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 II: Appendices Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c), 49 U.S.C. § 303, and 33 U.S.C. § 1251 by the Federal Highway Administration and Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Area Power Administration April 2013 Appendix Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 1-1 Agency Letters and Communication. ........................................................... A1 CHAPTER 2 2-1 5-1 5-2 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION Properties Excluded from Section 4(f) Consideration. .......................... A583 Section 4(f) Correspondence. ................................................................ A591 CHAPTER 6 6-1 6-2 6-3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ADOT Relocation Assistance Program Policy....................................... A497 Dust Control Permit.............................................................................. A533 Operating Agreement.............................................................................. A555 Programmatic Agreement ....................................................................... A561 Farmland Conversion. ............................................................................ A579 Rio Salado Oeste................................................................................... A582 CHAPTER 5 This page intentionally left blank GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY COORDINATION Section 106 Consultation....................................................................... A223 CHAPTER 4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 PURPOSE AND NEED COMMENTS AND COORDINATION Notice of Intent...................................................................................... A621 Newsletters and Advertisements............................................................ A623 South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team. ................................................ A655 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 1-1 APPENDIX 1-1 AGENCY LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS Appendix 1-1, Agency Letters and Communications, contains a record of communications to and from representatives of federal, state, tribal, and local agencies. An initial contact list used for the purposes of agency scoping is included along with copies of agency letters and responses (when appropriate) received during the preparation of the DEIS and prior to the issuance of the DEIS. Letters and responses are grouped by federal, state, tribal, and local agency, followed by consultant inquiries and responses, and then organized in chronological order. • A1 A2 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A3 A4 • Appendix 1-1 Agency Letters and Communication Appendix 1-1 • A5 A6 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A7 A8 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A9 A10 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A11 A12 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A13 A14 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A15 A16 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 2 To:FHWA FHWA Headquarters NASSIF Bldg, 400 7th Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 • :Nfary A Peters (FHW A Highway Administrator) • Frederick G Wright ( FHW A Executive Director) • Cynthia J Burbank (FHW A Planning & Environmental Program :Nfgr) • Kenneth Davis ( District Engineer ) • David Nelson • Steve Thomas EPA US EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 • Wayne Nastri (Regional EPA Administrator) • Blaze Nova • LisaHanf • GR West • Tom Sovic Arizona Dept of Transportation AZ DOT 206 17th Ave, Room 135, Mail Drop lOOA Phoenix 85007 • Victor M Mendez • Thor Anderson • Ralph Ellis Concerned Families Along South Mt Loop 202 had its first meeting February 6th at 7:30PM. During this meeting our group discussed the health concerns of living near a highway. Some of the concerns were about the health of our school children that are attending Lagos Elementary School, which will be right alongside this South Mt Loop 202. Other areas of discussion were about the health effects of continually breathing in P:Nf-10 and PM-2.5, Asthma along with other lung ailments including the increased chance of getting lung cancer. We feel that this highway will mostly serve as a commercial bypass due to its location and the location of some of the commercial and industrial land surrounding it. So when answering these questions please show the levels of vehicles cars/commercial traffic separately to get a proper analysis when answering our questions. As we investigate and research the human health effects especially concerning our children with Ahwatukee AZ being so densely populated we can only think that ADOT should consider alternatives to proposed South Mt Loop 202. The attached list below is some of the questions that we want included in the Environmental Impact Study. 1. What level ofPM-10 and PM-2.5 can the individual person living along side this highway (within 250ft) South Mt Loop 202 expects to ingest in his lungs over a 20-year period? 2. What level ofPM-10 and PM-2.5 can the individual person living within Y2 kilometer of South :Nit Loop 202 expect to ingest in his lungs over a 20-year period? 3. What % increase in getting lung cancer if any will the average person have when living within 200 ft and at Y2 kilometer of South Mt Loop 202? This question was asked due to recent findings from studies on people living in polluted areas and the American Lung Associations Web Page report on diesel soot being a possible carcinogen 4. What percentage of children attending Lagos Elementary School (which will sit right alongside proposed South Mt Loop 202) will be affected by asthma from the exhaust coming from this highway? 5. Will the children who already have asthma have a worsened condition from attending a school so close to this highway ( South Mt Loop 202)? 6. Vit"ill existing air filtration systems in schools protect our children? 7. Will a person living alongside at 200 feet and Yz a kilometer of South Mt Loop 202 have increased levels of chemicals found in commercial vehicle and automobile exhaust in his/her blood? 8. lflevels of chemicals from auto/commercial vehicle exhaust do in fact increase from living 200 feet and within % kilometer from South Nit Loop 202. Then please state chemical name and at what levels will they be at for a person's blood. 9. Are some birth defects more prevalent from living close to a highway (250 feet'12 kilometer) due to highway pollution and if so what type of birth defects would they be? Please use the American Journal ofEpidemiology as one of your sources. 10. What percent increase would people living close to proposed South Mt Loop 202 expect to see in birth defects is any at all? 11. Will vehicle exhaust (gasoline/diesel) chemicals from exhaust at actual traffic flow rates both commercial and automobiles show up in a persons urine who lives at distances of200 feet and up to 1h a kilometer from South Mt Park 202? If so what would these chemicals be and at whet level? 12. Will the level ofMTBE increase in a person's urine and blood living within 200 feet to Yz a kilometer from proposed South Mt Loop 202 and if so what will the levels were compared to normal levels? Please include and answer these questions in the Environmental Impact Study for proposed highway South Mt Loop 202. Copies of this request will be mailed via US certified/registered mail to the above stated recipients. Thank you. David Folts Concerned Families Along South Mt Loop 2 02 /1 I fJ~tK 1 • A17 A18 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A19 A20 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A21 A22 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A23 A24 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A25 A26 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A27 A28 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A29 A30 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A31 A32 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A33 A34 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A35 A36 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A37 A38 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A39 A40 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A41 A42 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A43 A44 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A45 A46 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A47 A48 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A49 A50 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A51 A52 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A53 A54 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A55 A56 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 SAMPLE • A57 A58 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A59 A60 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A61 A62 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A63 A64 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A65 A66 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A67 A68 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A69 A70 • Appendix 1-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Urban Giff, Gila River Indian Community, Community Manager Ms. Pat Mariella, Gila River Indian Community, Department of environmental Quality Mr. John Ravesloot, Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program Appendix 1-1 • A71 A72 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Lee Thompson, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Dean Weatherly, Director of Economic Development, Gila River Indian Community • A73 A74 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A75 A76 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A77 A78 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A79 A80 • Appendix 1-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Bob Woodring, Maricopa Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Fairman, CED, Economic Development Director, City of Avondale Mr. Robert, Franco, Acting Community and Economic Development Director, City of Phoenix Mr. Ralph Velez, City of Tolleson Appendix 1-1 • A81 A82 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A83 A84 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A85 A86 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A87 A88 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A89 A90 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A91 A92 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A93 A94 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A95 A96 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A97 A98 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A99 A100 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A101 A102 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A103 A104 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A105 A106 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A107 A108 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A109 A110 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A111 A112 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 This graphic was included as an enclosure to the four letters that follow in this appendix (Coover, Burke, Nowicki, Spencer-Snider). • A113 A114 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A115 A116 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A117 A118 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A119 A120 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A121 A122 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A123 A124 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A125 A126 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A127 A128 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A129 A130 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A131 A132 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A133 A134 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A135 A136 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A137 A138 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A139 A140 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A141 A142 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A143 A144 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A145 A146 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A147 A148 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A149 A150 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A151 A152 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A153 A154 