝƚƵĚĞƐĚĞďĞŶŚĂĐĞƌƐĞůŽŵĄƐƉƌŽŶƚŽƉŽƐŝďůĞƉĂƌĂĚĂƌƟĞŵƉŽĂ ŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƌĞůĂůŽũĂŵŝĞŶƚŽ͘ Sheraton Hotel Herberger Theatre P Hyatt Regency Phoenix 4 Washington ` ŵĂŝů͗ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐΛĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀ ` WŚŽŶĞ͗ϲϬϮ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϳϬϬϲ Lower Buckeye Road LOOP 202 Regency Garage Arizona Center Entrance to North Ballroom is here. North Garage 2 P 1 3 Phoenix Convention Center North Building Symphony Hall Heritage & Science Center Garage LRT Heritage & Science Center Garage 4 Regency Garage 5 East Garage Denotes entrance into garage P East Garage Madison Jackson West Garage 3 5 Collier Center U.S. Airways Center North Garage 2 Arizona Science Center P Jefferson Heritage Square 1 LRT LRT P Jefferson Garage Chase Field Alternate downtown parking garage Light rail station NORTH sĂůŝĚĂƚĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚǀŽƵĐŚĞƌƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͘ &&ƌĞĞ^ŚƵƩůĞƵƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐ E Ě EĞĞĚĂƌŝĚĞƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͍KdŝƐŽīĞƌŝŶŐ&ZƐŚƵƩůĞďƵƐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽĂŶĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞWŚŽĞŶŝdžŽŶǀĞŶƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌĨƌŽŵsixsĂůůĞLJůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͗ ` dŽůůĞƐŽŶ 59th Ave and I-10 ` ƐƚƌĞůůĂsŝůůĂŐĞ 10 NORTH ` >ĂǀĞĞŶsŝůůĂŐĞ 91st Ave ` 'ŝůĂZŝǀĞƌ/ŶĚŝĂŶ and Phoenix Van Buren Convention Center ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ;ϮůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐͿ Shuttle Bus Laveen Pick-up/Drop-off Locations ` ŚǁĂƚƵŬĞĞsŝůůĂŐĞ 10 ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ 40th St Park-and-Ride throughout the day on Pecos Road Pecos Road DĂLJϮϭ͕ϮϬϭϯ͘&ŽƌŵŽƌĞ Komatke Boys Shelde Center and Girls Club ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĐĂůů ϲϬϮ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϳϬϬϲ͘ 40th Street 40th Street 16th Street 7th Street 7th Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue 67th Avenue 51 WŚŽĞŶŝdžŽŶǀĞŶƟŽŶĞŶƚĞƌʹEŽƌƚŚĂůůƌŽŽŵ ϭϬϬEŽƌƚŚϯƌĚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϬϰ 51st Avenue @ ` ƚĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌƵŵ ` /ŶǁƌŝƟŶŐ͗ ADOT >ŽŽƉϮϬϮ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ &ƌĞĞǁĂLJ^ƚƵĚLJ ϭϲϱϱtĞƐƚ:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ DϭϮϲ& WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϬϳ ` dŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJ ǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂŶĚŽŶůŝŶĞƉƵďůŝĐ ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͗ ĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬ ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ ƩĞŶĚƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐͲdƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϮϭ͕ϮϬϭϯͮϭϬĂŵ͵8pm 7th Street WƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƌĂŌ /^ĂŶĚŝƚƐĮŶĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞ ĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐĂϵϬͲĚĂLJƉƵďůŝĐ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ĐĂŶďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ŵĞƚŚŽĚƐ͗ KdŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ ϭϲϭϭtĞƐƚ:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϬϳͮϲϬϮ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϳϳϲϳ ĂůůĨŽƌĂƉƉŽŝŶƚŵĞŶƚ Van Buren Street ϭůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ ;ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞͿ Gila River Indian Community 5th Street ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƌĂŌ/^ dŽůůĞƐŽŶWƵďůŝĐ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ ϵϱϱϱtĞƐƚsĂŶƵƌĞŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ dŽůůĞƐŽŶ͕ϴϱϯϱϯͮϲϮϯ͘ϵϯϲ͘Ϯϳϰϲ 17 Pecos Road NORTH 3rd Street LOOP ` KdŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ 1611 West Jackson Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 | ϲϬϮ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϳϳϲϳ ĂůůĨŽƌĂƉƉŽŝŶƚŵĞŶƚ 2nd Street ^Ăŵ'ĂƌĐŝĂtĞƐƚĞƌŶǀĞŶƵĞ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ ϰϵϱĂƐƚtĞƐƚĞƌŶǀĞŶƵĞ ǀŽŶĚĂůĞ͕ϴϱϯϮϯͮϲϮϯ͘ϯϯϯ͘Ϯϲϲϱ WƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ 101 10 Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve 1st Street KŶƉƌŝůϮϲ͕ϮϬϭϯ͕KdŝŶĐŽŶũƵŶĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ&,tƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚƚŚĞƌĂŌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů /ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ>ŽŽƉϮϬϮ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ^ƚƵĚLJ͘dŚĞƌĂŌ/^ŝƐ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁŽŶƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂƚĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ͘ŽƉŝĞƐŽĨ ƚŚĞƌĂŌ/^ĂƌĞĂůƐŽĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁĚƵƌŝŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŚŽƵƌƐĂƚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͗ &ĞĚdžKĸĐĞWƌŝŶƚĂŶĚ^ŚŝƉĞŶƚĞƌ ϰϵϰϬĂƐƚZĂLJZŽĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϰϰͮϰϴϬ͘ϴϵϯ͘ϬϳϬϬ Baseline Road ` dŽůůĞƐŽŶWƵďůŝĐ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ ϵϱϱϱtĞƐƚsĂŶƵƌĞŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ dŽůůĞƐŽŶ͕ϴϱϯϱϯͮϲϮϯ͘ϵϯϲ͘Ϯϳϰϲ 59th Avenue ,ŝůƚŽŶ'ĂƌĚĞŶ/ŶŶWŚŽĞŶŝdžͬǀŽŶĚĂůĞͲ ĂůůƌŽŽŵ ϭϭϰϲϬt͘,ŝůƚŽŶtĂLJ ǀŽŶĚĂůĞ͕ϴϱϯϮϯ ƌĂŌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌWƵďůŝĐZĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚŽŵŵĞŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdžWƵďůŝĐ>ŝďƌĂƌLJʹƵƌƚŽŶĂƌƌ ĞŶƚƌĂů>ŝďƌĂƌLJ ϭϮϮϭEŽƌƚŚĞŶƚƌĂůǀĞŶƵĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϬϰͮϲϬϮ͘ϮϲϮ͘ϰϲϯϲ Southern Avenue tϳϭůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ ` dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ:ƵůLJϭϭ͕ϭϭĂ͘ŵ͘ͲϮƉ͘ŵ͘ >ĂǀĞĞŶĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĞŶƚĞƌͲŽĂƌĚƌŽŽŵ ϱϬϬϭt͘ŽďďŝŶƐ >ĂǀĞĞŶ͕ϴϱϯϯϵ WŚŽĞŶŝdžWƵďůŝĐ>ŝďƌĂƌLJʹ/ƌŽŶǁŽŽĚ ƌĂŶĐŚ ϰϯϯϯĂƐƚŚĂŶĚůĞƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϰϴͮϲϬϮ͘ϮϲϮ͘ϰϲϯϲ Broadway Road ǀŽŶĚĂůĞ͕ϴϱϯϮϯͮϲϮϯ͘ϯϯϯ͘Ϯϲϲϱ 91st Avenue ` dƵĞƐĚĂLJ:ƵůLJϵ͕ϰƉ͘ŵ͘ͲϳƉ͘ŵ͘ Lower Buckeye Road tϭϬϭůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ 40th Street ` &ĞĚdžKĸĐĞWƌŝŶƚĂŶĚ^ŚŝƉĞŶƚĞƌ ϰϵϰϬĂƐƚZĂLJZŽĂĚ Phoenix, AZ 85044 | ϰϴϬ͘ϴϵϯ͘ϬϳϬϬ McDowell Road tϱϵůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ (ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ) 24th Street DĂƌŬzŽƵƌĂůĞŶĚĂƌ͊ ϭϮϮϭEŽƌƚŚĞŶƚƌĂůǀĞŶƵĞ Phoenix, AZ 85004 | ϲϬϮ͘ϮϲϮ͘ϰϲϯϲ 51 DOWNTOWN PHOENIX 32nd Street ĞŶƚƌĂů>ŝďƌĂƌLJ 17 10 Van Buren Street Dese rt Park Footh wa ills y ` WŚŽĞŶŝdžWƵďůŝĐ>ŝďƌĂƌLJʹƵƌƚŽŶĂƌƌ LOOP 101 17th Avenue ϰϯϯϯĂƐƚŚĂŶĚůĞƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ Phoenix, AZ 85048 | ϲϬϮ͘ϮϲϮ͘ϰϲϯϲ ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ 51st Avenue KŶƉƌŝůϮϲ͕ϮϬϭϯ͕ƚŚĞƌŝnjŽŶĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŝŶĐŽŶũƵŶĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů,ŝŐŚǁĂLJĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚƚŚĞƌĂŌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ>ŽŽƉϮϬϮ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ^ƚƵĚLJ͘dŚĞƌĂŌ/^ŝƐ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁŽŶƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂƚĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ. ŽƉŝĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĂŌ/^ĂƌĞĂůƐŽĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁĚƵƌŝŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŚŽƵƌƐĂƚƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͗ ` WŚŽĞŶŝdžWƵďůŝĐ>ŝďƌĂƌLJʹ/ƌŽŶǁŽŽĚ ` ^Ăŵ'ĂƌĐŝĂtĞƐƚĞƌŶǀĞŶƵĞ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ ϰϵϱĂƐƚtĞƐƚĞƌŶǀĞŶƵĞ ƌĂŶĐŚ 59th Avenue dŚĞƌŝnjŽŶĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ;KdͿĂŶĚƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů,ŝŐŚǁĂLJĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ ;&,tͿŝŶǀŝƚĞLJŽƵƚŽĂƩĞŶĚĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌƵŵƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ^ƚƵĚLJ͘ dŚĞƐĞŵĞĞƟŶŐƐǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂůŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽůĞĂƌŶŵŽƌĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƚŚĞ ƌĂŌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ͘ƚƚŚĞĨŽƌƵŵƐ͕ƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƐƚĂīǁŝůůĂŶƐǁĞƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͕ ĂŶĚƐƚƵĚLJŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ—ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJǀŝĚĞŽ—ǁŝůůďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽǀŝĞǁ͘ŽƵƌƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞƌƐǁŝůů ĂůƐŽďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƚĂŬĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůǀĞƌďĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚǁƌŝƩĞŶĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĐĂŶďĞƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ ĂƚƚŚĞĨŽƌƵŵƐ͘EŽĨŽƌŵĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽƌ͞ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͟ǁŝůůŽĐĐƵƌĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌƵŵƐ͘ 67th Avenue Freeway Study 75th Avenue ƩĞŶĚĂŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ&ŽƌƵŵ 83rd Avenue LOOP 202 75th Avenue • 83rd Avenue A842 /ĨLJŽƵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƚĞŝŶƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞ ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐΛĂnjĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀŽƌϴϱϱ͘ϳϭϮ͘ϴϱϯϬ͘ZĞƋƵĞƐƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŵĂĚĞĂƐƐŽŽŶĂƐ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞƚŽĂůůŽǁƟŵĞƚŽĂƌƌĂŶŐĞƚŚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶ͘ &KZDKZ/E&KZDd/KE͗ azdot.gov/^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ&ƌĞĞǁĂLJ WƌŽũĞĐƚEŽ͘ϮϬϮ>DϬϱϰ,ϱϳϲϰϬϭ>ͻ&ĞĚĞƌĂů͗E,ͲϮϬϮͲ;zͿ Appendix 6-4 LOOP 202 Freeway Study Appendix J: Public Participation Guide PUBLIC PARTICIPANT GUIDE for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway Interpretación de español disponible South Mountain Freeway, Summary Report: Public Involvement for the DEIS Federal-aid Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) | ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L 2013 • A843 A844 • Appendix 6-4 Welcome Contents Welcome 1 Common Abbreviations and Terms 2 Study Information 3 The Public Hearing 4 Overview of the Public Hearing 4 Room Layout 4 Before You Begin at the Public Hearing 5 Transit Pass Reimbursement/Convention Center Parking Validation 6 Shuttle Bus Departure Times 6 General Ground Rules 6 Public Hearing Guidelines 7 Public Comment Options 8 Online Public Hearing 8 Community Forums 8 Frequently Asked Questions 9 Attendee Registration Card inside back cover Welcome and thank you for participating in the public comment process for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). During the public hearing, a variety of study information is available, including a video with a visual simulation of the proposed freeway, materials summarizing the Draft EIS, and maps. In addition, technical staff is available to help answer your questions about the study and the recommendations in the Draft EIS. During the 90-day public comment period, you have a variety of opportunities to submit comments on the Draft EIS. All comment methods are considered equal. It is important to note that however you submit your comments—whether in writing, verbally to a court reporter, or as a speaker—your comments will be considered, addressed and answered in the next document, the Final EIS. The remainder of this guide provides information about the public hearing, including an overview of the study, definitions and acronyms used, speaker guidelines, frequently asked questions, and an attendee registration card. I hope this guide is helpful, but if you need any additional information, just ask! Your input is very important, and we hope you will take advantage of the Draft EIS comment opportunities. The 90-day public comment period for the Draft EIS closes on July 24, 2013, so please submit your comments by this date. Again, thank you for your participation. Sincerely, @ azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway @ projects@azdot.gov 602.712.7006 Sabri P. Chaun Hill Project Manager ADOT Urban Project Management Division Appendix 6-4 DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement The proposed freeway is a key component of the region’s adopted multimodal transportation plan and the Regional Freeway and Highway System and is the last component needed to complete the Loop 202 system. Alternatives studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bethany Home Road NEPA LOOP 35th Avenue 43rd Avenue 51st Avenue 59th Avenue Agua Fria 101 Freeway Camelback Road Indian School Road Black Canyon McDowell Road 10 Freeway AVONDALE GOODYEAR Thomas Road 17 Freeway Papago National Environmental Policy Act Van Buren Street TOLLESON DOWNTOWN PHOENIX W59 Alternative Buckeye Road (Preferred Alternative) W101 Alternative Common Terms 67th Avenue 75th Avenue 83rd Avenue Maricopa Association of Governments 91st Avenue MAG 99th Avenue Federal Highway Administration 107th Avenue FHWA Avondale Boulevard GLENDALE Lower Buckeye Road Gila River Indian Community proposed action ADOT’s proposed construction and operation of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway in Maricopa County, Arizona. mitigation An action taken to reduce or eliminate an adverse impact from construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed freeway. Baseline Road Baseline Road Laveen Village Dobbins Road Dobbins Road Maricopa Elliot Road Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve Gila River Indian Community 1 Ahwatukee Foothills Village Pecos Road Approximate scale Chandler Boulevard CHANDLER LOOP Santan 202 Freeway E1Alternative (Preferred Alternative) 3 miles 3 2 TEMPE 60 Superstition Freeway 10 Freeway Elliot Road ser t Par Footh kwa ills y A road, such as a freeway. 17th Avenue facility 7th Avenue Southern Avenue 7th Street Broadway Road W71 Alternative De Community Study Area freeway Gila River Indian Community boundary Maricopa County line Western Section W59 Alternative W71 Alternative W101 Alternative Western Option W101 Alternative Central Option W101 Alternative Eastern Option Eastern Section E1 Alternative Existing 51 Piestewa Freeway 48th Street Arizona Department of Transportation 40th Street ADOT 32nd Street Common Acronyms The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have finalized a detailed evaluation of the proposed freeway through the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, or “Draft EIS.” 24th Street The following are key words and abbreviations that are used in this guide and throughout the meeting materials: Study Information 16th Street Key Words and Abbreviations • A845 A846 • Appendix 6-4 The Public Hearing The main purpose of the South Mountain Freeway Public Hearing is to: ‡present the findings of the Draft EIS. ‡ obtain public testimony or comment on the Draft EIS. FHWA-AZ-EIS-13-01-D South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Volume I: Main Text Overview of the Public Hearing 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 Today’s public hearing is organized into three main activities, each running continuously throughout the course of the day: in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Area Power Administration April 2013 ‡Video ‡Open House ‡Public Statements Room Layout Room #1 Video Room #2 Open House Video screen Seating Banners Room #3 Public Statements Roll plots Restrooms Monroe Street Entrance 4 Before You Begin at the Public Hearing Speaker Registration If you would like to provide formal public comment for up to 3 minutes to a panel of study team members, you must REGISTER to speak. You can register at the Speaker Registration table in the lobby area. If you preregistered before the public hearing, you can check in at the Speaker Registration table to see where you are on the list. Court reporters LOBBY Room #3: Public Statements ‡Provide a 3-minute verbal comment to the panel of study team members (speakers must register). ‡Listen to public comments. Seating DEIS table Comment area Room #2: Open House ‡View banners summarizing important elements of the Draft EIS. ‡View roll plots of the proposed freeway location and right-of-way. ‡Speak with a study team representative. ‡Submit a verbal comment to a court reporter. ‡Complete a comment form. ‡Submit a comment online. ‡View a copy of the Draft EIS. Attendee Registration This is not mandatory; the registration information helps the study team track attendance and also gives you an opportunity to add your name to the study distribution list for future notices. A tear-out registration card at the back of this guide can also be used to add your name to the distribution list. Please return completed registration cards in the designated boxes stationed throughout the rooms. Microphones Court reporters Room #1: Video ‡You are encouraged to start in Room #1. ‡Watch the video to learn about the study, the Draft EIS, and view a visual simulation of the proposed freeway. This video is played continuously throughout the day. Restrooms Interpretation Services ͵Interpretación de español disponible Please see study team members if you need Spanish interpretation assistance. Por favor vea a los miembros del equipo del studio si necesita ayuda de interpretación en español. 5 Appendix 6-4 Transit Pass Reimbursement/Convention Center Parking Validation If you took transit to the public hearing and would like a transit pass as reimbursement, please see a study team member in the lobby area. If you parked in one of the Convention Center garages and would like your parking receipt validated, please see a study team member in the lobby area. Shuttle Bus Departure Times from Convention Center Green Route Orange Route Blue Route (91st and 59th Ave. stops) (Komatke Boys and Girls Club and South Ridge Golf Club stops) (Governance Center and 40th St. Park-and-Ride stops) 12:15 p.m. 12:00 p.m. 11:45 a.m. 4:15 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 3:45 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. General Ground Rules Mutual respect, courtesy, and patience are the hearing’s guiding principles. To make everyone feel comfortable and welcome, regardless of their position on the study, we ask that you follow the ground rules listed below: ‡ Displays, signs, or banners are not allowed in the Convention Center. Video Room ‡ Please remain quiet while in the audience (turn off cell phones or set them to vibrate). ‡Please leave the room for side discussions. Open House Room ‡ Please refrain from interrupting conversations between study team members and hearing attendees. Public Statement Room ‡ Please remain quiet while in the audience (turn off cell phones or set them to vibrate). ‡Please do not interrupt a speaker. ‡ Please leave the room for side discussions. ‡ When at the microphone, please refrain from addressing the audience or asking for audience participation. 6 Public Hearing Guidelines General guidelines for speaker registration and participation are listed below. The moderator has the authority to deviate from these procedures, if needed. 1. Register ͵ All speakers are required to register by either calling the hotline in advance of the hearing or by signing up at the Speaker Registration table. 2. Order of Speakers – Speakers will be called forward based on the order in which they sign up. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, individuals who have spoken already at the hearing will be placed at the end of the list. 3. Time limit for comments ͵ Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to present his or her comments. A timer will alert speakers at the 2-minute mark, the 2:30 minute mark, and at 3 minutes. 4. Verbally summarize written comments ͵ Speakers are encouraged to summarize written comments rather than read them in full. 5. Submit written comments ͵ An individual or group representative who speaks may submit more detailed written comments for the hearing record or later provide written comment. All comments have equal weight. 6. Cannot yield time ͵ To allow equal opportunity for all, and to accommodate the number of people who may wish to speak, yielding time to another person will not be allowed. 7. Format ͵ Held for the purpose of receiving 3-minute verbal comments. It is not a question-and-answer session. 8. No demonstrations ͵ Demonstrations will not be allowed in any of the rooms. 9. General call ͵ When all who indicated a desire to speak have been called, there will be a general call for anyone who has not yet spoken. This will include (1) those who signed up and missed their earlier call to speak, and (2) any other person who has not previously spoken. 10. Hearing Schedule ͵ The hearing is scheduled until 8:00 p.m. At 8:00 p.m., if there are still people who have not had the opportunity to speak, the moderator may continue the hearing to accommodate additional speakers. 7 • A847 A848 • Appendix 6-4 Public Comment Options The comment period is open until July 24, 2013, and you can submit comments: ‡Online: azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway ‡Email: projects@azdot.gov ‡Phone: 602.712.7006 ‡Mail: ADOT Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study 1655 W. Jackson Street, MD 126F Phoenix, AZ 85007 ‡Speak with a court reporter ‡Complete a comment form ‡Ahwatukee Foothills Village ‡Avondale ‡Chandler ‡Estrella Village ‡Gila River Indian Community (tentative) ‡Laveen Village Details regarding locations and dates will be posted at azdot.gov/ SouthMountainFreeway, emailed to e-newsletter subscribers, and published in several newspapers and other local publications. For more information, please call 602.712.7006. Frequently Asked Questions ‡Formal 3-minute comment Where can I obtain a copy of or view the Draft EIS? ADOT encourages all interested parties to submit written comments on any aspect of the Draft EIS. ADOT will consider all comments in preparing the Final EIS, which will include responses to all comments, final conclusions on potential impacts, and ADOT’s final recommendation. It is helpful to ADOT to receive comments on: ‡A particular alternative, impact assessment, and/or draft mitigation. ‡Any information you feel is incomplete or incorrect. ‡How the proposed action would affect you. When submitting comments, please be as specific as possible and substantiate your concerns and recommendations. @ Forums will be held in: Online Public Hearing All of the materials presented at the public hearing, including the study video, banners, and comment form will be available starting May 21, 2013 at azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway. Comments will be accepted until July 24, 2013. Community Forums During the public comment period, community forums will be held at various locations in the Study Area. Technical staff will be at the forums to answer questions, and study materials—including the study video—will be available for viewing. Court reporters will be available to take individual verbal comments. Written comments can also be submitted, but no formal “hearing” will occur at these community forums. 8 The Draft EIS will be available through a variety of methods, including: ‡For review at the public hearing and community forums ‡By download from azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway ‡For review at area libraries: Phoenix Public Library – Ironwood Branch 4333 East Chandler Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85048 Phoenix Public Library – Burton Barr Central Library 1221 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85048 Sam Garcia Western Avenue Library 495 East Western Avenue, Avondale, AZ 85323 Tolleson Public Library 9555 West Van Buren Street, Tolleson, AZ 85353 ‡For review by appointment, at the ADOT Environmental Planning Group, 1611 West Jackson Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 712-7767 ‡For purchase of whole or partial printed copies of the Draft EIS at the FedEx Office Print and Ship Center, 4940 East Ray Road, Phoenix, AZ 85044 Will there be a public vote on the proposed freeway? No public vote will be held as part of the Draft EIS review process. The public is encouraged to participate and submit comments on the Draft EIS during the 90-day comment period. The proposed Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway was first included in funding approved by Maricopa County voters in 1985. It was also part of the funding passed by Maricopa County voters in 2004 through Proposition 400 for implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan. 9 Appendix 6-4 What happens after the Draft EIS comment period ends? Who makes the final decision? After July 24, 2013 (the end of the Draft EIS comment period), the study team will review and address all comments received, regardless of how they are submitted, in the Final EIS document. A 60-day comment period will also be available after publication of the Final EIS. The final decision on the freeway alignment is a cooperative effort involving ADOT, FHWA and MAG. As a corridor that is part of a comprehensive regional plan developed by MAG, ADOT serves as the agency responsible for implementation of the plan, with FHWA providing the federal oversight required to access federal funds. FHWA is the lead federal agency responsible for implementing the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the governing federal law, and is responsible for the ultimate decision regarding the proposed action. When would the freeway be built? If the outcome of the study is a build alternative, then the timing of construction would depend on the completion of final design, rightof-way acquisition, and utility relocation. A corridor implementation plan developed by ADOT will identify how the overall project will be constructed, including the length and sequence of construction segments. The current Regional Freeway and Highway Program identifies construction funding for the freeway to begin in fiscal year 2015. Will an alignment on the Gila River Indian Community be considered? At the request of the Gila River Indian Community in January 2010, the Arizona Department of Transportation and Maricopa Association of Governments worked together to identify a potential freeway alignment on Community land. The alignment followed a route consistent with the Community’s 1998 Gila Borderlands Regional Planning Study. When no “fatal flaws” were identified, in late 2011 the Community Council passed a resolution to hold a Community-wide referendum on the freeway. The referendum asked members whether they supported an on-Community alignment, supported an off-Community alignment, or whether they supported a “no-build” option. Voters in the Community election on February 7, 2012, preferred the “no-build” option for construction of the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway. This means, moving forward, an alignment of the South Mountain Freeway cannot be located on Community land. Since the vote in February 2012, landowners within the Community began pursuing their own referendum for an alignment within the Community. Questions regarding those efforts should be directed to the Community. ADOT and FHWA will continue to seek input from the public, agencies, and jurisdictions regarding the proposed action through the EIS process and, if an action alternative were to be selected in the record of decision, through the design phase and construction. 10 How is public input used? Public comments are a vital component in the decision-making process. Public comment has been solicited from project inception and through key milestones in the EIS process. The interests and needs of the public, along with all other social, economic, and environmental issues and impacts, must be fully analyzed and included in the Draft and Final EIS. Comments made during development of the Draft EIS have been used to adjust plans, explore new questions, or make changes—all within the scope of NEPA. Public comments received on the Draft EIS will be reviewed and addressed in the Final EIS document. Public comments received on the Final EIS will also be considered and addressed as appropriate. More information about the entire public involvement process up to publication of the Draft EIS is available in Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination, of the Draft EIS. Is it likely that construction of a new road or freeway would require the acquisition of existing homes or businesses? It is likely that implementation of the proposed South Mountain Freeway would include the need to acquire a number of existing homes and/or businesses. One purpose of the EIS process is to determine the extent of new right-of-way that would be needed for each reasonable alternative. ADOT continues to work with all Valley municipalities to protect possible freeway alignments as part of a commitment to measured growth. With changes to the Regional Transportation Plan, ADOT already owns more than 80 percent of the needed right-of-way along Pecos Road, should the E1 Alternative become the Selected Alternative for the Eastern Section. Individuals with questions regarding the property acquisition or relocation process are encouraged to speak with an ADOT Right-of-Way representative at the public hearing or community forums, or call the ADOT Right-of-Way Group at 602.712.7316. 