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A155 A156 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A157 A158 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A159 A160 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A161 A162 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A163 A164 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A165 A166 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A167 A168 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A169 A170 • Appendix 1-1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Avondale, March 20, 2006. RESOLUTION NO. 2554-306 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AVONDALE, ARIZONA, SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY ALONG 55TH AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City of Avondale (the “City”) has been presented with information by the Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) and its consultants, HDR Engineering, Inc. (“HDR”), regarding various alignments of the planned South Mountain Freeway, including proposed alignments that would connect the South Mountain Freeway with Interstate 10 at its intersection with the Loop 101 Freeway near 99th Avenue in Avondale (the 99th Avenue Alignments”); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Avondale (the “City Council”) is the planning authority for the City and has planned the future of the area around 99th Avenue according to the best interest of the community, which does not include a freeway along 99th Avenue; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Avondale overwhelmingly approved the 2002 General Plan for the City, clearly indicating a vast majority of business park and light industrial uses along 99th Avenue and specifically not including a freeway; and Marie Lopez-Rogers, Mayor ATTEST: Linda M. Farris, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Andrew J. McGuire, City Attorney WHEREAS, the proposed 99th Avenue Alignments would seriously impact (i) the City’s ability to develop 99th Avenue as a key commercial corridor, as is currently planned, and (ii) newly constructed, high sales tax generating businesses adjacent to 99th Avenue that provide an important revenue stream to the City that funds essential City services; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments has consistently shown the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway such that it would intersect with Interstate 10 near 55th Avenue (the “55th Avenue Alignment”); and WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix, the city of Tolleson and the City of Avondale have planned for growth in their respective jurisdictions over the past two decades relying upon the 55th Avenue Alignment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AVONDALE as follows: SECTION 1. That the City hereby adamantly opposes the 99th Avenue Alignments for the South Mountain Freeway. SECTION 2. That the City hereby supports ADOT moving forward with the 55th Avenue Alignment as included in the adopted Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. 638104.2 638104.2 2 Appendix 1-1 • A171 A172 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK RESOLUTION NO. 06-228 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY ALONG 55TH AVENUE. _________________________ J. Woodfin Thomas, Mayor _______________________ Mary Rose Evans, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: WHEREAS, the City of Litchfield Park (the “City”) has been presented with information by the Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) and its consultants, HDR Engineering, Inc. (“HDR”), regarding various alignments of the planned South Mountain Freeway, including proposed alignments that would connect the South Mountain Freeway with Interstate 10 at its intersection with the Loop 101 Freeway near 99th Avenue in Avondale (the 99th Avenue Alignments”); and _______________________ Curtis, Goodwin, Sullivan, Udall & Schwab, P.L.C. City Attorneys By Susan D. Goodwin WHEREAS, the proposed 99th Avenue Alignments would seriously impact (i) the City of Avondale’s ability to develop 99th Avenue as a key commercial corridor, as is currently planned, and (ii) newly constructed, high sales tax generating businesses adjacent to 99th Avenue that provide an important revenue stream to the City that funds essential City services; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments has consistently shown the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway such that it would intersect with Interstate 10 near 55th Avenue (the “55th Avenue Alignment”); and WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson and the City of Avondale have planned for growth in their respective jurisdictions over the past two decades relying upon the 55th Avenue Alignment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK as follows: SECTION 1. That the City hereby adamantly opposes the 99th Avenue Alignments for the South Mountain Freeway. SECTION 2. That the City of Litchfield Park hereby supports ADOT moving forward with the 55th Avenue Alignment as included in the adopted Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Litchfield Park, April ______, 2006. ATTEST: S:\DOCS\LGL\RES\06-228 south mtn freeway support Res.doc Page 2 of 2 • A173 A174 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A175 A176 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A177 A178 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A179 A180 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A181 A182 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 This letter was also sent to Mr. Floyd Roehrich, Jr., PE, Project Manager, South Mountain Corridor Study, Arizona Department of Transportation • A183 A184 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A185 A186 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A187 A188 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A189 A190 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A191 A192 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A193 A194 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A195 A196 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 RESOLUTION NO. 937 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TOLLESON REAFFIRMING THE 61st AVENUE ALIGNMENT OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY (STATE ROUTE LOOP 202), BETWEEN INTERSTATE 10 WEST AND 51st AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council recommended the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway (State Route Loop 202) in early 1985, which included the 61st Avenue alignment; and WHEREAS, the alignment recommended by the Phoenix City Council was approved by the Maricopa Association of Governments as part of the Long-Range Transportation Plan in July, 1985; and WHEREAS, voters of Maricopa County approved a sales tax in October 1985 to fund new freeways in Maricopa County, including the South Mountain Freeway; and WHEREAS, the information supplied to voters prior to the election showed the South Mountain Freeway on the 61st Avenue alignment; and WHEREAS, subsequent adoptions of the Long-Range Transportation Plan since 1985 have continued to show the 61st Avenue alignment for the north/south portion of this freeway; and WHEREAS, the adopted Phoenix General Plan has consistently shown the 61 Avenue alignment for this freeway; and WHEREAS, the land uses shown on the Phoenix General Plan are entirely consistent with, and dependent upon, the 61st Avenue alignment; and WHEREAS, the City has approved numerous development plans since 1985 along and adjacent to the 61st Avenue alignment; and WHEREAS, the current study of this freeway includes the 61st Avenue alignment as one alternative; and WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council deems the 61st Avenue alignment to provide the best traffic service to the citizens of Phoenix and the region, of the alternatives now under study; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TOLLESON that it fully supports and endorses the 61st Avenue alignment, between Interstate 10 West and 51 Avenue south of Elliot Road, as the most effective and efficient route for the South Mountain Freeway PASSED by the Council of the City of Tolleson this 23rd day of March, 2004. • A197 A198 • Appendix 1-1 CITY OF TOLLESON RESOLUTION NO. 978 __________________________________ Adolfo F. Gámez, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TOLLESON, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUPPORTING THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT FOR THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY (HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH EXTENSION) NEAR 55TH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. WHEREAS, in 1988 the Arizona Transportation Board approved (the "Approval") a north and south alignment of the South Mountain Freeway (Highway 101 South Extension) between 55th and 63rd Avenues in the City of Phoenix (the "55th Avenue Alignment"); and __________________________ ____________________________________ Chris Hagen-Hurley, City Clerk Scott W. Ruby, City Attorney WHEREAS, since the Approval and in reliance on the 55th Avenue Alignment, the City of Phoenix ("Phoenix") and the City of Tolleson ("Tolleson") have made long term land planning decisions and have expended substantial amounts of public funds assuming that a major freeway would be located in the vicinity of 55th Avenue and not at 99th Avenue; and WHEREAS, based on the Approval and the land use decisions made by Phoenix and Tolleson, private businesses have located in the region and expended hundreds of millions of dollars assuming that a major freeway would be located in the vicinity of 55th Avenue and not at 99th Avenue; and WHEREAS, Tolleson is comprised of approximately six (6) square miles, several of which are already utilized by the I-10 Freeway; and WHEREAS, an alignment of the South Mountain Freeway in or near 99th Avenue would have devastating impact on Tolleson, including but not limited to: A. Economic and functional destruction of one of only three major commercial north-south corridors in Tolleson, B. Destruction of many of Tolleson's largest businesses which would result in a substantial loss of assessed valuation and jobs, C. A lowering of Tolleson's assessed valuation would result in a significant increase in Tolleson's tax rate to be levied on the remaining residents and businesses in Tolleson, D. An increase in the noise level in nearby Tolleson neighborhoods and schools, and SWR:par 620402.1 12/09/05 Appendix 1-1 E. The possible taking of two or three Tolleson wells and the water treatment plants associated with the wells and the taking of other significant local and regional utility facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TOLLESON, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Mayor and Council after careful examination of the potential impact of all proposed north-south alignments for the South Mountain Freeway, strongly endorses and supports the 55th Avenue alignment of the South Mountain Freeway made by the Arizona Transportation Board in 1988. CERTIFICATION I, Chris Hagen, the duly appointed and acting Clerk of the City of Tolleson, Arizona, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. _______ was duly passed by the City Council of the City of Tolleson, Arizona, at a regular meeting held on December ______, 2005, and the vote was ____ aye's and ___ nay's and that the Mayor and ___ Council Members were present thereat. DATED: December 13, 2005. Section 2. The Tolleson Manager and Clerk are hereby directed to disseminate this resolution to the Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Phoenix, Federal Highway Administration and any other entities or agencies involved in the process of selecting the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway. ______________________________________ Chris Hagen, City Clerk PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Tolleson, Arizona, on this ______ day of December, 2005. _____________________________________ Adolfo F. Gamez, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Chris Hagen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Scott W. Ruby, City Attorney SWR:par 620402.1 12/09/05 2 SWR:par 620402.1 12/09/05 3 • A199 A200 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A201 A202 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A203 A204 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A205 A206 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A207 A208 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A209 A210 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A211 A212 