11 • A849 Appendix 6-4 12 E-mail Zip State Proposition 400 provides the primary source of funding for construction of the proposed South Mountain Freeway. Funding for implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan includes $9 billion in regional freeway improvements in Maricopa County. Consistent with federal planning guidelines, funding for transportation projects is based on revenue sources that are considered to be reasonably available for the planning period. This assumes that, for planning purposes, funding sources with a long history of providing funding in the past will continue into the future. City How does Maricopa County's ½-cent transportation sales tax (Proposition 400) affect the future of the proposed South Mountain Freeway? Address 2 Nonfreeway alternatives were considered. Among other options, the study took into account improving existing freeways, improving or expanding other travel modes, reducing travel demand through various strategies (including local land use controls), and employing various roadway configurations. This study examined not only the potential impacts from improvements, but also the consequences of building nothing (the No-Action Alternative). As proposed by MAG, the South Mountain Freeway would be part of the Regional Freeway and Highway System—a multimodal approach to improve traffic in the Valley as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Other transportation improvements like mass transit and local roads are specified in the Regional Transportation Plan and were considered during the evaluation of this proposed new freeway. Address Will anything other than a freeway be considered? Last The identification of the W59 Alternative and E1 Alternative as the Preferred Alternatives was based on a balanced consideration of overall transportation needs; consistency with regional and long-range planning goals; environmental, economic, and societal impacts; operational differences; estimated costs; and regional support and public input. First ‡A comparison of modal choices ‡Engineering, environmental, social and cost considerations ‡The historical context of the proposed action ‡Projected conditions with and without the alternatives being considered ‡Input from the public Please use one character per box. Upon confirming the purpose and need for the proposed action, a multidisciplinary process was undertaken to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to be studied in detail in the Draft EIS. The process involved identifying, comparatively screening, and eliminating alternatives based on: LOOP 202 What factors were considered in designating a Preferred Alternative? ADOT maintains a distribution list composed of individuals who have expressed an interest in the proposed freeway. If you would like to be included on the distribution list and receive future mailings and e-newsletters, please complete this form and drop it in the “Attendee List Registration” box at today’s meeting. Please note that if you are already receiving mailings, then you are on the distribution list and returning this card is unnecessary. • Attendee Registration Card A850 Appendix 6-4 Appendix K: Study Banners azdot.gov/SouthMountainFreeway LOOP 202 South Mountain Freeway, Summary Report: Public Involvement for the DEIS Federal-aid Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) | ADOT Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01L ADOT TRACS No.: 202L MA 054 H5764 01L | Federal-aid Project No.: NH-202-D(ADY) • A851 A852 • Appendix 6-4 Study Area and Project Location The Study Area for Ihe proposed freeway is in the southwes1em portion of the Phoenix metropofllon oreo and is positioned where o gop exists in the regional tronsportotlon sy;lem's loop lreewoy network. The South Mountain Freeway Is on Integral port of the region's planned freeway system-a comblnotlon of loop or beltways and freeway connections to. from, and around Ihe urban core. Here's o brief overview of the freeway's history: _ _--_.. ,. \ .... ---.c.-......... ... ....,_. .,_.,_, - - c;-. ...,.,._"-"" D?!W ·- ~ "'-"""- _ The general location for the South Mountain freeway has remained unchanged since W85. -----=-1-+~~· A\'CH(I!'I.L \\.,--1.,. ....---~·lOUUON llk~tm I L~-1 , ___ - --.-~-..­ I ' .__________, I I I I I . - . ' ...... .. 0 ~ ' ·-- 1 I '------,I I ,.,,_-..'I ., ,- :.:.J:;=-1---m- f - =-. . --- =· = .~~~--"- '~ -:~ ---------llllllllllll'111111111111 :1111 II I' 111 11 llllllll !Iii 1 = Appendix 6-4 Purpose and Need Defined How Is traffic analysis used In the Draft EIS? Assessing current and fulure traffic volumes, lro!Rc cond'rtions, lrtp route~. r;;ong~tion level~. ong trovellfme proViO!e<;i ltw: stvdy leam o bosls lo: • • derme lhe lron•ponollon problem fnlhe Slvdy Areo. • evaluate oQ ottemotive. conslde~ed In 1enns ol resP<>ns!venessto PIIJ)Ose ond need cril'i'ria. • cornpore the trorfic operollons of the ollemollves. What traffic analysis tool s were used? Tile trotrlc projections used In the lrotflc onolyJis ore from Ihe MAC regiOnal trove! model. os cerlllleGt by I'WHA ond reviewed by I he Envi:onrnenlol FroteC1ion Agency lor ok quoQiy cootonnily. l rolflc onotysls emplOyed occepteGI stote-of·lhe-procllce memods ond tools to evolvole cvnenl and fulute condltioru. • Exls1lng ond lulure trolflc volur\1e pro{ectiom • Tlip dishlbutlon • level ol service (LOS) onotysls • Exlsling and projected novel lime ond congesllon onoly!ls • Trip cxiglns end oes1lnolioOJ What is level of service (LOS)? l How is purpose and need considered in the EIS process? An early step Tn p reparing on EIS is to determine whether there is o purpose and need for the proposed project lO\ h n ••f)Oit c:wd-U~• ~··~"''lot C.(oYI'ItCIJ~ I!I!JIIotl'i:J'J" qvollh 'l:lltenlc• !1.. ••••••• • £ ' lhrrsv;l'l I • rz•• VI~ I;Q v-•ct•lmfliC "n41ifl••• " A' h Ill-• b•tt c;~lo" · '•l••• •rdh!g ll••· llow llo¥•1o~td ' r• li fit• •on I I•;JI'et .. I•IJr.gi!Op•nllti·"VG fnt...l ~~~e .~" ' ~:r . ~L .... ~ . , · ;.1:~ .. 5" ...... - 1::;:::~-~>-::~~t:~:~~ How is traffic measured? Regtonol trove! I! gcne1oi!y taponea In ve!lkle miles trove led becO\iSe thl!i lllaosuremeol COI1'\bh1eJ tna totpl number or veiJicles and Ihe lenglh ol 11 the lead agency concludes there is NO NEED, on EIS would not be prepared. If the lead agency concludes there is A NEED, the EIS process would continue With on evoluofion of o I he lr•P lhls merhocl prolrlc:ies o ~ue ""eruure of the totol lro\rel occvrring In ororge oreo, range or reasonable ollemolives In lhe The Uolfie on a 10od segment iS generolly reported os overogo doOy lroUic , Oo~tv lrof"tc glve~ on o..-erou meort~rement tor comi)Onng dllfaront 1ood sc-gmnnu: In o tnglon SludyAreo. Peok komc Is geneJolly repo<1oo 0> ~ohlclw ~ hOUI The lOS rating i1 baled on lratne eond•tiOns dutlng lne peok hour Of rust\ hOIJt What is the purpose and need for the South Mountain Transportation Corridor? There Is a clear purpose and need lor a major tronsportoffon focili!y Within the Study Area. The need is supported by; • socioeconomic factors. • regional fronsporlollon demand. • existing and projected transportation system cQpocity deficiencies. • A853 A854 • Appendix 6-4 What is the projected growth In Maricopa County over the next 25 years? How will travel change without the proposed South Mountain Freeway? The region will suffer even greater congestion, travel delays and lfmiled options for movi11g people ond gOOds solely through the Phoenix mefropoUion region compared to current condillons. Metdemond WITHOUT WITHOUT a freeway In 2010 a freeway In 2035 CONCLUSION: ;..,nw•hlmpoo•emenhplan"""lnl•etm'(exctuUingU>opoo.-ed oellonJ lh•,•gb'ltltaNportG110n a:ytlcm wwld not be obi. to k...p U'Q •1!h ttt.IN:rocuod tra"'l demand Travel time to downtown hom A.hwalvk•• CO NC LUSIO N: When c orukS•rttd In the c:onted ot hundredtoflhoutarMfl ollripsp.r oay aYtJt 1M eourw ot mor• tha." U VNIL tot" tim• loll b+eaute of bw:tMJ...a e61\Qetla"piU\ 1e-'..Med ~ol and llnanckM ca1b.- would M auOJtcnAot Miles of 1- 10 with 3+ hours of congestion momlng CONCLUSION: Col'dll\omon th• •eglon ohowoy•woutdwbotPDOO'.ed curror.t O!'otr EIS ~OCO$.S.. Alternatives to the Freeway Mode me Examples: ffiecom"""llng and lOVtrJe commvt\l:lg Ughiralt WOULD NOTmeet pto)ecteod trovf'l need• of the region. Nolo tnol all'l'lino11on 01 t~o dlomotlves does nol ptoelldo using 1/>ern "'combloaliQn"""' lhll froewoy mode. nor dOC!Stl P'~*' ~~from~ r~'N!'lle<' fr\ the futuro. SCREENING CRITERIA van pools • Ability lo mlnlmlte lmpocts on the human ond no1urol envb'Onments • Ab"lty lo lmptovtt OJ)efoltonol cOoroc;tefiJffcs o( the f>on'.s fronsportotlon sys:lem • Degree of public: anctpof!Hcat occeplobillty • Ov4KOII conceptual cost esfimotes • Add m«e lone• • lmpto"<~alnieHec-flons • New11teeb • l rw:nto~• re1kMffikJJ cf.onlfltts •ltedkft'lbiJ'te employment c entCifl NO addllklnol mociltiecdlont ate teo~ l.oiOn(f I.M1. be)'Cf1d '"""' <*eodV ldenJifled In the R'tP. Appendix 6-4 Options for Reducing Impacts to the South Mountains .... - (J!Tbll.cl eomdoc " lffA:>M w"'~ eRmlnaled boalul<> ot • soretv c::nd o;clcternmonogeornent C9f'lD!I'"L • nomebnd-set:l.litYc:oncems • CDm.lruciiOI'l Of1d rnalntetne~I'\Cf! bwes. • ru!vre ~pamlari tmtfJ11Qnl • NbsJonliaty ~ "'tirNJIGd eoI>CCIUW ot. • opao11QrQ and moin•enonc:e inues • crectorrlg~t-oi·WOV ~t1. • Jrcec""' """" .''"'"'"'""'"*""'""' ckplacemeni1 ~ot o~te~ Conshucllng th• propos•d heaflng '""' '"""' not be reiacaleo undergtOt.ond becovsa ol roo OflCllorv ~~ req<.ired l~.g. o.,OO.g IOlt'1A•~'OO"d~t D f~CC"CIOYI ~tAl"""**' b¥ oec.. OOIJclcvr~ It: ilfiO"'~OO'O!'ulltl ·~!'WO'..... ft~\,11~ l'f(..UQIIif!ftt'•"!.. """"""' ,- ...,.... . . . . ,1111 1! ~...,.. _ "",....__*'Ito..._, I :;;;;j;;·• I (.) WUM""'-.t'"~'""'--' O.tgiMJJ lO·Iane concopf hl future lanes t.:;) Tn med'10n Use SIDESI.OPES in all oreos (.) Iones a ll conslruded (.!) at once· • , _ .,. fit. use IETAINING WAW as t:;) ?J lolol residenf10l displacements along the E1 AJiernotlve·· LONG tERM provides more capacity and belfer level of service 1l ~ total residential U : d'tSplocemenls along IheEl Allernotive.. ....... INJ11AUY provides more capacity and better level or service CONClUSION.lt,e IO· LANffRfEWAY W Roowovlo avoid t¥ial1c propet1lcn "h the oeo and WQI.1Id m~ COtlll<:k "11111 OJv-oppln9 c""""'le -'-::-.r-\ " o~ _,.. ..,_ I;~ , ., '"rne wm.1em onc1 Emtom Secllom. Eastern Opllon The W59, W71 , and. would meet the wOI.ki proWde similar ocf.lonloges when compared to the No-lk.lid Memo!Ne. Appendix 6-4 The No·~ulld AH•marlv~ Is Jricjud9d lOr'*~~ "i .~ii!:e.>•Ath NEP.\1~ E\IIJiut;ti!Ciri:C!' lhe fii~I.-J111P<>I"d lre"woy, allnUal wavelt!mecom >!Jirinui~ .o""'O>inicrlefll $200 mJlllon Whd rrHWoy segments oll(l reducing lne duration ol c:cmg.,.tcc! condllionl, • A861 A862 • Appendix 6-4 The banners in this section present In!or motion from Chapter d. Allee/ed Environmvrll. Envir.onm~11tof Consequences ond Mitigation ollhe Droll EIS. These banners oddress potential lmpocls on the existing social. economic. ond environmental selling from the action ol!emollves and the No-Build A!tematfve. Chapter 4 or Ihe Droll EtS includes a svbslanllal discussion ollhose ere men rs or the environment most ollected by lhe proposed freeway. The Chaplet 4 bonners also contain inlormo11on regarding applicable measures to ovoid or reduce • l What Is mitigation? An action roken to reduce or eim~ ot CIQllir>g ond lllonood iond 111M10 0 lrl:rfllllOIIOIIOo 1®. e~>vironmen tol lmpocts. Viewer$ are urged Ia review lhe contents of Chapter 4 to obtain more Information about the environmental elements presented In lhe bonners. Q~ Wah!r le50Urces ~ ~ Soclalcotdlons ~ ..2 o Noise frtle VI and EJ oQ .:;:1 Visual ~a Resources Land Use • nv1ronmenfaI Displatements ~ c: E ImpatfS ~Topography a ~ Econa!IIIC: lmpacls ~ I e Waters of the US :ii ~J .2 Floodplains s No-Build Allernattve • No moiOC cxotec.~-r-eiOtoo IJ\11vflnces on tooo cne WOI.JkJ occur 1n ~~ StudS IYOm lne oellon allofl,.,llve< would ll1du'O!>Ol,.;- ollocU. • 1ffOOioldllibKl~ wo.w._,t~~-c~ declsiOI'I·f'I'ICllinO Dl'OCt!tS$. o.:p.nl OO::OU to ~ ltut bff'ICIIilt otlyrulld by 1l1a UtOPOl'f'd f•~r onc:t WOUitl flO! oe t.at.4er.tlo ~'*" ~od'I(IOO eHoat3 !roo• me -~..._,~., •"*9HC'Y' ...........,..,. ........ =-~==~=-~~~rwJoelo loCGt ~· • • tt l641 No·lu~d 4 '""'" pn;10I\l, ~lwr • Allemollve -g • ExaJing cf'W1 planned land dovO!Of)f'l'lOfll pattmns. lnc:llltJil'1g .,ew coml't'lerdal and restdenhol cuco\ oncllronspoc,atlon ptOjecn. VoJOIAd conhtlve wltllouJ 100 proposed lo lmoaOCrct cooci110m. • lnaeoQ"'IIon on li>e local ~~reel ,_WOUld be ""peclod• .._ioly In ll>o rnorltopkfty developing o•eos: wlfhirllhe SJudy Area. FHWA l fld'&..-y •to i!:letl!.l4 pohbits Conslruc 11on of lt,e now freeway w ould d r.ploc e homes. ~lnesses . and publiC locRifle<. dlall'rinotiOnOebw lcienlltlei the po1enf~ ltr~IXlCI' trom the octlon oltemoiM':l Representative Impacts Adlon Alternatives: ltni)OCb trorn 1t'JC oc:!lon OI!4Hno!IYM 'WOUld lrw:;iJejo. bUI ~ nol on limi!Od lot ·lho •lfocl1 by the J>II)I)Ol8d lreew<>y"" protoc:kld popvtalloM WOUlD f'IOI con>Joh,lc undUe hot~h.p a dl$propor1ionotefy hgh and octven;e e!Je.c:ts.. • AI populoliotu. lt>c:lvOOg pems !!nee fl b~t, .A.·;q!.~~!X:::-41 f\•lic~ J Representative Mitigation . / f..:OI"'It t('0Ltlt!.JCI I'IKI•.Jkl lf'l.":"lvj•!, b.;! o'.VUid not tz- lln"Wii.-.:1 ID AL' o1 1no 'l'"' Ttt;... ...1,)4 tt•n Civil r;.q~t\ ~· ut t9&J ~\ flhl r_n~n~··~OIdttoq IJClt::oe'IV Appendix 6-4 Economic Ol"!a(ysis con1kfered tax revenue Impacts lhol 'NOuld resull lrom the ocrlon alternatives. Jrovelllme Sovings , 'Q a No-'"""' Whttn tomjXJitld to Ill& AJimnat.ve theoction alemativ~ would resutl •l J 5 marron hours ollraY~ II~ savings onnuoMy, Thtt oavor.m lo ovor $200 million Pc.'!l' Representative Impacts Actlon AlfemaUvm !r'I"'IXXC:ts ttt>n11hG QCIIiOI'\ Olt~tl\tes VIIOIJd /l"dud<1, OUt~ 001 bo lm1k>d lo;. • eorw&r~ o l O).i$t1nq toxoi:!IO bod lo o 110"11mcJblo V\oO • 011nuo1los.s ol pcopet1y ona ~lr.» tax revcoue ft10m mt~shng lot'ICILI$(!i_ • Levob of cdlo11o poUvtonls hav• bflef't de-clining. Co.mporhon ol Nal!onof fconomlc and Demogcophlc Gfowih lndleofon -$4.Q).f00... S$.,011,100 $2.4JO, t~ $2.A3,100 A.; . . . . .-~ $.213900 • 10 so ·~ (ll!omR~~(If;Qj~IOIOndt.oY.t~\if'dl!lltullr.,gc:ono"" lllo 011111J0111ndinls, no NoliOnoiAmbie~l Air Oval~y SIOnd01dS hove been "'tobl;st,ed lor MSAls. PJojecl·spec:lllc predfcliorn ol w is oi>O eompl'oeo led by ~lallme Ji,e .. 70 yeort ru<<»smenr.. unee. and the lOCk ol conser)SUS on on oceeploble level o1 rl«. F<>lch 1101 technical s110ttcomr.>g;, fl>& noOe lf!IPOCI oilhe prop<»ed ~eewov on neorbv~liliw> 1.,..; """ilocewmple, l'ii'Sidences) 'fYOS eYOioofed lo determine If noise reduction optiom were oeeded CICCO(ding lo AOOT's Nooe Abo1ement f'Qllcy. &0<:1 """" borrler r"""'' lOCO- ood c>mernions would oe _.,.reddurng Representative Impacts tnodrutgo~ V'loc~e Adton Allemo~veJ --+:• i • MS~ots oml~WQvld ~ ncor lho propoMK:I ~ ~ t:linKI~n,~~gi~ Abolemontl'ok)l. CQrtgeSfiot\. regklnol MS.All~.....cuiO d~ • MS-'t~~ ~ ~ II'~ e>11!r'IQ"' over ~~ bcca.&e of nal.cnol c:oni'Of' Utclegi01. No.aultct AUemollve • hg!Ot'd tlutflC congm:tbn ""'UOd ~ ~n a~mpOred 10 !no ~lgn U\lftmcPwa JKfl ~ tew.JII 1t1lneietfted mglonat M$.A.t' errwionl.. MSA~ h:Yff\ ~ ~ tfon'\ ~1ir'l(j ~ ~ ll,.ne ~ el notoonat (:Qt!l?d SJtO!egloe\. Representative Impacts Aciion All~moi!Y'e$ • Woufrd ln1roduce noise wOOto 11 CUtfCnllv c::k>e$ no1 e.dsl Of at highef leveh 11100 OO'N ~~eo. Greenhouse Gas Emlssions (climate change) No~ Bund Climote change I! on lmpo0. • No rno}Or P"'!ect-rototed ln!'h.Je~ Q(l I10be wootd OCCUC In thO Sll)tl'f Ar&O, • txdt1ng o,cr pf(l(lned IQ,d devetopmonl pottf!!rM. • No on•.,..ol"'-'""•1 goeern-.. gose, IGHG>I onolyils""" pel• Ofoje me pubic o - ol oppo!lunities !O gCIII'1ef tntOtmotiOill and p:avide Cnt. No-Build Alh!fnotlv~ YfMtlt!M WIO! il~' " SK!kln W71 ,. - _ W59 - [w!WI'I kte."MDO fl • No ll leOmieity. ond one! u~guiO !)ON:. c.-et~led ond rxoteetOd lhroogh SIO!G minetal ro$001'.ces ~ Representative Impacts Acllon Allernollvci tmpoc.b ttom I~ ocJion olt emof'we~ would tnoltlde bu1 \4VI.ikJ rool be imi:led to: W-.lttn ~tiOt\ WIOI ' W7l -' W59 • G<9Vndwoter Ofld ~ concfilioru may In&!..,.,., de!lgn.ond conjln.lc;llon, bVl well cof'ldliontOJ& coml'rlOflly ~.ountered or'Kf dCC.Qvnled torlo dm(gn onCI c:ombuctlon • Little direct eH&ct Ql'l graunfed·•e!oledlnllue<1Ces on lopogoophy, geology. ond soils would OOQ.< lo the Study Ateo.. • Exi!tlng cmd ~nned lond d~m«~l po11ecrn, inducing new' corrwredo! and res;de,tiOI areas ond lransp:~rlralkln protecll.- would ~ntlnue wilhcvt tM ptOpOS"ed I""""''Y. leod'onQ to modifico OOO.Io lopogteophy, goology, and soils and lrlcrecned demonc:h. on groundWO'Ier lVOp)y. llni'Wtl 5t~ellan • BIOtl.ng moy bere! • SOfld ood g!OVel Ope fmpoch ~om lt1c oclioo aflornoUve. ""uld lncludt!. bul would ooj be limllod to: • ~\q/ olloclloh>gloQ bol\aiiiQI or !lie Sl>r.o<; S&\l>aliifa•. and habiten ~lloo l>cbltot, • May rellrlcl ...,., ~~~. """'"'"""' becaw> attn.. p~ bmler that would be oroctod by '"" ~oowov bo """"" rh• Soul~ Mouolalnsooo Slcloo Bl!ofo • WOtBQ~ and forxJ reW>IJrees lorwH!ohabilat prt. pr- No·8ulld Allomotive • Ho mojot Cfoied·rekstod lni'IIA)~ on bloloQicol '~<* wOV6d occt.~ln the Stlldv Areo • bls:tong ancf pfonr~ br!d Cktvelopo'lo.nt po'lleMs.. Including rtfltN ~M1M:iQI and residenfiol orem. and fronmortaOOn pro{ec:b, would continue ¥.\lhoul Jhe ~d ft &eWOY~ kKidinQ JO c:ont!rwoct dblt.lfbonte ot coWH. aroos;. omfii"' OtUOS. cmd tood resoutQI1 pruld be Ch 0'1 hom, wol<. olld rood1, • A869 A870 • Appendix 6-4 Culh.xalresovrce l'lvestlgolioo$ were periamed to eslcb&h lhe p!oposed freeway'scompAooce-M:th lhe Notioool Hi>"loi<; "'"""""tion Acl and olhert>w:s. Cui"""''"""""!!< III'M'...,i'ldudo orchoeologico1 stle5, hi5toric buid:ngs and rlrvc'h.tB5. orbtodt and ob{eats. and pioce> of hOOiionol. re8glout. and aJiti.IOI sjg!liflc:anc:e. Representative Impacts Adlon Allernoll""' lmpocli from 100 od!on ol!emof"!Qfion of was.;ondvcted todeteminewhether • conlai'I'WiattM:I ~Is WQtJ6d be pr~t neot pofet~llc'J hc:Alldou$ molmlc* ~lef • Vl1detQ10Und i!OfOgf) fOtltJ. ~ f'!ce0 """""'' ldenhfying potM1iOI ,;.1111 tr\~ tn&.rhk d de!Oys dlling: coru-lnJelion Ol"'d &xpow:e Ill contOlW)anb to Inc pVI>Ic:. • I Transport of hazardous materials 1'\QlCJh~V. n'IQI I\'f~fi ftt)Ql.. .r-lt, IIOI'I'Spc!!t;d CilffW)ftU)iOt1t HJOd~ ~CIOrtr.• uo1otno and point nroduciL AOOT '' re.pomlb;.;>tot do\'ekJpno_ ~llfnllno. o.nd '"")lllhJ!l!I'Q tt.n 1.-.1 ol cJeUfJt)(llef! nnd 1eii'IC1C'-bylhe-·"·--bo-I>OI,..'""""h- tho Stud'( Araa WOIAd CCW'IIinuo to bocQmo moro W'ban botc:n.no d nlonncid ~t; lf'lOtOioro ,~ ol tor~ wcMd lk.E'v I'O'I'I"'C;;W''Inddrlni~. No·8ulld Allemalive • No projod-rekJted lmpock on Pflmct-Qnd uniQue kll'mlond would oca.t. • E>lsllng end ploMed lond ol polle< - •·reiOiedlobuences.., """""""'m<~ierlols """ wWcl""""' develop'"""' pot term lnc:Mtng ,_~and ltonfpor1DI!Ofl pto{et;:ls. would conrinve wfthou1 fhe ptOPCKed treewov. 5eoding to potmtlo! lmpoe!• oo hcuofdoUJ molorlob sl~ • &.;>1"'!1 ond plonf'«<10110 ~entlal ooeos o,.,;; • A871 A872 • Appendix 6-4 •""'llY""' would be fO>SI luel con>Umpllon by vet>cles iTovelng wiHin ono ClfOIJl'\d ihe Slvcly Aseo. Ooeco11oo:ol energ.,. use was colcUot&di.JSWlQ MAG trotttc Pnmooy The Sllldy Aseo was evoluoled fn terms ol the existing visuol c:ondllioru and landscape charocler. lhe onolysi• identified cf'ISlinclleoiUies, 01eos of preset'\'ofion ond d'~tvrbonce. key londmorl(s, end mojO< viewpoints. pc:oiec lion:~ MOricopo COUr'lly v&hicle togisfto!ion recordt.. ond u.s. Oepl. of Ehe•gy !vel economv dolo. Representative Impacts AcHon AJternolives lmpocb.ffom lne odH>n olfernollvmwoold~. but would not betmltedto: 'llt:!'-l bcb f I I *il!i' t '· "a ·--bot---·-.. . . . . . _ ·-InWIOI • C""'lM'""' octlvlllet W71 rt11W lmlfGin(el~ W59 ondl"" ~ • V-hcm lf'lldtt'-.i""""al I"" WIOI oodV<>CI!Io""""' ~or~~~r~Hidtt\IICII dJ~~>l '*'~ll-.oti'IOI lr~y djlemo!r.'e:s llle_.a Representative Impacts Ac::11on AflernaHves tmpod\ would include. bul wovld 1101 be lmited lo; Impact """""''"" MQI,jtltl)irlt, ~tn WOlMf oiler !he .,filOftJVJ: MIIJOd "llr!Q< No·Bulld Alfotnollve No·Bund A»elnollve • No rnojor OIO!Od•lP0$00 ~efl'o'IOy, leodlng lot~ cooYeniao ol ti"oe Sludy Area to on Vtbon DpPeOICnce. Impact ••O•Ihtlfd AI!O:IftG""e galo__p., 'fMII ·-•lei • l Among !he actioo ACTION ALTERNATIVES= altemotives. operational energy use is essentially LESS FUEL about the same and oft PER YEAR action alternatives ore projected fa resuil in les.s fuel consumption than the ~lo·Bulld A!lerna live. 40M GALLONS a Representative Mitigation J ~ll) l"r•hl)lJI'!Y, +\ f,10f.-.J',?d Appendix 6-4 Temporary . Construction lrru:>acts, ---·· - - ...,_ Corntrvc;fiDt'l oc;tlviJfes WCXJtd hove o temporary impocJ Qt1 proiec:J 'S\Itouncings In tne SIUdyNeo. Representative Impacts Actio~ 1\llftrnollvM tmpoc:ls t•on\ rne action otternatlvet woold lnciUOe, bvl \IIICJYid not be fmitact to~ ~ • W101 J w.,. .S.ciiOI'! W71 _ • W59 No·BUIId Allornotlve • ConstruE:hOCl odMty os.~teo w!lh eomtittg ana pkmnea land developil'l'\9f\l polleM. ~ Oti!IWCOI''I'Imetdof OnOCIY lmpoctt may ~· gvwllJ. ~~Jonges" IQflQ 1M !X!irom~. po-~ density'"' ctowih rnl&. ot'ld fe-loled etfech on dr or.d woler o:nd o:lherno~al sylterm. Cumu1olfve lrnpgc:h are enwonrncntOIW'I"'PPCtt!nOI reslil from the" 'ernen'olimpoct ot the oclionwnenodde:d to l and relocation proce$5 that ADOl is required Ia roriow. ADOT net~ hAfiUed the requwemems otlhis federal process lor monv yean on mofly projecb. oltler pasJ. p~ent. onc:l r&osonably' fcr~bi& tuhse octloru. CIJI'nl.lk)flve lmpoctJ aecon\idered decl effects 1hat ore caused by lh&odlon cmd OC:CtX ot the 5ome t!l"'lEE and oScK;e Rlghl-ol·way process lnfOtmaHon con be obtained by • An ocquislllon and relc>caijon osslist0<1ee program wO Relocation Aulst·ance and Real Representative Impacts speaking with on ACOT Rlghl·oi-Woy Properti&s Acquisition PoRcles Act or 1970. Actton Attema~lves- representallv& or rmpoctl trom lhet action oltomotives would tndudb, bvt would r.ol ba 1m11eo to • Qro!Nltt., lralf'l;. popolQ'ItOn. and r.~Qtl!'d-effKh ~OCOJfy.'IU'I ot W!!OOUt jnl)' CW'ooosed fr'l!eway. uMuti11; lr'~~HOn • This oct identifies the proct>ss. procedures. and lime frame fO< right-of-way ocQOisillon and relocation of allecled residents 0< businesses. eaRing 602·112·7316. • All replacement hoWlng would oo decenl. safe. 50111iory, and Within a diSPIOCeS. • ~~on cMoio(,f-• ,_and"'"'*"'.., """'""""""" COPOdiV I@NO is 16.600 OOCS, Ond ~ Oj)OlQtllllc- gU-:f~eftre lo Uta! ond H1of ~.., pt()Jflcf lttdudtSl Ci1H p~t' .,r.:wnltu• jC) rrHnln 1&4. f1. 1 t. lf'tt ' '1Ut(' YS.. Sec6o~ • (IJ OQp$eS to Pct> that r~&lvo lundlt\g from or opp:ovol by an ogi!ney ot the u,S~ Deportment of lu:aruporlotron. p,_...., • rlluotlc JHource -l"r~y Ellgll:ilt: lor lhft Nllllonal Register o Hl«tork' f'foce• The p(rt'$ origm_ begon i'l 1924 Clfld ho$ o rlcll h~1ory, from 1933 to 1941. plo]ecls '" lhe port were oompjeled by the etvmon Co.,......o10c>n Corp$ PD IJCO'o'lde ,e(ef from U1e Great DepteWon Tradition I r vttvral l'ropel'ly Nftaf or ., -II '' !J ~ •fk Within 01 necr the Study Aleo. the toUowl:ng ole w~Jiec::t to • The SotJtk MOUtltoltl!. ote eligt.b1o os o r.ocilfonol cutturo1 property becov:.& "'CV ~e consldefed .$0Cfed. pfoyl.-.g -o role In oertOI'Il Not!~ Amerlcon c:u!lvret., tt;lentffie1. hhlories. ond oraf 1rodition!.. oro1ac:li0n under Sectlon Aff): • Reoeotionollroih • Hatoric piOOEIIIes • l Reoooflor1ollodifles c>Soc!oled wltn pubGc sc11~ """* ""'"' Whal are tradillonal cultural properties? ltOO>lial'lQCJ&Jitulal ~- rrcPtl a~ rAocrJ (l)nltdl"'ddi ~.ani b II'W Highway plonnen QOCI de~ners mvs=t demorastto,e there~ no prvdenl cmd feosible oltemofJve be!Ote ol\ow'ing o hlghwoy ptoj&d 10 lf111X>Ct o S&e~on •II) reteiV f!(lQOQe aD ooovlaiioo $EOmeJll) ensurl11g eauol occen to the as process.. • &t~lng constructive ogency portrcjpol.ion opporf~Jnliie1 • Obtoinlrtg DUbllc tnoul Throughout !he sTUdY to cnsto.i I" devo1001no o wet ~ned -------------------------------------El 'fiOQIId,ewll in tt't616e ot SOG11Qn 4jll fetOt.«~ ln lhe $0qll\ MounfOra.,~31 ac:tG:I (Otl8'1oll'hon .~ OetOII'liJ .of I)Ublll:o. pc;i:lono011l~i01'<1.- "' 0~­ eultuta1 Prop41f!Y No· Build Alternative r-Joi!'IYni!Jdiot& ~rswocJ'd~. teseorc.,ed oncl defensit;Jkt EIS • lden111Ytf'lg cmd considering kev iUVt» ond ~OrK;(tm1; • lmQroving tho ctecislon·mo}ll"'{;lOtOCes:a. but lrornpo1obotHololeQ plonnevelopmenl '"""'ed!!rottt Mde<>J c""lct con1ribvto to '"""" iml>oe~ Representative Measures to Minimize Harm Outreach Activities 2001-2013 Agency Public ·Sc~lettoniOollo~l­ ~- -duntlo&:@.,,._ t!ale, ondlocd-"""" •~pt"""'lalioCio!lons. • INOtrf'OIIan C'CII!IC1~ from eornmun!IV CWict Jrepc-MenTotive meosuHH JoJ'!'inimize horm lo hi$foric properfle$ ond !:JailS would include. but would no1 b6 'mited lo: • Spo~>nlng ,;~,. pIIc:meelbg> . s~..,..,...., .,._,rJOUOh - ~-~TI....., ~ ,.,..,.~..,1"'"'' ond -110<;CJ_Iocllh"'" W-"Y- . ~. . . .~l)fOQIM> lt\ee10(1g> ~...... Mv 2001 to CfOI:ul\; - Aft.ernofl'lltu quoillloru. (l<"dln!OtmOliOOai pO ,..,....._all.. - ----pul* - ~j11Qtcl011g"' - EnWarwNJniOIIm,pod~ """""""""' of 1""-,..,..,..C aotlan h >ludypha>rnatlves. • Assbfed In determining lnlerchange locations. llldudlnQ shiNing I he ptop<)$8(1 Sls1 Avenue lf"'tercho f1Qe ln loveef\ Vlrioge Ol'ld eUI1'fno!ing th6pcoposed32ndStfeel tt\tetcho!'\ge 101 M waMee Foolnlll\"Yik>ll<>. • Reviewed op~ons along Pecos Rood In Mwoh.rkee Foothllll Vllloge. • Proposed measures to mln1mlze lmpac:ts to sensl11ve ffHOUices. indudlng ollg:nf'lle'n• 1'ropo1-ed mtl'cnute1 to mlnin\bc lmpoeh slt.1ts near Tcbeson Hi~ $c.h001ln Tctewn ond South Mo\;nfOTn t'Oft./Pt&et'I O rfl lQV&ef"' ViJoQC. Svg.g'lttcd n•w oflemootlvot As.shlt.'d k\ dclermlnlng lnfe,chang~ loc:oflon~ Pfovrtded locally llnpoOrtanl hnuu, ~ ~ Sugg&slod do,lgn cpr.om (d~pre-H*d fre-eway. tvnn~ bridge-t) • Provided Input on locally Important issues. 1r"clucf.!lg loco!loos ot wOl'l in Ahwotvtee Foothil< 1/JDQ!! and DOienlfallv ~l!fcl!e ptopot!ill< tnroughoull~a O!llcommend1>d ree> In 1118 S1udv Neo hove ~.od os o vc:4tX'Itorf. OdV60r¥ 1eom 10 p-0\"id& ocMco ol"\d lnpvi ro: FHWA and ADOT. The Sovth: Motmklln OttzenJ Advnory 1eom (S,~ dedlooted time to: There ore several opporlunHJes lor thE' public lo provide commE'nls on the Draft EIS. All comment methods are considered equal. lheo Droll EIS 11 cvr:rlloblD lor c 90-o Co,u11Jiy. Ol51rlcl 6' Commlllea • Gilo RNet lncr.on torRt»ponslble Oevctopmenl · lo•&on Vi'loge Proonrng Commllloe • Markopo Counly form • Ahwo h.>kE!e Lolr:ttWOQd Col"i"llnU!"Iitv. OblllCl 'f• Homeownen A.Ssodotion • G!lo River lndlon • Ani.Qno fOIWord CornmiJrlity~ EldE:Wly A»odotloll Conceuu Grovp• • Mzono Public Heal II> A.Uodotion Bureau • MotJflloln Porte ~onct'l Homeowners Assoclolfon • Col!oolie!d• ~omeowroers • PhoOJ>i• Mounloin• Aslodol!on • Eosl Volley Porloonl\!p' Amdolfon• • Eiloello Viloge PloMing • Arlf'\Qfon ESlOIM Comrrilllee Homeowne~ P.ss.o<::10tlon • The Fool})llls Horneowne:~~ • Colobreo HOI"neownen A$$0Cipll011 • AAZooo lfVelrro Club • Sll\lll(odo Roneh A.ssodotlort • Soulh Moonfoin Vll!oge • foo!hllll Re1e1Ve Planning Convnlllea t-4ome<~wnen A\wc1otlon • South Movntoln/Loveen • $..-10/Peco.s Rood et.ombm or commerce· londa..vnen Association · Southwest Votiey • kyrorte 8om&n10tY Chamber of Cotr!mere& School Din' • l 6Q Loop 202 South Mountain freeway Study 1655 W. Jackson SITeet, MO 126f Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 projeclsitozdot.gov 602.712.7006 czdot.gov/ SouthMou ntolnfreeway HOt'ri&OW!1ef~ • Pf"\1\CVJ. me~ orgonUat•om Since 200 I, over Provide o formol3·mlnule comment"IO the study panel (ot the heorlng only]. SMCA1 meetings hove been held. Online Public Hearing • All otlne mQ!e~ '""""'led ollilepobic t'!etlfillg, lndvolng the stt.Jdy video. bohnfM"i, ond comm~nt IQtm, will bo o¥oiloble tloorfir>g Moy 21. 2013. Commen11 will be accepted UI\IA _July 1.C, 2013 ol cndot.gov/ S.oulhMotmlaJnkeewoy. Communlly forums • Wffi bo held or vtll'o0"' loco lion• lf1 l11e Sludy llreo m:tfed. bv1 no fQfmol ..heanflg" fl)r'f'na l wid OCC\If ot ~~community fCNm rN!effng-t,. • forurn JocationJ ......'