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A213 A214 • Appendix 1-1 This letter was also sent to John Ravesloot, Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program Appendix 1-1 • A215 A216 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A217 A218 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A219 A220 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-1 • A221 A222 • Appendix 1-1 Appendix 2-1 APPENDIX 2-1 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION Appendix 2-1, Section 106 Consultation, contains a record of communications pertaining to the Section 106 Consultation process pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act. Correspondence is generally organized in chronological order by original inquiries with the exception of responses to original inquiries. Responses to original inquiries, regardless of the date, immediately follow the original inquiries. The reader is referred to the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation and Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination. • A223 A224 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Garry Cantley, Archaeologist, Bureau of Indian Affairs Ms. Connie Stone, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Ms. Carol Heathington, Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Todd Hileman, City Manager, City of Avondale Mr. Pat McDermott, City Manager, City of Chandler Mr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Barbara Stocklin, Historical Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Mr. Ralph Valez, City Manager, City of Tolleson Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Mr. David Jacobs, Ph.D., Compliance Specialist, State Historic Preservation Office Mr. Terry Enos, Chairman, Ak Chin Indian Community Mr. Richard Narcia, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Cultural Preservation Office, Hopi Tribe Ms. Joni Ramos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Mr. Pete Steere, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Joe Joaquin, Cultural Affairs Office, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Vincent Randall, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., President, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Appendix 2-1 • Katherine Neustadt Barbara.Stockl1n@phoenix.gov Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:19 PM KNeustadt@dot.state.az.us SLaine@dot.state .az.us; jgarrison@pr.state.az. us: bcollins@pr .state .az.us RE: Loop 202, South Mountain, HA-AZ, NH-202-D(ADY), 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L From: Sent: To: City of Phoenix HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Cc: Subject: September 8, 2003 Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator U.S. Department ofTransportation FHW A- Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 Thanks for the information Kim. I continue to recommend that a "records search" effort occur for historic nonarcheological properties at this stage in the project prior to selection of alternatives just as it has for archeological resources. Identification efforts for archeological and non~archeological historic resources should parallel one another. If archeological resources and other environmental resources/impacts are being identified at this preliminary stage prior to selection of alternatives, then the same level of identification effort should be ocurring at the same time for non~ archeological cultural resources. I don't understand why they would be treated differently. Re: HA-AZ, NR-202(ADY), 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L, Loop 202, South Mountain, Initial Section 106 Consultation Dear Mr. Hollis: Your office recently forwarded a "Class I" report to my office regarding the proposed Loop 202 freeway corridor. The purpose of the report as explained in your letter is to identifY "previously recorded cultural resources" to help with the process of identifYing feasible project alternatives for the proposed freeway. I have a number of concerns regarding this report. They are as follows: +It does not appear that this initial study attempted to identify non-archeological historic properties that have been previously identified through historic surveys or determined National Register eligible by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). I am aware of at least several known National Register eligible historic properties located within the corridor area, including the Webster Farmstead at 75th A venue and Baseline Road (previously determined National Register eligible by the SHPO), South Mountain Park (may or may not be partially in the boundaries of the corridor study), and potentially historic canals and canal laterals (need to confer with Bureau of Reclamation and Salt River Project). + A search of the National Register and Sectiop 106 files of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the survey files of the City Historic Preservation Office is needed to locate any historic nonarcheological properties in the project corridor and "to identifY previously recorded cultural resources" as stated in your letter. We highly recommend that the cultural resources "Class I Overview" by amended at this time to incorporate a records search of surveyed and designated historic buildings, structures, districts and objects. +My office also recommends that all further cultural resources identification efforts for this project include a qualified architectural historian on the identification team. This is needed given the high potential to locate other historic non-archeological properties within the project's area of potential effects. My office would desire that non-historic cultural resources show up on the same constraints map on which archeological resources appear when ADOT draws/decides on its selection of alternatives to consider further. If ADOT sees a known National Register historic property on their constraints map, then hopefully they would think twice before even drawing an alternative that might include that resource. l don't recommend that a programmatic agreement be executed prior to ADOT at least doing a records search for nonarcheological cultural resources so that all parties have at least a conceptual idea as to the extent and type of historic resources that may be impacted by the project. As previously noted, there are known National Register eligible/listed historic properties in the project corridor. I don't forsee the suggestion that ADPTdo a records search of known historic resources prior to executing a Programmatic Agreement as an unreasonable request. This should be a relatively easy and routine request for a large public agency as ADOT who carries out Section 106 responsibilities on a regular basis. However, l will defer to the SHPO for their opinion. Thanx. Barbara Stocklin City of Phoenix, Historic Preservation Officer KNeustadt@dot.state.az.us 09/0912003 10:00 AM To: cc: Subject: Barbara Stocklin/MGRIPHX@PHXENT H5764 01L If I can provide additional information, please feel free to contact me at ( 602) 262-7468. Sincerely, Thank you for your response. The Class I inventory of historic properties for the South Mountain Corridor was a very preliminary document prepared by the Gila River Indian Community for planning purposes. Once the corridor is examined in light of the information provided in the Class I inventory and reviews done to address other environmental concerns, alternatives will be selected for further, more in-depth review. FHWA and ADOT recognize that the Class I overview was not complete with to non-archaeological historic sites, but are waiting until more is known on the possible alternatives before conducting an in-depth cultural resources survey, including complete review of all historic property records, such as - cjS~ Barbara Stocklin, City Historic Preservation Officer cc: Kae Neustadt, Arizona Department of Transportation Jim Garrison, State Historic Preservation Office ~ 200 West Washington Street, 17th Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 602-261-8699 Recycled Paper FAX: 602-534-4571 A225 A226 • Appendix 2-1 SHPO, AZSITE and ASM, as well as pedestrian survey of the proposed alternatives. I hope this addresses some of your concerns. I have forwarded your email to Serelle Laine, Historic Preservation Team Leader, so she may address your general concerns with the reports you have been receiving from ADOT. Please let me know if you have any further concerns and if the City of Phoenix will concur with the recommendation to develop a Programmatic Agreement for the South Mountain project to outline the process of dealing with adverse effects to historic properties that are likely to occur as a result of the project. Thanx. Barbara Stocklin, City Historic Preservation Officer Thank you, Kae Kae Neustadt, MA Historic Preservation Specialist ADOT EEG 205 S. 17th Avenue, MD619E Phoenix, AZ 85007 602/712-8148 (phone) 602/712-3066 (fax) kneustadt®dot.state.az.us -----Original Message----From: Barbara.Stocklin®phoenix.gov [mailto:Barbara.Stocklin®phoenix.gov] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 4:19 PM To: kneustadt®dot.state.az.us Subject: Loop 202 , South Mountain, HA-AZ, NH-202-D(ADY), 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL Hi Kim. My office received a Class I overview report of the proposed Loop 202 freeway corridor to identify previously identified cultural resources. I have a number of concerns regarding this report: + There does not appear to be any efforts undertakens to identify non-archeological historic properties that have been previously identified or designated. I am aware of at least several known National Register eligible historic properties located within the corridor area, including the Webster Farmstead at 75th Avenue and Baseline Road (previously determined National Register eligible by the SHPO) , South Mountain Park (may or may not be partially in the boundaries of the corridor study) , and historic canals and canal laterals (need to confer with Bureau of Reclamation and Salt River Project). + A search of the National Register files of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the City Historic Preservation Office for historic non-archeological properties does not appear to have occurred, and is needed "to identify previously recorded cultural resources" as stated in the cover letter. + In recent months, I have received various cultural resource reports from your office to review, and am concerned in general regarding the consistent lack of information on historic non-archeological resources - including buildings, structures, objects and districts in particular - in the front end of the planning process. In summary, prior to completing a "Class I overview of the freeway to identify previously recorded cultural resources", I am recommending that additional work be done to identify previously identified historic non-archeological resources. 2 3 Appendix 2-1 TH.E OPI TRIBE Hopi Cultural Preservation Office Wayne Taylor, Jr. Chai.rman Caleb Johnson Vlce Chairman September 10, 2003 September 10,2003 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator ·u.s. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren St., Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 r--;.3 Re: Loop 2Q2,'·South Mountain f-\\': Dear Mr. Hollis, ! B• ....,_,' \\\ This letter is in response to your correspondence dated August 20, 2003, regarding the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (1-1 0) west of Phoenix to 1-10 south of Phoenix. As you know the Hopi Tribe appreciates FHWA's and ADOT's continuing solicitation of our input andyoufefforts to address our concerns. ~he Ho~i Cult~ral Preservation Office und~rstarids that the project area has not y~t b1~®·~~ned, and we have reviewed the enclosed A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway CorriqoF'study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona, by the: Gila River Indian Community Cultural ResourcesMan.agem~nt Program. We further understand that 301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed corridor, including two prehistoric sites listed on the National Register, 27 sites recommended as eligible, 15 sites recommended as ineligible, and 136 sites not evaluated. ' C.:'?: :rvfr. Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator USDOT, FHWA, Arizona Division One Arizona Center, Suite 41D 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ 85004 .:::=:-; -:::;:' f;9: N· .c: RE: HA-AZ, NH-202-D (ADY), 202L MA054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Dear Mr. Hollis: We have review~d your letter dated August 20, 2003 regarding the above named project. Since this project lies in the South Mountain area we will defer to the tribes nearer to that area. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact our Tribal Culture · Research Director, Nancy Lee Hayden at (928) 445-8790 ext. 135. 'i.}" Therefore we concur that the Jikefih~od is high that historic properties would be affected b/this prop'os~l. and ldok'forward to further consultations once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and Programmatic Agreement is being developed to address impacts. We also ·s'uppOrt · ADOT's continuing use of the Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resources Management Program for the identification and mitigation of historic properties that will be adversely affected by this project. Sincerely, . a ~ Ernest Jones, Sr. President Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Terry Morgart at the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Thank you again for y~JUr consideration. ·· · EJS:lj:2003 xc: John Ravesloot, Barnaby Lewis, Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resources Management Program Kae Neustadt, Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 123 KYKOTSMOVI._, AZ 86039 (928) 734-3000 530 E. MERRITT PRESCOTT, AZ 86301-2038 Phone 928-445-8790 FAX 928-778-9445 • A227 A228 • Appendix 2-1 2 u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRA.l'l"SPORTATION . FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN1STRATION ARIZONA DIVISION One Arizona Center, Suite 4 I 0 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section 106 Consultation Ms. Carol Heathington Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 81169 2222 W. Dunlap, Suite 330 Phoenix, Arizona 85069-1169 Dear Ms. Heathington: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west ofPhoenix to the I-10 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (W AP A), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities ofPhoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'oitial Section l 06 Consu!tati0n Mr. Todd Bostwick Archaeologist City of Phoenix Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington Phoenix,Arizona 85034 Dear Mr. Bostwick: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between futerstate 10 (I-10) west ofPhoenix to the I-10 south ofPhoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau offudian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAP A), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River fudian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Sait River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. The scope ofthis project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-10 south ofPhoenix to I-1 0 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defmed. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites .AZ T:12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site .AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties beeomes available, it will be provided to your agency th..rough continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (P A) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a PA be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. · Sincerely, ~~~~ Division Administrator Si~~ for City of Phoenix Concurrence Enclosure Date • A229 A230 • Appendix 2-1 Archaeology Section Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ. 85034 City of Phoenix Stubing, Michael, ChrisT. Wenker, John M. Lindly, Ph.D., and Douglas Mitchell 2000 Archaeological Testing at Site AZ T:12:117 (ASM) for the Foothills Reserve Development, Phoenix, Arizona. SWCA Cultural Resource Report No. 00-91. Report RevieW Form Project No.: ADOT Bostwick, Ph.D., Todd and Peter Krocek 2002 Landscape of the Spirits: Hohokam Rock Art at South Mountain Park. University of Arizona Press. Date Report Submitted: 9-5-03 Report Title: A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona. XDraft Final Author: Damon Burden Action: Accepted References to be added: Firm: GRlC More Information Requested XRevise & Resubmit Comments: On the abstract page under agency, it should read Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department. Library is now its own separate Department. On page 2-14, third paragraph, please add river after lower salt and before valley. On page 2-15, first paragraph, the second sentence should read like this, For example, habitation sites comprised of courtyard groups focusing on a mutual extramural work areas become a common settlement organizational pattern. In figure 5.3 does the legend explain what the colors of the sites stand for or for the colors of their boundaries? Please add something in the legend to explain this. Figure 5.4 and 5.5 need the same clarification that figure 5.3 does. On page 5-14, last paragraph, please add river between Salt and Valley. Also on the same page please replace is with are after examples. Please add Bostwick (2002) and Stubing et al (2000) to your references cited section. Also add these references and projects to the table you have on previous research in section 3.1. Recommendations: Please revise report accordingly and send the City one final bound copy. Archaeol~st ~ r/J r--1 -o N f'0 '...t::: u Reviewed By: Robert A. Serocki Jr. and _.. ,_ Todd W. Bostwick, Ph.D. \ D Date: 9-17-03 1 Appendix 2-1 I • A231 ""' 2 fI /A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites AZ T:12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T:ll :39(ASM), the (! Cashion site, are listed on the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP). An additional27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their N"RHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. >/ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DMSION One Arizona Center, Suite 41 0 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section 106 Consultation David Jacobs, Ph.D. Compliance Specialist · State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: . The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (l-1 0) west of Phoenix to the I-1 0 south ofPhoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Managenient (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bureau ofReclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities ofPhoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roos~velt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the.Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache N?-tion. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 cqnsultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (P A) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continuecronce surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a P A be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az. us. Thank you . Sincerely, ~b~ ~~~~~~:·,Hollis Division Administrator The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-10 south of Phoenix to I-10 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. Date Enclosure The GRlC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. 7f Cu'(~ sd;vh,-t\Rl ~'~~~ ~ JJ'{Y'Q, s~~\-lrJ~b ~ _\N~\1\.. (§:J--r<"'L~~·-. Cc~ '?-'fu<_~~at ) ftu~ A232 • Appendix 2-1 2 Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional 27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview_ acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHW A recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA TlON FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINIS~{[OAli ARIZONA DIVISION r One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section l 06 Consultation Ms. Connie Stone, Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Phoenix Field Office 21605 N 7th Ave Phoenix,Arizona 85027 Dear Ms. Stone: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west of Phoenix to the I-1 0 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), th.e Western Area Power Administration CW AP A), the Bureau ofReclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities ofPhoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC)~ the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-10 south of Phoenix to I-10 west ofPhoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. A total of 301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of · these cultural resources, sites AZ T: 12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHW A is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a P A be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ Division Administrator Signature for BLM Concurrenc Enclosure Appendix 2-1 Cashion site, are listed on the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP). An additional27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the 1\TR.HP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility detern1inations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA. TION ARIZONA DIVISION One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section 106 Consultation Mr. Garry Cantley, Archaeologist Bureau of Indian Affairs BIA-WRO/EQS P.O. Box 10 Phoenix,Arizona 85001 Dear Mr. Cantley: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-1 0) west of Phoenix to the I-1 0 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bureau ofReclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities ofPhoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys ofthe preferred alternatives are completed and that a P A be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, .w/)~ -r;-~~~,~~: Hollis . Division Administrator The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-10 south of Phoenix to I-1 0 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites AZ T:l2:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T:ll:39(ASM), the OCT 2 7 2003 Date. Enclosure • A233 A234 • Appendix 2-1 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRAJ.'I"SPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DMSION One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 Envir~>nmcntal Compliance Environmental Services August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section 106 Consultation Mr. Rick Aiduze Archaeologist Salt River Project M.S.PAB 355 P.O. Box 5625 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 . Dear Mr. Anduze: The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west of Phoenix to the I-10 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, ·the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM), the Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAP A), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Iri.dian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. A total of 301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites AZ T:12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen ( 15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility ofthe historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (P A) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area ofpotential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a PA be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, ~D~ ~ Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator The scope ofthis project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-10 south of Phoenix to I-1 0 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview ofthe freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, lvfaricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. Date Enclosure I ; Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Ms. Connie Stone, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Mr. John Czaplick, Bureau of Reclamation Dr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Barbara Stocklin, Historic Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Dr. David Jacobs, Ph.D., Compliance Specialist, State Historic Preservation Office Mr. Richard Narcia, Governor , Gila River Indian Community Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Cultural Preservation Office, Hopi Tribe • A235 A236 • Appendix 2-1 THE ~ OPI TRIBE lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue /.\DOT Wayne iaylor, Jr: · CHAIRMAN Janet' Napolitano Governor. '-Victor M. · ·.Mendez · Direc;tor ·December 9, 206 South 17~-Avenue, Room 213E, Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-.3213 Re~£oopr2:02..; RE: Kae Neustadt, Historic Preservation Specialist Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental & Enhancement Group South Mountain, Draft Programmatic Agreement Dear Ms. Neustadt, This letter is in response to your correspondence with an enclosed draft Programmatic Agreement .. dated December ~,. 2003,. regarding the. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Arizona z DepartmentofTransportation{ADOT): planning to ..construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (1.::1 0) · west ofPhoenixto I-10 south ofPhoenix. As you know, the Hopi Tribe appreciates FHWAand ADOT's continuing solicitation of our input and your efforts.t6address"om concerns;• · ;>:t: In a letter dated September 10, 2003, in respo~e to a correspondence from the Federal Highway Administration dated August 20, 2003, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office reviewed the cultural resources overview report for this project by the Gila River Indian Community that identifies 30 I cultural resources within the proposed project corridor. We stated we support the continuing use ofthe Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resources Management Program for the identification and mitigation of historic properties that will be adversely affected by this project. a. We note that the (}ila River Indian CoiD!_Ill1Wtyjs J?.ar.t . . . encl_o~ed draft P~·< .. ·''' ''·I" '··: <, The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of te11.'·altei.Qp.tiv~ J,(over!~ppmg)jreeway corridors (E1, W55, W71, WlOIWPR, WlOlWFR, WIOIW99, wio'iCPR,. WlOlCFR~-- WIOIEPR, and WlOIEFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoemx, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. • A309 A310 • Appendix 2-1 2 The cultural resources component ofthe EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (KuwfU1wisiwma, September I 0, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). . • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions ofthe I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L!DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). 3 (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design, standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-10 and the lOlL freeway corridors are modem realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result ofthis shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:10:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more· information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing Appendix 2-1 4 below. At this time, FHWA is once again inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of religious or cultural importance to your community within the project area. If you have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter would be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. However, such consultation would not necessitate a reconsideration of this determination of project effect. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, pleasefeel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. U.S. Department of Transportotioo Federal Highway Adminrstration ~(I Robert E. Hollis ....-'v~-DivisionAdministrator June 26, 2006 InReplyReferTo: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class III Survey Report Sincerely yours, ~'J)~ Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 Mr. Larry Hendershot Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona, 85009 Dear Mr. Hendershot: 6/slo6 Signature for Hopi Concurrence Enclosure Date The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 west ofPhoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S.· Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, ·the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni,· the Salt River Pima~Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan ~outhern Paiute,. the Tohono ?'odham Nation, th~ Tonto ft.ll:ts TTT survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class 111 Cu1wral Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in rhe South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area. Maricopa Cou11ty, Arlzo11a" (Darling 2005). Con.sultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July ll, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quctawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prcscott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class Ill survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-1 0 and State Route 101 L freeway corridors and shifts in the altcma:live alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resow·ces Class I Overviaw Report for the 202L. South MountaiJt Freeway EIS & VDCR ProJect, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class 111 report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Motmtain Freew~y EIS & !.JDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona'' (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005). Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of PhtJenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR. Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. [n September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobb1ns Road and 7316 West lower Buckeye Road. furthermore, two properti~ in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park!Preservc and specific segments ofthe Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:l0:83 (ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, th~:: location of the Western Canal (AZ T: 12:154 lASMJ) relative to the APE is addres~ed. The r~!port, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L. South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & L!DCR Project. Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006). assesses the NRli.P cligibi]ity of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the twa residential pnJperties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix /\).The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain ParkJPreserve is a municipal park owned by the Ci ly of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximatt:ly 32 at.'!es of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignn:~ent. FHWA and .ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal program!; in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as cligihle under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for 1mprovemen~ in wilderness mea parks. While the current study focused on the -32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and strucrurcs, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its. collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Critt:.rion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal AZ T:l O:R3 (ASM)-is considered eligible fi,r the NRJiP under Criterion A for its associations with the h1~torical development of inigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous ~tudies for the South Mountain ETS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal wa.-; NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alteroative alignments had not been assessed in tenns of whether they are contributing or n..o.o-contributing to that eligibility. The Roo~evelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W7l Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity a.nd are recorrunended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the pmpm;ed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the 101 L freeway corridors are modem rcaligruncnt) that Jack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dohhins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result (If alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties arc on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historica1 associations and architectural merit. therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that nei lher prope.rty is eligible for inclusion in. the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class lll survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005} had .identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further srudy has indicaled that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage djtch and that the Western Canal te:mninates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more infonnation becomes available reg-.n:ding the South Mountain Freeway project. it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed cultural resource assessment report and infonnarion provided in this letter. If you frnd the report adequate and agree with ihe eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing Appendix 2-1 "~ 4 below. At this time, FHWA is once again inquiring whelher you have any concerns regarding historic propertie!: ofreligiou....:; or culturdl importance to your community within the project area. If you have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 c.lays of receipt ofthis letter wou1d be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in culrural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA \.vould make a good faith eftort to address any concem!l. However, such cot.1.Sultation would not necessitate a reconsideration of this dctennination C)fp:roje<..i effect. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. Tfyou have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-maiJ rgreenspan(@azdot.gov. "'~ '-'--~ , ~ ~ Arizona ® State Parks STEPHEN D. THOMAS Janet Napolitano Robert E. Hollis duUw ul._' . . V.J_.0-~~ Signature for SQAT Concurrence- U .~ C\:tJy J 7,.-~;J()'-"'<-Qf~~fofinclusiqn }.9 the NRHP under Criterion A, but suggest restating the eligib~litY ~-~#o~iatio.ti:W~fli W,'~ d~velopment of parks and.recreation in Phoenix [also in tlie Wesf generally :for,~ejlliique emphasis on mountain preserves] and not with the CCC. Th~ CCC constitutes just a small portion of the park. Additionally, we agree' with the FHWA/ADOT recommendations regarding eligibility of the South Mountain Park/Preserve for inclusion to the NRHP under ·. Criteria B, C, and D. • A315 A316 • Appendix 2-1 July 19,2006 Page 2, Hollis U5.Deparrment of Tronsporlotion If you have any questions, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or electronically at djacobs@pr.state.az.us. ~y~,W.J Ruth Greenspan, ADOT June 26, 2006 In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 2021 MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class III Survey Report . David Jac bs Complian e Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office CC: federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 Mr. Charlie McClendon City Manager Avondale City Hall 11465 West Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 Avondale, Arizona, 85323 Dear Mr. McClendon: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 west ofPhoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau ofReclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River-Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRJC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the \Vhite Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, \¥55, W71, WlOIWPR, W101WFR, W101W99, WIOICPR, WlOlCFR, WIOIEPR, and W101EFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west ofPhoenix, south ofthe greater Appendix 2-1 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall stUdy area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South · Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T: I 0:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South • 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Ahgnment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and .Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites _(components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to theN ational Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I- I 0 and the lOlL freeway corridors are modem realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T: 12: !54 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section I 06 consultation. Please review the enclosed A317 A318 • Appendix 2-1 Arizona Division 4 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail rgreenspanial.azdot.gov. 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 U.S. Deportment ofTronsponation Federal Highway Administration June 26, 2006 InReplyReferTo: HA-AZ Sincerely yours, NH-202-D(ADY) ~b~ TRACS·No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section J06 Consultation Second Addendum Class Ill Survey Report ~. Robert E. Hollis cr-Division Administrator --@~ Dj-.25-Jb Mr. Bryan Lausten, ArchaeologrEjt Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona, 85306 Dear Mr. Lausten: Enclosure The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclan:i.ation), the V.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi · Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (E1, W55, W71, W101WPR, W101WFR, W101W99, W101CPR, W101CFR, W101EPR, and W101EFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater ,--;..!"l'·*'''' /' Appendix 2-1 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address theN ational Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segrnents of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:10:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:12:154 [ASMJ) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report IS enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the Natwnal Park ServiCe (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in. planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for. . improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres Within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Cntenon C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district· and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining~related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segrnents within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are cont:ibuti?g or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and .w71 Alternatives south o~Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the Natwnal Regtster under Cntenon A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-10 and the 101 L freeway corridors are modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both pr~perties a:e on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties ehgtbihty (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an histone property m the APE, m the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed • A319 A320 • Appendix 2-1 4 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report ade;quate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail rgz~@2i~~~lgft,Y. Ruth Greenspan From: Sent: To: Sincerely yours, 7 :r-?JJL Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Signature for Reclamation Concurrence Date Subject: Amalia Reyes [Amalia.Reyes@pascuayaqui-nsn.gov] Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:15 PM Ruth Greenspan South Mountain Freeway Ms.Greenspan, The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has received the documents for: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H576401L South Mountain Transportation Corridor The tribe has no concerns with the freeway corridor project. any questions, please contact me at he address below. Thank you. Enclosure Amalia A.M. Reyes Resource Coordinator Education Administration Division amalia.reyes@pascuayaqui-nsn.gov (520) 879-5742 Fax: (520) 883-5049 If you have Appendix 2-1 -..4 , "Managing and conserving natural, cultural. and recreational resources" ~ ''-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Arizona ® 5t.at.e Parks August 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 Page 2, Hollis Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division U.S. Department of Transportation One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-0674 eligible, then the site as a whole is eligible. The discussions regarding, for instance AZ T:12:9 (ASM) aka Villa Buena, should be revisited. Regarding that site, issues of integrity should consider the perspective of the associated native peoples; the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) letter to FHWA dated September 30, 2005, clearly states that [they believe] the site retains integrity [cf. page 46 of report]. Attention: Stephen Thomas Our office is very interested in the tribal response to the traditional cultural property assessment report that evaluates the eligibility for the NRHP, and look forward to receiving copies of their response. We also look forward to reviewing an amended traditional cultural property assessment report. RE: Janet Napolitano Governor State Parks Board Members Chair William C. Porter Kingman William Cordasco Flagstaff Janice Chilton Payson William C. Scalzo Phoenix Reese Woodling Tucson Elizabeth Stewart Tempe HA-AZ; NH-202-D(ADY); TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL; South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional ·cultural Places; Eligibility Evaluation Report SHP0-2003-1890 (29666) Sj.p.cerylY., \\l \ Dear Mr. Hollis: Thank you for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway and submitting materials forreview and comment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. We have reviewed the submitted materials and have the following comments. The submitted report [An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 20?L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona] addresses the eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) of ten properties in the area of potential effect (APE). Two obvious comments regarding eligibility are as follows: First, the historic wagon road associated with AZ T:12:112 (ASM) in the report's text and figures should be assigned an ASM linear site number [although it Kenneth E. Travous actually is a structure in National Register terminology] .. Figure 8 on page 52 Executive Director labels it as the road to Phoenix, however, since additional petroglyphs are located Arizona State Parks along this transportation corridor about 100 metersto the northeast, it seems 1300W. washington reasonable that it also served as a prehistoric route to what is now Phoenix. It is Phoenix,AZ 85007 noted on page 53 that the petroglyph at the location of AZ T:12:112 (ASM) is Tel & TTY: 602.54?.4174 . problematic in terms of association, and states it is possi'biethe petroglyph is a www.~~t~feP,~rks~'~m· :r:}narker\f0r;a prehistoric trail, a precursor of the historic wagon road. As hinted at aoo.~Si;37o3;ft.~m-:~:ii]/t~'¥~~P<;Jtf/~e petroglyph at AZ T: 12:112 (ASM) appears to be associated with (520 & 928) area codes · · both the trih~{H route and the shrine [both strategically ph~ced ()n the landscape]. State Land Commissioner 602.542.4180 Director's Office Fax: 602.542.4188 r·0Jwv~ \1 David Ja obs Compli ce Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office CC: Mark Winkleman . General i=ax: If you have any questions, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or electronically at djacobs@pr.state.az.us. . ..- Secondly, there are some process issues with eligibility aiJ.d lntegrity. There appears to be a conflation of the determination of eligibility and effect determination; Section 106 is a linear process with assess~geligibility occurring before assessing impacts. The determination ofbeing eligible for inclusion in the NRHP includes the entire site; if there is agreement that ariy portion of the site is Ruth Greenspan, ADOT • A321 A322 • Appendix 2-1 Arizona Division U.S.Deponmen! of Tronsponation Federal Highway Administration 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 I L South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Second Addendum Class Ill Survey Report Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., President Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 530 East Merritt Prescott, Arizona, 86301-2038 Dear President Jones: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau ofindian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RlD), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRlC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, W101WPR, W101WFR, W101W99, W101CPR, W!OlCFR, WIO!EPR, and Wl01EFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area. Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September· 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor St~dy Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address theN ational Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:l0:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T: 12:154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Appendix 2-1 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and.historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T:l 0:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the 101 L freeway corridors are modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminatesprior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed 4 cultural resource assessment report and infonnation provided in this letter. If you find the report . adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by SlgDlng below. At this time, FHWA is once again inquiring whether you have any concerns regardmg histone properties of religious or cultural importance to your community within the proje~t area. If you have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 days ofrecetpt oftlus letter would be considered in the project planning, If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultatwn at a later date FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. However, such consultatio~ would not necessitate a reconsideration of this determination of project effect. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Enclosure cc. Greg Glassco, Director, Cultural Research Program, 530 East Merritt, Prescott, Arizona 86301-2038 (enclosure) SThornas RGreenspan (MD 619E) SDThomas:cdrn • A323 A324 • Appendix 2-1 A.r.itona Division 400 East ' 'an B'unn $tree1 One A:ritmta CenferSuite.·U O l'hoeo.ix, A.r-h:ona 850()4..0.674 U$ ().}p0~ ollooc»>V4:< ,__uiHI;II:Iw:oy Adml!limcrtion I one 26, 2006 .,.e i,ooo.n(3 04.8-m) wide and ""'8e from 21.5. Phoenix metropolit.O·a re.. Alt;;.;;ative ·c;;;,;(io..S miles (34.6lcrn) to 23.6 miles (38.0 lcrn) ill Jeng1h. The cultural rewurees component of tbe EIS includes five technical studies: lo Reply Refer To: HA-AZ 'NH·202·D(ADY) TRACS No. 202LMA 0541 HS76401L SOU!ll Mow.Hl!:iu Tn.ll$pOrUI.tioo Corridor Continoing Seclioo 106 C~tAtion Secoul Addendur..1 Cla.ss lll Survey Rtt)Orl M<. Bllrl>on! Stocklin City of Phoeu.ix .Hlstoric Presav3tioo Officer 200 Wesa WashingtOn Strtet Phoeoix, Arizona, 85003 Dear Ms. StockJin: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Envirorunental lmpact Statement (EIS) for the 202L. South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EiS a~resses ten variations on three alternative alignments for Ole propOsed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the soutlt side of South Mountain from lnterstale 10 (1-10) in west Chandler and to 1·10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties fO{ this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLiind Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BlA) the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corp• ofEnginee,s (COE) , the Arizon~ State Lmd Department (ASLD), th~ Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation DistriStnct ofMancopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), lhc City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Olenda!e, the City ofPhoenix, the Ciey of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemei>Ue\i Tn'be, the Cooopab. Tribe, the C'..olorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tnl:>e, tbe Fort Yuma·Quee.'lan Tnl:>e, the Gila River Indian Community (OR!C), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, tho Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, ~~• Pasqua Y!U)ui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San carlos Apae.'te Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tobono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain {1-pac.b.e Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (oveo·lapping) freeway corridors (BI , W55, W7l, WJOI\VPR, WIOIWFR, WIOJW99, WlOICf>R, WIOICFR, WIO lBPR, and WIO IEFR) that OJ< tend from l· I 0 in west Chandler to l· 10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater _: .· •;t: ~· .·.·,,.. ...... ~:i 'jiJ .r·!·~·! (·r"l.S.~· _·.~: ~· M- UP ERICA Previous O>nsuJtatiQn.: • A Class 1overview of~e overall study area: "A Class l Overview of!he South ;\lowuaiiJ Corrit/cJr Study Area. Maricopa County, Arizona.. (B\l!den 2002). Previous consultation reg!IJ'(]ing adequacy of the report rcsultod ill concurrences/responses from SHPO (JilCObs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, S"i'tember 8, 2003 110d Bostwick, September I 7, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, Sept.ember I 0, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September I I, 2003); SRP (Anduu, November 10, 2003); snd BlA (October 27 2003). ' • A Class UI S'UTVey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Resource Su~y ofFive Alfernative Alignments in the South Mountain Free»vzy Corridor Study Area, Afa,.icopa Counzy, Ariuma" (Dal'ling 2005). Consultation regarding adequecy of the repon is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been receivod from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwiclr, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (QuetawiO), July 12, 2005), Ya\, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, eoocurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, Oetober·3, 2005), ~eclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November I, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, Septembee 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum culturol resources asSessment report hllS been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National ~cgister of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four propertie.