!U b~ posted at otdot.gov/SOuthMounlolnfreewoy emoiled ro the e--~letler ~bscnbe:s, 01ld PVbfis,hecf In the newl~r Q/id 10<:61 pllbio06!16tU. Appendix 6-4 What Is NEPA? The Notional Envirolifflenlol Polley Ad ol \969 establishes a homework lhol allows federal ogenctes to consider o mu4fitude of faeton. Including enviro-n mental concems. when making prpjecl·re1oted dec:UionL Why are FHWA and ADOT preparing an EIS? • NEPA reqiJiros federal ogr&~ lo Eu::omina Ihe erM'om1ento\ $0dol, oc eoonomJc-lmpocls oC a proposed oeJion and prst In the proposed jroowoy, FtfWA and AOOl .hove determined lhQI on EJS is opptO!=:tlote kx this pr()j:Xmd acflon. Federal ociions NEPA Facts • AppfleJ 0<11\' lo ' led..-ol ocllo,.,.. • Requif:eslhOI 9n-Aronmen1ot elf•I)Ch OJ& oomidered by o lede I'>QUenceo proce" from ,,111 .. 11!.\. rna t>eglllnln~ Public ... Involvement Process • Requires evoiU01ion of ell recuonobe ollerngtfvm. lncludlng the No-Build Allernollve. • RequlrWII 010 '"''""'~ I!ICJIOCIObillll\. ~­ t:.olled YC11J~W'IIt11n~ 11 om>~~-- J;ov-i~J.. li"' MoWJOs o ~lukltnbnl ol \1<1 ~oblom I~ ~~ J:rotocl a o ~""'llf;Qs ,,,~ien'OI' bolteoodAI<»"'iw. ~E$ ""'*"*'too pubiclOfl. 8. No demonstration$· Oemorwrolionswfl not oeotowed ln OI?i or fl"!erooms. • Please remain quiet while in the audience (turn off cell p hones or set them to vibrate ). • Please do not interrupt a speaker. • Please leave the room tor side discussions. • When at the microphone, please refrain fro m addressing the audience or asking for audienc e partic ipation. the. number or people Who moy.wlsh to !peCic.. ylet1hg tlme lo anOther person wnt not b:a Monday, June 23, 2014 11:46 AM Brock Barnhart RE: South Mountain Freeway Coordination HelloBrock, Ireceivedyourtelephonemessage.Iaminameetingrightnow.IwasgoingtocallyoubackassoonasI’mdone.Yes thatistheformalprotocol.  Respectfully, Zuzette Kisto | Director Communications & Public Affairs Office C 520.705.3099 | O 520.562.9851   From: Brock Barnhart [mailto:BBarnhart@azdot.gov] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 11:43 AM To: Zuzette Kisto Subject: South Mountain Freeway Coordination  HelloZuzetteͲ  WearebeginningtoplanourcommunicationeffortsforthereleaseoftheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementandI wouldliketomakesurethatwearefollowingourpreviouslyagreeduponprotocol(Government–Government)for releasinginformationtothecommunity.  x AttheApril30,2013TTTmeetingADOTwasaskedtoprovideyouwiththematerialsfortheSouthMountain Freewayandyouwoulddisseminatethroughoutthecommunity.Youhadprovidedusasummaryofwherethat informationwent,whohadaccesstoitandwheretheDEISwasavailableforpublicreview.Isthisstillthe directiveofthecommunity,tohaveinformationflowthroughyouasthePIOtothecommunitymembers?  Thankyou, Brock   BrockJBarnhart AssistantCommunicationDirector 1655WJacksonSt.MD126F Phoenix,AZ85007 602Ͳ712Ͳ4690 azdot.gov   1 A918 • Appendix 6-5 Spargo, Benjamin Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s)named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received the e-mail by mistake and permanently delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Brock Barnhart Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:11 PM Zuzette Kisto; Felicia Beltran Jennifer Grentz RE: South Mountain DEIS Public Involvement Campaign Questions Zuzette—thankssomuchforthisinformation.  BrockJBarnhart AssistantCommunicationDirector 1655WJacksonSt.MD126F Phoenix,AZ85007 602Ͳ712Ͳ4690 azdot.gov   From: Zuzette Kisto [mailto:Zuzette.Kisto@gric.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:07 PM To: Felicia Beltran Cc: Jennifer Grentz; Brock Barnhart Subject: FW: South Mountain DEIS Public Involvement Campaign Questions HelloAll, Oops,sorryIforgottheGRINattachments.  Respectfully, Zuzette Kisto | Director Communications & Public Affairs Office C 520.705.3099 | O 520.562.9851   From: Zuzette Kisto Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:06 PM To: 'Felicia Beltran' Cc: Jennifer Grentz; 'Brock Barnhart' Subject: RE: South Mountain DEIS Public Involvement Campaign Questions HelloFelicia, x x WastherepublicaccessintheCommunitytoreviewtheDEIS,besidesonline,e.g.repositorylocations,suchasTribal Departmentsorlibraries? Yes,additionalhardcopiesweremadeavailableatthefollowinglocation:District1Ͳ7ServiceCenter,IraH.Hayes MemorialLibrary,Alleldermeetings,UrbanMembersAssociationmeeting,aswellastheCPAO. 2 1 Appendix 6-5 • A919 WasthereanadplacedintheGRIN?Doyouhaveacopyofthetearsheettosendtous,withthedate(s)ofpublication? AttachedaretearsheetsfromtheGRIN. x x HowwerethefactsheetsandorCDsweprovideddistributed,andatwhatlocations? Allmeetingattendee’satthefollowinglocationswereprovidedfactsheets,District1Ͳ7ServiceCenter,IraH.Hayes MemorialLibrary,Alleldermeetings,UrbanMembersAssociationmeeting,aswellastheCPAO. Respectfully, Zuzette Kisto | Director Communications & Public Affairs Office C 520.705.3099 | O 520.562.9851 1. History of communication with GRIC .............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Shuttle travel times ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Map of existing public transportation routes to/from public hearing and community forums and Laveen and GRIC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 5. Awareness campaign communication and advertisement:............................................................................................ 3 6. Fact Sheet and How to Participate handout sent to GRIC? When? To whom? .............................................................. 4 7. How were details on the shuttle bus, validated parking and transit vouchers provided to the public? What was the verbiage? ................................................................................................................................................. 4 8. Hotline ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 9. What participation methods were described in the How to Participate video? .......................................................... 10   From: Felicia Beltran [mailto:FBeltran@azdot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:53 AM To: Zuzette Kisto Cc: Jennifer Grentz Subject: South Mountain DEIS Public Involvement Campaign Questions HelloZuzette:  WearecompilingouroutreachsummaryofeffortsandhavesomequestionsspecifictoGRICoutreachefforts.Atthe April30TransportationTechnicalTeam(TTT)meetingwhereyouandDavidwereinattendanceaswellasGovernorand LieutenantGovernor,BrockourCommunicationsAssistantDirectordiscussedbestoutreachmethodswithyouandthe reporterwiththeGRIN.  Couldyoupleaseprovideinformationregardingthefollowing:  PleasealsoletusknowifyouledanyotheroutreacheffortswithintheCommunityforthisproject.   Thankyou, FeliciaBeltran SeniorCommunityRelationsOfficer 1655WJacksonSt.MD126F Phoenix,AZ85007 602Ͳ319Ͳ7709 azdot.gov The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.    Contents 10. Did we contact GRIC PI about conducting a GRIC awareness campaign event? If yes, result? .................................... 11 11. Elected official and stakeholder briefings ..................................................................................................................... 11 12. Briefing with David White – do we have details of this discussion? Any special request or voicing concerns about PI for DEIS? ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 13. DEIS availability ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 14. Public hearing notification mailer ................................................................................................................................. 13 15. Did GRIC PIO and/or GRIN receive media alerts and press releases? When? .............................................................. 13 16. Newspaper display ads ................................................................................................................................................. 13 17. Radio ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 18. Other media .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 19. Community forums ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 20. GRIC transportation to public hearing/community forum ........................................................................................... 20 21. Email comments............................................................................................................................................................ 20 22. Public hearing – “no signs” message - consistent? ....................................................................................................... 21 23. SMCAT meetings ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Attachment 1: August 10, 2012 Public Involvement Team Meeting Summary .................................................................... 25 Attachment 2: Fact Sheet ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Attachment 3: How to Participate Handout ......................................................................................................................... 29 Attachment 4: Mailer ............................................................................................................................................................ 31  Attachment 5: GRIC Address Map (from mailer distribution) .............................................................................................. 33 Attachment 6: Sample Newspaper Ad (from Ahwatukee Foothills News) ........................................................................... 34 Attachment 7: Hotline Message Retrieval Log ..................................................................................................................... 35 ________________________________  Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . 2 Attachment 8: Telephone Conversation Record Sheets ....................................................................................................... 37 Attachment 9: ADOT Phone Line (ADA number on publications) Log .................................................................................. 48 Attachment 10: GRIN Tear sheets......................................................................................................................................... 50 i A920 • Appendix 6-5 4. GRIC PI Documentation 1. Map of existing public transportation routes to/from public hearing and community forums and Laveen and GRIC Public Transportation to/from Laveen/Phoenix Convention Center: x From Laveen Village (51st Avenue/Dobbins) History of communication with GRIC The communication protocol established for this study, from years of previous coordination and with respect for the Community’s cultural norms, was conducted in a “government-to-government” nature (i.e., the ADOT Project Manager would speak directly to the GRIC Community Manager; the ADOT Communications Director would speak directly to the GRIC PIO). Coordination occurred one-on-one with the appropriate GRIC official. 2. Shuttle travel times ROUTE 1 – to Convention Center 9:30 am / 12:30 9:35 am / 12:35 pm / 4:30 pm pm / 4:35 pm Depart 59th Depart 91st Avenue/Van Avenue/I-10 (SE Buren (bus corner, Liberty pullout on 91st Fuel parking lot) Avenue just north of Van Buren) ROUTE 2 – to Convention Center 9:30 am / 12:30 9:40 am / 12:40 pm / 4:30 pm pm / 4:40 pm Depart Komatke Depart Southern Boys & Girls Club, Ridge Golf Club (57th Avenue and 5047 W. Pecos Baseline), 5740 Rd., Laveen W. Baseline Rd., Phoenix ROUTE 3 – to Convention Center 9:30 am / 12:30 9:55 am / 12:55 pm / 4:30 pm pm / 4:55 pm Depart Depart Pecos Governance Road/40th Street Park and Ride, Center, 525 W. Ahwatukee Gu u Ki, Sacaton 9:45 am / 12:45 pm / 4:45 pm Arrive Phoenix Convention Center 9:58 am / 12:58 pm / 4:58 pm Arrive Phoenix Convention Center 10:13 am / 1:13 pm / 5:13 pm Arrive Phoenix Convention Center ROUTE 1 – from Convention Center 12:15 pm /4:15 12:25 pm / 4:25 pm / 7:30 pm pm / 7:40 pm Depart Phoenix Arrive 59th Convention Avenue/I-10 (SE Center corner, Liberty Fuel parking lot) ROUTE 2 – from Convention Center 12:00 noon / 4:00 12:18 pm / 4:18 pm / 7:30 pm pm / 7:48 pm Phoenix Southern Ridge Convention Golf Club (57th Avenue and Center Baseline), 5740 W. Baseline Rd., Phoenix ROUTE 3 – from Convention Center 11:45 am / 3:45 12:03 pm / 4:03 pm / 7:30 pm pm / 7:48 pm Depart Phoenix Arrive Pecos Convention Road/40th Street Center Park and Ride, Ahwatukee 12:30 pm / 4:30 pm / 7:45 pm Arrive 91st Avenue/Van Buren (bus pullout on 91st Avenue just north of Van Buren) Public Transportation to/from GRIC/Phoenix Convention Center: x From Komatke Health Center: 12:28 pm / 4:28 pm / 7:58 pm Komatke Boys & Girls Club, 5047 W. Pecos Rd., Laveen 12:28 pm / 4:28 pm / 8:13 pm Arrive Governance Center, 525 W. Gu u Ki, Sacaton x From 40th Street/Pecos Park and Ride: 2 1 Appendix 6-5 5. Awareness campaign communication and advertisement: A921 the Community. There was some additional explanation about providing the forums in a uniform manner at every location. a) How was the campaign communicated? FHWA follow up question: we need any documentation related to the GRIC request for a Community Forum. There was no advertising or specific notification of the awareness campaign events themselves; the awareness campaign was designed to be “advertising” and education for how to participate in the DEIS review and comment process. While conversations with David White regarding offers to host a public outreach event on the GRIC begin in summer 2012, the GRIC first officially responded to this offer at the April 30, 2013 TTT meeting. During this meeting, David White, GRIC Community Manager, requested a Community Forum be conducted on the Community following the public hearing. This was the only request ADOT received from David White regarding whether ADOT could hold a public outreach event during the public comment period. ADOT agreed to do so, and a Community Forum was held on June 22, 2013 at the Komatke Boys and Girls Club on the Gila River Indian Community. b) Where was the information available? Information was available via Press releases, e-newsletters 1; information events; newspaper ads; local publications; radio; social media (approximately 5 Facebook postings, 12 Tweets, and 3 blog entries); media alerts resulting in TV and print coverage; direct mail; website updates; telephone hotline; elected official briefings; and presentations at community events. c) Was the How to Participate video given to GRIC PIO or other GRIC rep? 6. The video was provided to GRIC at the April 30, 2013 TTT meeting, via CDs. Fact Sheet and How to Participate handout sent to GRIC? When? To whom? Brock