< aod clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to th<: APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shiftod north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shi ft, Hvo histooi c re.e is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with lhe National Park Service (N'PS) and Civilian Conss entire 16,000+ acres has the polentialto establish eligibility under Critel'ion B for associations with influential NPS architects~ under Criterion C for the architectural medt of its buildings and structures, both iudividuany nnd oolloctively as a district; and under Criterion D for its oollectiori ofprehist.oric archaeologica1 sites and historical mining-related s iLe.~ (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: I 0:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the bisroricaJ deve!opu'len[ of irrigation districts in lower Salt River VaHey. While previous srudies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments witllin the proposed altemative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contnbuting to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersectS the propesed all<:mative alignment foo tprints in four locations. The CanaJ segments that cross the W55 and W?l AJtemati,•cs south of Van Boren Road rerain integrity and ru.-e reoommended ils eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing oomponents. The segments that cross the proposed alternative.alignments in lbe 1· W and the I01 L ~vay conidors &'e modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road :md 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to project's APE as a resull ofal.ignme.t~t shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privately- the owned land..A.rchilectural historians with EcoPian evaluated the properties• eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and arcbitecrural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for incJusion in t11e NRHP. t\ Finally, the initial Class IT! survey repon for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l 2:1 54 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the E l Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further srudy has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a LaH-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal lerminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA. and ADOT recommend thlll the Western \ Canal will OOl be affected by the proposed uudertakiog. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to )"OUr agency through continued Section 106 eonsultatio". Please review the enclosed • ··4 cultural resource assessment teport and information provided in this letter. If you find the repo11 adequate and agree \vith the eligibility recoounendations, please indicate your ooncurrcoce by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free lo contact Ruth Gtemspan at 602-7126266 or e--mail rgreenspanralazdot.gov. Sincerely yours, .Sigllanfre-for '1/J/J ~ (f){J l-IPpjtUlJld Historic~resecvation Office Concurrence I EncJosure • A325 A326 • Appendix 2-1 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY :Executive Office of tfie Y~~vernor & Lieutenant Governor M-'UTiam 'R 'P.•hm{es ]cnnfra ~:;{ITisvn.-:&_:nr Cu-crno: u.~:_~te;u~'t Gowrn:.;r - The GRlC appreciates the efforts of the Federal Highway Administration in addressing ou;- concerns and anticipates meaningful consultations in ac-cordance with the National Historic Preservation Act on this undertaking. Please call GRIC Cuhural Resource Specialist, Barnaby V. Lewis at 1-520-562-3570 shou~d you have any questions or r~uirc further information. Si;tncerely, t' /J/l1 , ~ ~ ;;__u::t::Pt~tt.~ \\ September 25, 2006 Rh es, Governor Gila River Tndian Community 7 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U.S. Departm~nt cc: ofTransportation Federal Highway Adminisrration ~Aillzona Division 400 East Van Buren Street,Suite410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 RE: South Mountaih'-:fhin-sj:)Ortation Corridor. Section 106-~ Cons-u~btion. Traditionai Cultural Places;}I;>,,CAz 1'-IH-202-D (ADY); TRACS No:202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Dear Mr. Hollis, ,___________ /,--_ ,__ -- - The Gila RivefJndiailiCommU1rity (GRJC)has reedvcd HDR Eng;neerlng, Inc .Cultural Resource Repcrrt,;·o~_"_Q"{; _titled _-'~An "Ev(3Jliilti0]1_of Traditi~al C)llhlrai J.:~roperties for the 202L, South MOUl)!liinTransportation CorridorEIS & LtDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbe~~--2Q_D6). The GRIC Cultural ResoUrce --M~'Jagerrient Program is presently re-vi~wing)~iS;ieyprt and__vlishes to present an evalm~tion_ qtt~e document to the GRIC Cultural Res0)1fce - $tanding Committee prior to-- :Sl,l~iSsion to the Federal Highway Admlnistratio-il. We understand that in accordane:e "vjth- the National HistOriC- Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to m3.ke :a_ ~easOnable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that could be affected by a propo-sed project. The aforementioned report was prepared for the Arizona Dcpattmcnt of Transportation anC evaluates the eligibilily ofhibioric properties identified in our letter of July 7, 2005. The Gila River Indian Commur;ity wishes to maintain pruticipation in discussions regarding rhe potential efH~cts to such resources that could result from the South Mountain Freeway project. Vle anticipate forwarding a fOrmal response lo the submitte-d report in mid October 2006. 525 West Gu u Ki · P.O. Eox 97 · Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Telephone: 520-562-9840 · Fax: 520-562-9849 · Email: executivemaiJ@gric.nsn.us Andrew Darling GRIC-CRMP Assistant Coordinator Errol Blackwater, GRIC Land Ui:>e Planning & Zoning Doug Torres, GR1C Department of Transportation Steve Thomas, Environmental Program Ma11agcr, FHWA Arizona Division Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Ruth Greenspa.J, ADOT Historic Preserv-atim: Specialist 1\.fark Brodeck, IIDR Engineering, b.c. Appendix 2-1 Arizona Division U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 December 11, 2006 In Reply Refer To: HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL SR 202L; South Mountain Final Programmatic Agreement Ms. Cheryl Blanchard, Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Phoenix Field Office 21605 North ih Ave. Phoenix, Arizona 85027-2099 2 The BIA declined to participate in the PA (telephone conversation between Serelle Laine [ADOT] and Garry Cantley [BIA] , August 3, 2005). The Hopi Tribe deferred participation in the PA to the GRIC, but said they would like to continue to be consulted on any cultural resource reports relating to the project (Kuwanwisiwma [Hopi) to Neustadt [ADOT], December 11, 2003). TheY-PIT responded to consultation by saying that they do not wish to be a party to the PA, and that they defer to the Southern Tribes, as this project occurs entirely outside aboriginal Yavapai territory (Kwiatkowski [Y-PIT] to Hollis [FHWA], July 22, 2005). Revisions to the draft PA were requested by SHPO (Jacobs [SHPO] to Laine [ADOT], July 11, 2005) and by Reclamation (Ellis [Reclamation] to Neustadt [ADOT], December 18, 2003). The changes requested by SHPO and Reclamation have been addressed in the final P A. At this time, FHWA is submitting the final P A for signature. Please review the enclosed P A and the information provided in this letter. If you find the PA adequate, and wish to participate as a concurring party, please obtain the appropriate signature and return the document. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or email rgreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely, Dear Ms. Blanchard: As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway (State Route 202L) between Interstate 10 (1-10) west of Phoenix to 1-10 south of Phoenix. As this project is qualified for federal-aid funding, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because an alternative has not been chosen for the highway, land jurisdiction is unknown at this time. Consulting parties for this project have included FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Arizona State Land Department, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Salt River Project, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City ofPhoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi (Hopi)Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni (Zuni), the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, the Tohono O' odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe (Y-PIT). Previous consultation with SHPO recommended a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address potential effects of the project on historic properties. SHPO concurred with this recommendation (Jacobs [SHPO] to Hollis [FHWA] September 9, 2003). Drafts of the PA were submitted to consulting parties in December, 2003, June, 2004, and in July and August, 2005. In 2004 the ACHP encouraged FHWA to develop a PA in consultation with SHPO and other consulting parties without ACHP participation, but requested to be informed if any criteria for ACHP involvement were met in the future. In September 2005 a revised draft PA was sent to ACHP, and they again responded that they did not feel their participation was necessary (Wallace [ACHP] to Hollis [FHWA]). STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Enclosure cc: SThomas RGreenspan (619E) SDThomas:cdm • A327 A328 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Steve Ross, Archaeologist, Arizona State Land Department Mr. Bruce Ellis, Chief, Environmental Resource Management Division, Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Robert B. Stevens, Environmental Programs Manager, Flood Control District of Maricopa County Mr. Charlie McClendon, City Manager, City of Avondale Mr. Mike Normand, Transportation Services and Planning Manager, City of Chandler Mr. Ron Short, Deputy Director for Long Range Planning, City of Glendale Mr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Barbara Stocklin, Historic Preservation Officer, City of Phoenix Mr. Ralph Velez, City Manager, City of Tolleson Mr. Brian Kenny, Environmental Programs Manager, Maricopa County Department of Transportation Mr. Stanley Ashby, Superintendent, Roosevelt Irrigation District Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Ms. Lydia Lopez-Cruz, Archaeologist, United States Army Corps of Engineers Ms. Delia M. Carlyle, Chairwoman, Ak-Chin Indian Community Mr. Charles Wood, Chairman, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Ms. Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman, Cocopah Tribe Mr. Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes Mr. Raphael Bear, President, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ms. Nora McDowell, Chairwoman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Mr. Mike Jackson, Sr., President, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe Mr. William Rhodes, Governor, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Thomas Siyuja, Chairman, Havasupai Tribe Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Cultural Preservation Office, Hopi Tribe Ms. Loretta Jackson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Hualapai Tribe Mr. Gary Tom, Chairwoman, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe Dr. Alan Downer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department Ms. Herminia Frias, Chairwoman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Mr. Arlen Quetawki, Governor, Pueblo of Zuni Ms. Joni Ramos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Ms. Kathleen Wesley-Kitcheyan, Chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Nation Ms. Evelyn James, President, San Juan Southern Paiute Mr. Peter Steere, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Joe Joaquin, Cultural Resource Specialist, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Ivan Smith, Chairwoman, Tonto Apache Tribe Mr. Ronnie Lupe, Chairwoman, White Mountain Apache Tribe Mr. Jamie Fullmer, Chairwoman, Yavapai-Apache Nation Appendix 2-1 GILA I \TER INDIAN Co~:_~fUNITY Executive Office of tne Governor & Lieutenant Governor 11'ifnam R. Rlioaes jennifer ..A{(ison-'Rny ( ;()\('1'!101' I ,i('ntcl!all1 C()\ 1'n1or NRHP by non-Indians, especially those who are not well-acquainted with O'odham and ·Pee Posh cullure, consistently misunderstands, misconstrues, and ignores Native · American religious beliefs and priorities, and the needs of the Tribe(s) for the perpetuation and health of their vibrant, living, traditional community. December 19, 2006 Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator '- .'