Barnhart emailed both the Fact Sheet (Attachment 2) and the How to Participate handout (Attachment 3) to Zuzette Kisto (GRIC PIO) on 5/1/13 at 12:01 PM. Copies of the fact sheet and handout were distributed and made available at this meeting. FHWA follow up questions: Was the video just played at the TTT or was a copy given to anyone? The video was not played due to technical difficulties at the meeting facility. A CD with the video was given to GRIC Communications Director, Zuzette Kisto. ADOT also met with the GRIC TTT on April 30, 2013 to present DEIS participation methods and PI approach. FHWA follow up question: what does “present DEIS participation methods and PI approach” mean? Who attended the TTT meeting that day? Attendees include Matt Burdick and Brock Barnhart from ADOT Communications, Nathan Pryor and Bob Hazlett from MAG, and representatives from the Gila River Indian Community included Governor Gregory Mendoza, Lt. Governor Stephen Roe Lewis, Community Manager David White, GRIC Communications Director Zuzette Kisto, GRIC DOT staff and several tribal members interested in the project. ADOT provided attendees with the fact sheet and how to participate handouts that were used during the public comment period to describe the project and how to participate in the public involvement process. At the TTT meeting, ADOT reviewed the materials regarding the project, the public comment period, the public hearing and the various ways for the public to submit comments regarding the South Mountain Freeway DEIS. ADOT delivered hard copies of both handouts to Zuzette Kisto for distribution and display at the GRIC Governance Center and GRIC tribal government service centers used by tribal members. These two handouts were also provided in an Adobe PDF format to Zuzette Kisto for publication in the Gila River Indian Community newspaper and on the GRIC web site. Was the GRIC PIO present at the TTT or provided the video? The GRIC PIO, Zuzette Kisto, was at the TTT meeting and was given the video on CD. d) Was awareness campaign offered to GRIC? Public outreach opportunities were offered to David White starting in 2012. The August 10, 2012 Public Involvement Team Meeting Summary (Attachment 1) includes an update from Chaun Hill, ADOT Project Manager, regarding recent conversations ADOT and MAG had with David White, GRIC Community Manager. The meeting notes summarize that ADOT offered to hold outreach activities on the GRIC prior to the release of the Draft EIS and during the 90-day public comment. D. White indicated he would coordinate with GRIC tribal leadership regarding any public outreach activities on the Community, and would continue to communicate with ADOT and MAG Management regarding the Community’s desires. Potential locations for events were also discussed. In Iate 2012, a follow-up conversation with ADOT (Chaun Hill, Brent Cain), MAG (Bob Hazlett, Nathan Pryor,) and GRIC (David White) occurred which entailed a detailed description of the public involvement process including the public hearing to be held at the convention center downtown and the additional public forums envisioned to be held at different locations throughout the valley. Along with this description, an offer was extended to hold one or more of the forums on the Community if the GRIC so desired. David White seemed to understand the concept of the forums and embrace the possibility of hosting one on the Community. David White said he would let Chaun Hill and the South Mountain Team know if the GRIC wanted to have a forum on 1 • ADOT produced and distributed four study-related e-newsletters to over 15,000 subscribers (see response to Question 5). 3 In response to ADOT requests, the GRIC PIO provided additional information via email to ADOT on August 29, 2013 as follows: “All meeting attendee’s at the following locations were provided factsheets, District 1- 7 Service Center, Ira H. Hayes Memorial Library, All elder meetings, Urban Members Association meeting, as well as the CPAO [Communication & Public Affairs Office].” 7. How were details on the shuttle bus, validated parking and transit vouchers provided to the public? What was the verbiage? x Fact Sheet (Attachment 2) o Verbiage in public hearing callout box: - “Validated parking and transit vouchers will be provided.” o Distribution: - Awareness Campaign display tables x Ironwood Library - 4333 East Chandler Boulevard Phoenix, AZ 85048 x Keep Phoenix Beautiful Downtown Phoenix - Cesar Chavez Plaza x South Mountain Community Center - 212 E. Alta Vista Road Phoenix x ADOT: Motor Vehicle Department - 221 East Olympic Drive Phoenix - Website 4 A922 • Appendix 6-5 x How to Participate handout (Attachment 3) o Verbiage in public hearing and parking callout box: - “Validated parking and transit vouchers will be provided.” - “Free Shuttle Bus Information - ADOT is offering FREE shuttle bus service to and from the Public Hearing at the Phoenix Convention Center from six valley locations. Service will be provided throughout the day on May 21, 2013. For more information, please call 602.712.7006” o Distribution: - Awareness Campaign display tables x Ironwood Library-4333 East Chandler Boulevard Phoenix, AZ 85048 x Keep Phoenix Beautiful Downtown Phoenix -Cesar Chavez Plaza x South Mountain Community Center-212 E. Alta Vista Road Phoenix x ADOT: Motor Vehicle Department-221 East Olympic Drive Phoenix - Website - E-newsletters 2 x Mailer (Attachment 4) – sent to 311 addresses on the GRIC (Attachment 5) o Verbiage in public hearing callout box on outside of mailer: - “Validated parking and transit vouchers will be provided.” - “Free Shuttle Bus Information - ADOT is offering FREE shuttle bus service to and from the Public Hearing. For more information, see inside of this mailer or call 602.712.7006” FHWA follow up question: was the mailer given to the GRIC PIO? When? o o A separate hard copy of the mailer was mailed to Zuzette Kisto (GRIC PIO) on May 10, 2013. Verbiage inside mailer: - “Need a ride to the public hearing? ADOT is offering FREE shuttle bus service to and from the Public Hearing at the Phoenix Convention Center from six Valley locations. Service will be provided several times throughout the day on May 21, 2013 (see the table below for times). For more information, please call 602.712.7006.” - Map of the shuttle stop locations and a schedule table were also included. Distribution: 73,564 addresses in Study Area (map on next page indicates distribution area outlined in red). Approximately 311 of those addresses were on the GRIC. Distribution Map - Mailer FHWA follow up question: was the ad given to the GRIC PIO? When? x Video – “Parking is free” referenced during discussion of public hearing in How to Participate video (at 4:16 in the video). x Newspaper Ads –all of the newspaper ads included the shuttle map showing pick-up and drop-off locations (see Attachment 6 for a sample of the ad) and providing a phone number to call for more details. Due to space limitations, the actual schedule was not printed in the ads, but was printed in the mailer (Attachment 4). Run dates for ads that included the shuttle map were: - Arizona Republic: 4/26, 5/19 - La Voz: 4/26, 5/17 - Ahwatukee Foothills News: 4/26, 5/17 - East Valley Tribune: 4/28, 5/19 - West Valley View: 4/26, 5/17 - Arizona Informant: 5/1, 5/15 2 Yes, ad text regarding the project, the public comment period, the public hearing and the various ways for the public to submit comments regarding the South Mountain Freeway DEIS was given to the GRIC PIO, Zuzette Kisto, at the TTT meeting on April 30, 2013. The GRIC Communication & Public Affairs Office took the lead placing any advertising related to the Public Hearing. Two ads regarding the public hearing, information regarding the location and availability of the Draft EIS, and a map of the alternatives was placed in the May 2013 monthly issue of the GRIN. Can we buy ad space directly from the GRIN? Per the determination by the GRIC Communication & Public Affairs Office to lead the On-Community advertising and communication efforts, ad space was not purchased by the ADOT team. The GRIN is a free monthly publication that includes the following ad rates: Description Measurement Rate Full Back Page Full Page Half-Page 10" wide x 16" height 10" wide x 16" height 10" wide x 8" height $600 $400 $235 One-Fourth Page Business Card Size 4.875" wide x 8" height 4.85" wide x 2.75 height $175 $50 Ibid. 5 6 Appendix 6-5 Did the e-newsletter go to the GRIC or GRIC PIO? When? A923 FHWA follow up question: sent people to website for shuttle bus info, what shuttle information was on the website at that time? ADOT Community Relations distributed electronic notices (e-newsletters) thru the Gov. Delivery system to over 12,000 constituents who voluntarily sign up for project alerts along the I-10 Papago, Maricopa and Santan Freeways. The content of these electronic notices was essentially the same as the press releases. Specific subscribers on the Gov. Delivery system are unable to be verified. 8. • Starting on May 7, 2013, the study website posted the following shuttle bus schedule and pick-up location information. x E-newsletters: Study-related ADOT e-newsletters were distributed on 4/26/13 (availability of DEIS); 5/10/13 (public hearing); 5/29/13 (community forums) and one in June (close of comment period). x Website updates on 4/22/13 (free parking, transit passes) and 5/7/13 (free parking, transit passes, shuttle bus map and schedule) Hotline a) Capacity? Initial hotline capacity was 20 messages; it was expanded to 80 on 5/17/13. FHWA follow up question: was there an indicator if it was full? HDR was informed by ADOT that the hotline was full on 5/15/13. The hotline was checked seven times and 101 messages were retrieved on 5/15/13. ADOT changed the capacity from 20 to 80 messages two days later on 5/17/13. b) Time limit? The time limit for any one message was 5 minutes. c) Who checked it? From April 23 to May 7, the following text regarding the shuttle buses was available on the study website: Michael Book, Deb McCamon, and Lisa Scott with HDR checked the hotline. The retrieval log for the hotline is included as Attachment 7. “Free shuttle bus service to the public hearing d) How often? This numbered varied depending on need – see “Times per Day/Messages Checked” column in attached spreadsheet. FHWA follow up question: How many messages were there when we checked? The number of calls varied each day during the 90-day comment period. For additional clarification, please see Attachment 7. e) How were shuttle bus/transportation questions handled? Any questions that came in regarding how to participate, including any shuttle bus or transportation questions, were forwarded to Michael Book (HDR) to address. The conversation record log sheets are included as Attachment 8. ADOT is offering FREE shuttle bus service to and from the Public Hearing at the Phoenix Convention Center from six Valley locations: x Tolleson x Estrella Village x Laveen Village x Gila Indian River Community (2 locations) x Ahwatukee Village Service will be provided throughout the day on May 21, 2013. For more information, please call 602.712.7006.” f) Did anyone call the ADA line instead? If so, how were those calls handled? The ADA phone line (which is also ADOT’s general line) received 17 calls regarding the public comment process during the 90-day comment period (see log, Attachment 9). This line was checked daily, Monday through Friday. g) What did the message(s) say (scripts)? 7 From April 26 until noon on Monday, May 20 Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. [In Spanish: Please hold for additional information in Spanish]. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period. A public hearing for the Draft EIS is 8 A924 • Appendix 6-5 Tuesday, May 21: Post-Public Hearing Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. [In Spanish: Please hold for additional information in Spanish]. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period. scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2013, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., at the Phoenix Convention Center, North Ballroom. If you would like to pre-register to provide a formal 3-minute verbal comment at the public hearing, please leave a message including your name and phone number or e-mail. A list of all pre-registrants will be posted and updated on the study website at azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. You can provide comments on the Draft EIS online at azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway, at an upcoming community forum as listed on the website, or leave your message here. All comments on the Draft EIS, including your message left on this phone line, will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. Comments on the Draft EIS can also be provided here as a message. If you do leave a message about the Draft EIS, it will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. Thank you. For more information on shuttle bus service to the public hearing, please leave a message or go to azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. [In Spanish: Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period. Thank you. [In Spanish: Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period. A public hearing for the Draft EIS is scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2013, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., at the Phoenix Convention Center, North Ballroom. Translation services will be available. You can provide comments on the Draft EIS online at azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway, at an upcoming community forum as listed on the website, or leave your message here. All comments on the Draft EIS, including your message left on this phone line, will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. Thank you.] If you would like to pre-register to provide a formal 3-minute verbal comment at the public hearing, please leave a message including your name and phone number or e-mail. A list of all pre-registrants will be posted and updated on the study website at azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. Wednesday, June 12: Post-Community Forums Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. [In Spanish: Please hold for additional information in Spanish]. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period which ends on July 24th. Comments on the Draft EIS can also be provided here as a message. If you do leave a message about the Draft EIS, it will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. You can provide comments on the Draft EIS online at azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway or leave your comments as a message here. All comments on the Draft EIS, including your message left on this phone line, will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. For more information on shuttle bus service to the public hearing, please leave a message or go to azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. Thank you.] Thank you. After noon on Monday, May 20: Speaker Registration Closed Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. [In Spanish: Please hold for additional information in Spanish]. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period. A public hearing for the Draft EIS is scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2013, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., at the Phoenix Convention Center, North Ballroom. [In Spanish: Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period which ends on July 24th. Comments on the Draft EIS can also be provided here as a message. If you do leave a message about the Draft EIS, it will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. Thank you.] You can provide comments on the Draft EIS online at azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway or leave your comments as a message here. All comments on the Draft EIS, including your message left on this phone line, will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. 9. For more information on shuttle bus service to the public hearing, please leave a message or go to azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. Thank you. [In Spanish: Thank you for calling the hotline for the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Study. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the study was released on April 26, 2013, starting a 90-day public review and comment period. A public hearing for the Draft EIS is scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2013, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., at the Phoenix Convention Center, North Ballroom. Translation services will be available. Comments on the Draft EIS can also be provided here as a message. If you do leave a message about the Draft EIS, it will be incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS document. What participation methods were described in the How to Participate video? Methods described: ͻ Website ͻ Mail ͻ Phone ͻ Email ͻ Public Hearing ͻ Online Public Hearing ͻ Community Forums For more information on shuttle bus service to the public hearing, please leave a message or go to azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. Thank you.] 10 9 Appendix 6-5 During the 90-day comment period, there will be several ways for you to submit your comments on the Draft EIS, including online …by mail …phone …or email. You will also have several opportunities to talk with technical experts, learn about the proposed project, and provide your comments in-person at a public hearing, an online hearing, or at community forums. The public hearing will be held at the Phoenix Convention Center At the public hearing, you can watch a video about the South Mountain Freeway study …talk to technical staff …and review a wide variety of study materials. At the hearing you can submit comments in one of three ways: In-person to a panel of study team members …you’ll be limited to three minutes. Verbally to a court reporter Or in writing on a comment form 12. Briefing with David White – do we have details of this discussion? Any special request or voicing concerns about PI for DEIS? No special requests related to public involvement for the DEIS were received from David White. The only comments expressed by David White were related to Community members being able to make their comments in front of an audience. Chaun Hill, ADOT Project Manager, informed David that the location and opportunity to provide comments in front of an audience was being afforded to all at the Public Hearing held downtown. 13. DEIS availability Afterwards, all the public hearing materials, including the study video, will be available on the study website. You can view the information and submit your comments online. a) Copies given to GRIC reps? Who? How? When? There will also be community forums held at various locations in the study area after the public hearing. Technical staff will be at the forums to answer your questions, and project materials, including the video, will be available to view. A court reporter can take your individual verbal comments, or you can fill out a comment form, but no formal “hearing” will occur at these community forum meetings. Forum locations will be posted on the website, emailed to the e-newsletter subscribers, and published in the newspaper and local publications To recap…you can learn more about the proposed South Mountain Freeway project and provide comments on the Draft EIS the following ways: ͻ ͻ ͻ A925 from Governor Brewer, and a copy of the How to Participate video. In addition, a hard copy of the DEIS and approximately 10 CDs of the DEIS were provided to the GRIC at the TTT meeting on April 30, 2013. How to Participate video script included the following: ͻ ͻ ͻ • Attend the public hearing at the Phoenix Convention Center Go online at A-Z-D-O-T dot gov slash south mountain freeway Or attend a Community Forum Remember that comments can be submitted at any time during the 90-day comment period through mail… email or by phone. A CD of the DEIS was mailed on April 26, 2013 to each of the following GRIC representatives and SMCAT representatives from GRIC: Steven Barnaby Kyle Rudy Errol David LaQuinta Nathaniel Johnson Lewis Woodson Mix Blackwater White Allison Percharo Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Department of Transportation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Resources Management Program Environmental Quality Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Community Manager b) Copy available at a repository on GRIC? Where? After the comment period ends, ADOT will review and address comments in the Final EIS document. When the Final EIS is published, it will be made available for another public review and comment period which will last for 60 days. According to the GRIC PIO, hardcopies of the DEIS were made available at District 1- 7 Service Center, Ira H. Hayes Memorial Library, all elder meetings, Urban Members Association meeting, and the GRIC Communications and Public Affairs Office. Public input on the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway study is an integral part of the process. ADOT looks forward to your participation and feedback. FHWA follow up question: did we ask GRIC for a repository location? Yes, we coordinated with GRIC regarding the best place and means to get the information out and it was decided that the GRIC PIO would be the point of contact and would disseminate information to the Community. This included the availability and locations of the DEIS. 10. Did we contact GRIC PI about conducting a GRIC awareness campaign event? If yes, result? Chaun Hill and Bob Hazlett met with David White and discussed potentially holding PI activities on the GRIC. David White indicated he would coordinate with tribal leadership. No formal response was received from GRIC until TTT on 4/30/13, at which time GRIC requested a Community Forum be held on the GRIC. 11. Elected official and stakeholder briefings a) Was a briefing packet sent to GRIC? b) When, to whom? The GRIC Elected Official briefing was completed through the TTT meeting on April 30, 2013. In attendance at this meeting were GRIC management as well as the GRIC Lt. Governor and GRIC Governor. These individuals were given the same briefing packets containing all materials provided to other elected leaders when briefed in person. Briefing packets were developed including the study fact sheet, How to Participate handout, press releases, letter 11 One DEIS hardcopy and 10 DEIS CDs were distributed at the TTT meeting on April 30, 2013. Hardcopies were also available for viewing at the Community Forum; approximately six copies of the DEIS were given to participants at the Komatke Community Forum. Other repositories included: ͻ Phoenix Public Library – Ironwood Branch, Ironwood Branch, 4333 E. Chandler Blvd., Phoenix ͻ Phoenix Public Library – Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 N. Central Ave., Phoenix ͻ Avondale Public Library – Sam Garcia Western Avenue, 495 E. Western Ave., Phoenix ͻ Tolleson Public Library – 9555 W. Van Buren St., Tolleson ͻ ADOT Environmental Planning Group - 1611 W. Jackson St., Phoenix (by appointment only) Copies of all or part of the DEIS were available for purchase at: ͻ FedEx Office Print and Ship Center – 4940 E. Ray Road, Phoenix 12 A926 • Appendix 6-5 14. Public hearing notification mailer a) Sent to GRIC PIO? Community? On May 6, 2013, 73,564 mailers were distributed to addresses within the study area (see the map in #5 above). Approximately 311 of those addresses are on the GRIC. A separate hard copy of the mailer was mailed to Zuzette Kisto (GRIC PIO) on May 10, 2013. The following GRIC elected officials were included in the May 6, 2013 mailing. Gregory Stephen Roe Barney Christopher Jennifer Monica Albert Anthony Terrance Martha Mendoza Lewis Enos, Jr. Mendoza Allison Antone Pablo Villareal, Sr. Evans Miller Governor Lt. Governor Dist. 4 Council Member Dist. 4 Council Member Dist. 4 Council Member Dist. 4 Council Member Dist. 6 Council Member Dist. 6 Council Member Dist. 6 Council Member Dist. 7 Council Member Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community Gila River Indian Community La Voz April 26 - Hearing May 17 - Hearing May 24 - Forums June 7 - Forums June 14 - Forums June 28 - Forums Ahwatukee Foothills News April 26 - Hearing June 9 - Forums May 17 - Hearing June 16 - Forums May 26 - Forums June 30 - Forums Mid April to May 21 - online banner (approx. 25,000 impressions) West Valley View April 26 - Hearing June 11 - Forums May 17 - Hearing June 18 - Forums May 28 – Forums July 2 - Forums Mid April to May 21 - online banner (approx. 52,000 average monthly unique viewers) 15. Did GRIC PIO and/or GRIN receive media alerts and press releases? When? (See ADOT Media Plan attached). GRIN was not on the media distribution list for ADOT’s press releases. GRIC PIO is not on the media distribution list for ADOT’s press releases. ADOT does not have any formal documentation of GRIN conversations regarding media alerts and/or press releases – they were all done via phone or in person. In response to ADOT requests regarding how GRIC used ADOT-provided information in GRIN, the GRIC PIO provided tear sheets from the May 2013 issue of GRIN (Attachment 10). FHWA follow up question: why is GRIC PIO not on the media distribution list for press releases? The ADOT Media Distribution List is intended to distribute news to earned media organizations. These earned media organizations are private companies that include newspaper, radio, and television organizations in Arizona. The Gila River Indian Community is a tribal nation and not a member of an earned media organization. Therefore, they are not on the media distribution list. Please note that there are a number of government jurisdictions and project stakeholders who are not on the media distribution list, e.g., the Maricopa Association of Governments and City of Phoenix. Finally, the public has the ability to opt in to receive email notification when ADOT updates its web site with new information. The South Mountain Freeway and ADOT news releases are two topics offered through this email subscription service offered at no cost to the public who elects to receive these notifications. 16. Newspaper display ads a) Where were they published? When? Newspaper display ads were published in the following publications on the dates listed and with the information indicated. The list below also includes a description of the online banner coverage provided by that publication. Arizona Republic April 26 - Hearing May 19 - Hearing Mid April to May 21 - online banner (approx. 75,000 hits per month) East Valley Tribune April 28 - Hearing June 12 - Forums May 19 - Hearing June 19 - Forums May 29 - Forums July 3 - Forums Mid April to May 21 - online banner (approx. 50,000 impressions) Arizona Informant May 1 - Hearing June 12 - Forums May 15 – Hearing June 19 - Forums June 4 – Forums* July 3 - Forums * (online banner for several days prior) b) Coverage areas? GRIN? Arizona Republic The hearing was advertised in the regular paper which is distributed to all the zones shown in the map at right. The forums were advertised in the Community sections for zones 5, 6, 17, 10, 14. Arizona Republic (community sections 5, 6/17, 10, 14) May 29 - Forums June 19 - Forums June 12 - Forums July 3 - Forums 13 14 Appendix 6-5 La Voz See map below. • A927 Arizona Informant Circulation is approximately 100,000 weekly through subscribers and pickup locations (map below). West Valley View The areas covered were Avondale, Goodyear, Buckeye, Litchfield Park, Tolleson, Luke AFB, Arlington, Tonopah, Palo Verde, portions of West Phoenix, and portions of Waddell. They also include some unincorporated Maricopa County portions in Goodyear, Litchfield Park, and Buckeye. GRIN The Gila River Indian News prints 7,000 issues of tabloid size newspaper (11" x 17") on a monthly basis. Distribution is free throughout the Gila River Indian Community. 17. Radio a) Does GRIC have a radio station? East Valley Tribune and Ahwatukee Foothills News See map below. The team could not identify a specific community radio station; neither could the media buying firm used to purchase radio air time. b) What are the coverage areas for the radio advertising that was done? (KEZ-FM; KMXP-FM; KNIX-FM; KGME-AM; KFYI-AM) See maps on the following pages. 16 15 A928 • Appendix 6-5 17 18 Appendix 6-5 18. Other media • A929 GRIC first responded to these offers at the April 30, 2013 TTT meeting at which GRIC requested that a Community Forum be conducted on the Community. Nathan Pryor, MAG, contacted Zuzette Kisto on May 16, 2013 regarding a Community Forum on the GRIC. On May 28, 2013, ADOT provided to the GRIC PIO, via email, a copy of the newspaper ad listing the community forum details for their information and use. Community Forum ground rules were developed between June 14 and 18, 2013, in conjunction with the GRIC Community Manager and PIO, for the forum in Komatke. a) Facebook Facebook – approximately 5 postings b) Twitter Twitter – approximately 12 tweets b) How were locations decided? c) Blogs Locations were determined based on: ͻ Geographic diversity within the study area ͻ Availability of appropriate venue ͻ Specific community request (GRIC request for Community forum at Komatke Boys and Girls Club) Blogs – 3 blogs d) TV – does GRIC have a station? c) Who decided how many forums would occur? The team could not identify a specific community TV station; however, media coverage included: ͻ The Arizona Republic ͻ The Ahwatukee Foothills News ͻ The East Valley Tribune ͻ Arizona Builders Exchange ͻ Phoenix Business Journal ͻ Capital Times ͻ Channel 3 ͻ Channel 5 ͻ Channel 8-Arizona Horizon ͻ Channel 10 ͻ Channel 12 ͻ Channel 15 Number of forums was determined based on: ͻ Goal to have a community forum in each distinct community within the study area ͻ Window of opportunity, i.e., amount of time after public hearing and before the close of the comment period ͻ Availability of appropriate venues 20. GRIC transportation to public hearing/community forum a) Was transportation specifically requested? Who did they ask? When? What happened? No, however there were six phone calls related to transportation; five asking for details about the shuttle service, and one requesting information about parking validation (see the log sheets in Attachments 8 and 9). 19. Community forums 21. Email comments a) When did we reach out to GRIC? Public outreach opportunities were offered to David White starting in summer 2012. The August 10, 2012 Public Involvement Team Meeting Summary (Attachment 1) includes an update from Chaun Hill, ADOT Project Manager, regarding recent conversations ADOT and MAG had with David White, GRIC Community Manager. The meeting notes summarize that ADOT offered to hold outreach activities on the GRIC prior to the release of the Draft EIS and during the 90-day public comment. D. White indicated he would coordinate with GRIC tribal leadership regarding any public outreach activities on the Community, and would continue to communicate with ADOT and MAG Management regarding the Community’s desires. Potential locations for events were also discussed. In Iate 2012, a follow-up conversation with ADOT (Chaun Hill, Brent Cain), MAG (Bob Hazlett, Nathan Pryor,) and GRIC (David White) occurred which entailed a detailed description of the public involvement process including the public hearing to be held at the convention center downtown and the additional public forums envisioned to be held at different locations throughout the valley. Along with this description, an offer was extended to hold one or more of the forums on the Community if the GRIC so desired. David White seemed to understand the concept of the forums and embrace the possibility of hosting one on the Community. David White said he would let Chaun Hill and the South Mountain Team know if the GRIC wanted to have a forum on the Community. There was some additional explanation about providing the forums in a uniform manner at every location. 19 a) Who responded to these comments? Comments were forwarded to HDR. ADOT Community Relations staff did respond to four constituent emails via the project’s email line (projects@azdot.gov). Two emails were forwarded from constituents requesting CDs of the DEIS. Felicia Calderon, ADOT Community Relations, mailed out CDs of the DEIS within 24 hours to these constituents. One email requested a sign language interpreter for the May 21 hearing. Michelle Thompson, ADOT Community Relations, arranged for a sign language interpreter for the hearing. One email requested an ADOT drop-off location to submit formal comments. Matt Eberhart, ADOT Community Relations, responded to this constituent the same day with the appropriate physical address to deliver comments to ADOT. b) How often were they checked? Emails were checked approximately four times per day. c) Who was responsible? Felicia Beltran and Matt Eberhart, ADOT Community Relations Officers, were responsible for checking the ADOT Projects email account. d) Process? 20 21 LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo See table next page. LaQuinta Allison a) Who was contacted? When? Was there a GRIC response? Nathanial Percharo 23. SMCAT meetings Gila River Indian Community District 4 Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Gila River Indian Community District 4 Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Gila River Indian Community District 4 Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Gila River Indian Community District 4 Pecos Road/I-10 Landowners Association Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 At the Community Forum on the Community, Zuzette Kisto (GRIC PIO) created display information providing general ground rules for the meeting. This information included the following verbiage: DISPLAYS, SIGNS, OR BANNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED. This poster was also printed as a handout and was available at the sign-in table at the Komatke Forum (see right). Method of Contact SMCAT Re-engagement Request Postal Mail Letter SMCAT Re-engagement Request Postal Mail Letter SMCAT Re-engagement Request Telephone SMCAT Final Recommendation Reminder SMCAT Final Recommendation Reminder Reminder - SMCAT Final Recommendation SMCAT Meeting Transcript and Parking Lot from 6/11/13 SMCAT Final Recommendation SMCAT Final Recommendation SMCAT Meeting Reminder Reminder: SMCAT Final Meeting Questions Reminder: SMCAT Final Meeting Questions Reminder: SMCAT Final Meeting Questions SMCAT Meeting Reminder eMail eMail eMail eMail Telephone eMail Telephone eMail eMail eMail eMail SMCAT - Meeting Invitation eMail April 22, 2013 SMCAT - Meeting Invitation Telephone April 22, 2013 SMCAT Final Meeting Questions eMail SMCAT Re-engagement Request Telephone July 8, 2013 July 1, 2013 June 24, 2013 June 17, 2013 June 12, 2013 June 12, 2013 June 10, 2013 June 10, 2013 May 28, 2013 May 22, 2013 May 13, 2013 May 7, 2013 April 12, 2013 April 12, 2013 February 15, 2013 February 15, 2013 February 15, 2013 Date of Communication February 15, 2013 LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo LaQuinta Allison Nathanial Percharo No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response 22 Will try to attend No Response Will try to attend No Response No Response Addressee / Intended Response Contact Person Received LaQuinta Allison No Response Per the Phoenix Convention Center’s standard policy, posters, banners, and signs were prohibited inside the public hearing. Notices were posted at the entrances (see example at right) and staff and security staff verbally reiterated that prohibition as needed (this occurred approximately 11 times). Posters, banners, and signs were allowed in the public right-of-way, e.g. the sidewalks. For consistency and to avoid potential intimidation or distraction for attendees, posters, banners, and signs were also prohibited inside the meeting venues at each of the community forums. Subject 22. Public hearing – “no signs” message - consistent? LaQuinta Allison Organization ADOT Community Relations staff (Beltran and Eberhart) would check the ADOT Projects email account (projects@azdot.gov) and forwarded any South Mountain Freeway- related emails to the HDR ADOT Project account (adot@hdrinc.com). Any inquiries requiring an immediate response (e.g., hearing logistics, shuttles, etc.) were handled by HDR (Book and others), and those that were comments on the DEIS were entered into the comment database. Contact Person • SMCAT Communications with GRIC for 2013 A930 Appendix 6-5 LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Gila River Indian Community District 4 Amended SMCAT Recommendation Results Revised 6/11 SMCAT Meeting Transcript Reminder - SMCAT Final Recommendation Reminder: SMCAT Final Recommendation Reminder - 2 days to go: SMCAT Final Recommendation Reminder - Last Day: SMCAT Final Recommendation SMCAT Final Recommendation eMail eMail eMail eMail eMail eMail eMail August 16, 2013 August 1, 2013 July 24, 2013 July 22, 2013 July 16, 2013 July 9, 2013 July 8, 2013 LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison LaQuinta Allison No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response 23 Appendix 6-5 • A931 b) Was there an attempt to get new rep? Follow-up question from FHWA: how did we obtain new representatives with other organizations that were unresponsive? No other SMCAT organizations were unresponsive during this process. The process for an organization to have assigned a new representative on the SMCAT would have been initiated and conducted within the representing organization itself. The organization would have needed to appoint a new representative to the SMCAT; not ADOT or the facilitators. Letters, emails, and phone calls to LaQuinta Allison or to the Gila River Indian Community, District 4, received no response. According to the SMCAT Operating Agreement (last revised April 2013), the “SMCAT will determine if new or replacement organizations should be included in the membership.” No new organizations were added by the SMCAT during the meetings held in 2013. 24 A932 • Appendix 6-5 Attachment 1: August 10, 2012 Public Involvement Team Meeting Summary 25 26 Appendix 6-5 • Attachment 2: Fact Sheet 27 28 A933 A934 • Appendix 6-5 Attachment 3: How to Participate Handout 29 30 Appendix 6-5 • A935 Attachment 4: Mailer 31 32 A936 • Appendix 6-5 Attachment 5: GRIC Address Map (from mailer distribution) Attachment 6: Sample Newspaper Ad (from Ahwatukee Foothills News) 33 34 Appendix 6-5 • A937 Attachment 7: Hotline Message Retrieval Log 35 36 A938 • Appendix 6-5 Attachment 8: Telephone Conversation Record Sheets 37 38 Appendix 6-5 39 • A939 40 A940 • Appendix 6-5 41 42 Appendix 6-5 43 • A941 44 A942 • Appendix 6-5 45 46 Appendix 6-5 • A943 Attachment 9: ADOT Phone Line (ADA number on publications) Log Loop 202 South Mountain Call Log April-June 2013 47 1. Date 4/29/2013 Name Martha City Surprise Phone State AZ 2. 4/29/2013 Brian, Darling 3. 4/29/2013 Justin Phoenix AZ Release date of DEIS 4. 4/29/2013 Dale Williams Laveen AZ Release date of DEIS 5. 4/30/2013 Channel Phoenix AZ DEIS status 6. 5/1/2013 James Ebons Laveen AZ Release date of DEIS 7. 5/16/2013 Karla James Chandler AZ Where can the DEIS be viewed online 8. 5/16/2013 Nathan Phoenix AZ 9. 5/20/2013 No Name 10. 5/23/2013 Joe Ruiz Public Hearing: Shuttle pick up schedule Public Hearing: Are the shuttles free of charge Where can the DEIS be viewed online 602.367.1955 602.441.5553 Topic Public Hearing info. Release date of DEIS AZ Replied Date and Response 4.29 The constituent inquired if copies of the DEIS would be available at the hearing. The constituent was advised that DEIS CDs would be available free of charge at the hearing. 4.29 The constituent was advised of the release date of April 26, 2013 and provided the SM webpage for updates on the project. 4.29 The constituent was advised of the release date of April 26, 2013 and provided the SM webpage for project updates. 4.29 The constituent was advised of the release date of April 26, 2013 and provided the SM webpage for project updates. 5.1 The constituent was advised of the release date of April 26, 2013 and provided the SM webpage for project updates. The constituent wanted to know the email address on where to submit their comments online. The constituent was given the projects@azdot.gov email address. 5.1 The constituent was advised of the release date of April 26, 2013. Constituent was advised to call back or visit the webpage if they had any additional project-related questions. 5.16 The constituent was advised they could review the DEIS at the project webpage azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. 5.16 The constituent was advised that the shuttle pick up and drop off times listed were firm. 5.20 The constituent was advised that the shuttles to the hearing were complimentary. 5.23 The constituent was advised that the DEIS could be reviewed at the project webpage azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway. 48 A944 • Appendix 6-5 11. 5/23/2013 Oscar Phoenix AZ Public Hearing info. 12. 6/4/2013 Yuell Phoenix AZ Public Hearing info. 13. 6/4/2013 Kimberly Wright Chandler AZ Community Forums 14. 6/4/2013 Robert A. Laveen AZ Community Forums 15. 6/4/2013 Eder 16. 6/18/2013 Marie Carleson 17. 6/27/2013 Aaron R. Project Video Phoenix 623.344.8921 AZ Community Forums AZ Community Forums 5.23 The constituent missed the public hearing and wanted to know if comments made in person at the hearing would be weighed more than submitting comments via email. The constituent was advised that both methods would equally be considered. 6.4 The constituent inquired where their comments made at the hearing would be documented. The constituent was advised that their comments would be present in the release of the Final EIS. 6.4 The constituent inquired if another community forum was planned for Chandler, besides the June 25 forum. The constituent was advised that was the only forum planned for Chandler. 6.4 The constituent inquired if members of the study team would be onsite to ask questions. The constituent was advised that study team members would be at each forum. 6.4 The constituent inquired if the study video shown at the hearing was available online. The constituent was given the project webpage to view the video. 6.18 The constituent inquired if there was going to be a presentation at the Phoenix forum on June 18. The constituent was advised that no formal presentation was going to be given, but that a project video would be presented during the open house and that the study team would be available to answer questions and court reporters would be on hand to take official comments. 6.27 The constituent inquired if the study video shown at the Sunridge Community Forum was available online. The constituent was given the project webpage to view the video. 49 Attachment 10: GRIN Tear sheets 50 Appendix 6-5 51 • A945 A946 • Appendix 6-5 APPENDIX 6-6 OUTREACH TO GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Appendix 6-6, Outreach to Gila River Indian Community Members for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, contains documentation of the public outreach to the Gila River Indian Community and its members surrounding the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.