.::-:-0 ::R. 'Fiwies Lirotf:~1\ G~n~e.mor Go•-mlor July2, 2007 Robert E. Hollis, 'Divisi011 A.dmilli:;trator U. S. Department of !rm:tsportation Federal Highway Administration Ariroua Dlvis:ion 400 East Van Buren Street, Su.1te 4 10 Phoe1_1ix, A.ri.zm.1.a 85004 RE: outh Mountain T~o~tlon Co~dor; S-ection\ lOIS Consultation, Tmdilion81 Culv.rral Places, EJi gibilit~r Rq)o:n; HOP-.AZ NH-202-D. (ADY); P1oject No. 202:L :!YIA 054 H5764 ·011;, _ .. _.-: : :- . . . - ..; ·. ~: , ' ·. Sincerely, ,- STEPHEN D. THOMAS - . . .. .. ... •', Dear Mr. Hollis, . , . Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator .: ·' !' The Gila Rive-r ~an-,~~ity (GRIC) in respcms~· to-yoor -~~~ ~~ June ll. 2007 i.n which you r~u6ste.4 additiqt~al inp-~t o'n the boundary ·for ~ .M~~~gi Doag (South Moi!W.min) TCP. ··We:~appreciate_:.fha.t yo~ ~ogu.i~.. the J!Elid:-:for· dose co:nsufcatiou rega.Iding poten,tial t:i:Jmgatjon' stra~,eg;aS: in close co1:1Sl;lltatiO.~i 'Witti ORIC and other concerned Nativ.e 'Azn.erican coninii.mities, · · · ·'' · · the· Signature for GRIC Concurrence Enclosure cc: Date Jennifer Allison-Ray, Lieutenant Governor, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 David White, Community Manager, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Barnaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Gila River Indian Community, P .O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 J. Andrew Darling, CRMP Coordinator, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 SThomas WVachon KDavis MHollowell (EM02) RGreenspan (EM02) MBruder (614E) SDThomas:cdm ......· We app:recime tha!· l:he H-l: WA ackMwledge-s that -l~e draft -_TCP e!igibility re.poit (Brodbeck 2006). t.~~L~. J.rim~• RSO::l4JJ671 &J:!ply Rorec To: HOP-AT. The GRIC appreciates the efforts of the Federal Highway Administr~tion in addressing our grave concerns that must be resolved through the Nai!Onlil Htston c Preservauon A~t 106 Consultation process. We anticipate continued and mea~ungfu! consultattons on .thts federal undertaking. Please call GRIC Cultural Resou~e Speciali~t, Bam"!'y V. Lewts at 1-520-562-6713 should you have any questions or requtre further mfom>alion. 1\IHIJZ.ll(ADY) Ou. Si:t.tth Mou:n;l.ic. T~ptrt.·nb~ Co1rii.Jr PK-J~tl\c.~Jl2LMAOS4H5164 S~:ttil)rl 106 C:~:~:uru.t;.ltiou 1',e:Uli~ Clllna:ell't&e::es },{j~~C:~L'n:'\1 Sincen (AOOI), UDd tlc ~ia!.; lfh;~.,rio l':c~-az::iou Ofli..:e (SIIPO) should ta!cc tJ!ooc in ordcrtD addrc~ pns!tible mitiga.tiun ..tratcgics. rd~ing to a pmpnsai (tcetny Qp1ion. Fulll>wiu"rea:cipt ufyu•.a ldterof July 2. 200?. 5CVC\-al iDfonml meelln~ 3)\t"l c&nvm~ttiOlls have: hdd bdv;~ villi~ J'q.rc;cotatives uft&c GRIC OllCarnl kc.:tnuroc 5!lCc\l'li~•·s Office (CR50). (]RIC Calllll"Al R.esowoc M'l'lntlgtmmt lt'rag:r~ll\ {CRMr), the FU\VA_, the Al>Ol' ~brtorlc \'rc::c:rv.af;nn 'l"c811\ (HPI}, tbc S~Jf'O, t1nd thtl Cit;· l:tffhocnill: Arcbaea!u.~ St:i::litm (COr-AS), As il Tault of thcsl!l vari~.>ll5 mcct:inw:. PHWA and Al>nr h~vta bce:a p\E¥uin,v lwu pos~iblt~o!il7ut~::gjeo. fo llelpmitip.IC po~lti."tl iidvcuc cff('J(;fs &f tlaepropnRcd ti'¢rr.."W~)' ()ll the MuN,dagiDuag (Soml\ M~>mtain) 'l'wiitit:u:id Cultunl Yropclly (TCP) o..W nthcr pl~~ ('lftftldltjm"tl s.i&niiit.aucc• 1(1 yuur C:ODJWU:rily. AIH!.ONA0£1'1'.OfTRANSPOCtfAliON INT£.RMOD.• l TRANSPORT.ITIO~ DIVISION ENVIRONMEI}'Ol:. b\Uld il!tmlal(,·c-; uftlte ~}.l~o:i fre~-ay would &.a...c m ad>'cr.~c ~.t OJJ.llu~ Mrtbt>!lt1 ' l .ieutf•JJ:ml. Gow1·nor· r:··or/:. Robett E. Hollis Division Administrator June 23,2010 Enclosure cc: J. Andrew Darling, Coordinator, Cultural Resomce Management Program, GRIC, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 (with enclosures) Barnaby V. Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, GRIC, P.O. Box E, Sacaton, AZ 85247 (with enclosures) SThomas TDeitering A Hansen MFrye KDavis LDavis (EM02) SDThomas:cdm Robet1 Hollis, Administrator, Arizona Division U.S. Depmtment of Transportation (FHW A) 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Re: HOP-AZ, NH-202"D(ADY) .·.. . Project No. 202L MA054li5764 01 L ·..·.. ... . .. South Mountain Tra.llsportatiol'l C'onidor, Section 106 Consl.lltatiol1, Traditional Cultural Places, Mitigation Measur~s. .... · Dear Mr. Hollis: .. :::. - . . -. ·__<_.~ -: .-·.- _-.-_:. In reply to yourlctteridated April28, 2010 regarding potential effects.ofth.eproposcd SR 202L (South Mountain Freeway), the Gila Rivet· Indian. CotntJ]~nity C::4ltl!mLRespurcc Management Program (GRIC CRl\llP) has prepared the attached proposal for the$\1(1/llqtlon ql Traditionul Cultural Prope/ty ant/Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor l)qvelQJlment posed by the proposed eonstruct~on of the current Pecos Alignment of the South. fy1o~l1tain Freeway. This proposal has been I'(!Viev•ed and approved by the GRIC CdmmutlitY Council and the GRIC Transpmtation T~ch.nicril Team. A digital (soft copy) was Stlbfuitted io Matthew Burdick (Arizona Department ofTransportation ~ADOT) via electronic m~itoll.J"RK. Due to the limited scope and nature of work, tribal consultation is'not warranted. t'~)r~\b The scope of this project would involve excavating ten 8-inch diameter borings approximately 100 feet deep near the intersection of 59th Avenue and the UPRR tracks, which run east-west about halfway between Van Buren Street and Buckeye Road. Access to. the boring locations would be from 59th Avenue along the UPRR access roads and adjacent parking lots. No new right of way (ROW) or temporary construction easements are anticipated for this project. The area of potential effects (APE) is defined as 50 feet around the boril:)_gs and access routes. A copy ofthe geotechnical boring plan is enclosed to assist you in your review. The UPRR right-of-way portion of the APE has been previously surveyed by SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc. (SWCA) in conjunction with a separate undertaking. The ) results are reported in "Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Fiber Optic Cable Line from Yuma to Phoenix" (Doak 1999). The historic Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line of the South Pacific Railroad (AZ T:10:84 [ASM]) was identified in the project area. The railroad's eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was evaluated as part of the South Mountain Freeway project by HDR Engineering, Inc (HDR). The results are reported in "An Appendix 2-1 2 Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Pratt 2005). FHWA recommended that the railroad was eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A. SHPO previously concurred with the adequacy of the report and eligibility determination (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [ADOT] SHPO concurrence October 3, 2005). The remainder of the APE has recently been surveyed by HDR. The survey results are reported in "A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for Geotechnical Investigations for the South Mountain Freeway W59 Alternative UPRR OP, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2011), and are enclosed here for your review and comment. No new sites were identified in the project area. AZ T:10:84 (ASM), the historic Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line, is located within the APE but will not be affected by the project. Therefore, FHWA has determined that a finding of"no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report, geotechnical plans, and the information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with FHWA's determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or email LDavis2@azdot.gov. ~aS. Petty Division Administrator S1gnature for-lHPO Concurrence NH-202-D(AD Enclosures t) AUG 12 2011 Dater / POST OFFICE TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Box 2140. SACATON, AZ 85147 (520} 562-7162 Fax: (520) 562-5083 August 17,2011 Karla S. Petty, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 4000 North Central A venue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 RE: South Mountain Transportation Corridor, Section 106 Consultation, Traditional Cultural Places; 202-C-200 HOP-AZ TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 C Dear Ms. Petty, The Gila River Indian Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) has received HDR Engineering, lnc. Cultural Resource Report 06-01, Submittal Number 5 titled "An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2011 ). The report reevaluates the National Register eligibility status of Traditional Cultural Properties that have been recorded and identified within the proposed 202L corridor. Comments by Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Governor Rhodes have been incorporated into the reevaluation. Governor Rhodes submitted his review to the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) on December 19,2009. Sincerely yours, ~-~hOi~~)___ GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY The GRIC maintains and reinforces the cultural significance of South Mountain to the Four Southern Tribes (Gila River Indian Community; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Ak-Chin Indian Community and the Tohono O'Odham Nation) together with the Pee Posh (Maricopa). O'Odham oral history and religion defines our life and relationship to the natural world and the cultural landscape. Akimel O'Odham and Pee Posh oral histories, religion, creation stories, ceremonial activities and practices, and the concepts of power and sacred places are inseparably tied to every part of the natural environment. Sacred places and Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) must be treated with reverence and respect. South Mountain is an O'Odham TCP. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended provides the guidelines to nominate and place TCPs on the National Register of Historic Places. Impacts to Register eligible properties must be considered for all federal undertakings. Application of criteria of significance has often been applied in an inconsistent, incorrect manner. Archaeologists tend to apply the criteria without supporting oral history data (neglect of gathering oral histories) and without understanding of the people, their religion, and their culture. • A353 A354 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA OIVISION US.Depor1ment of Trcnsporta1icn Federal Highway Admlnlstraflon Review and Comments Page 5, second paragraph, Brodbeck makes reference to "contemporary local/ore." The use of term lore is objectionable. O'Odham oral history is not lore, it is a history as valid and precise as mainstream history which is taught in elementary, high school, and college classes. References to O'Odham history as lore should be removed from the text. 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012· 3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdivlindex.htm October 31,2011 In Reply Refer To: 202-C- 200 HOP-AZ Page 38 and 77, third paragraph, Brodbeck states that because the platform mound has been obliterated at Pueblo del Alamo, "the direct link with tlte ancestral past has been lost." This is an untrue statement. The direct link with the ancestral past, the link between Pueblo del Alamo and the O'Odham people is still intact through oral histories. The link has not been lost because a platform mound on the site has been obliterated by non-O'Odham farmers. The direct link to the O'Odham ancestral past remains and it should be stated as such. The GRIC-THPO concurs with the evaluation with that Pueblo del Alamo is a Register eligible property. The GRIC-THPO disagrees with ADOT and Brodbeck who believe that Pueblo del Alamo is not a Register eligible TCP based upon a perceived lost of an ancestral link to the site. The GRIC-THPO maintains that "the ancestral link" to the site still exists and that Pueblo del Alamo is a Register eligible TCP. Pages 44-45 and page 77, the GRIC-THPO concurs with the re-evaluation of Villa Buena as being a Register eligible property as a site and as a TCP. However on page 45 Brodbeck still considers portions of Villa Buena, located off GRIC lands, as not contributing to the Register eligibility status of the site and TCP. Again the GRIC-THPO would like to indicate that all portions of a site contribute to Register eligibility. If a cultural property is considered a Register eligible property as an archaeological site or as a TCP, then the entire cultural resource is a Register eligible property. ADOT acknowledges correcting this issue but Brodbeck still continues to evaluate Villa Buena in bits and pieces and not as a whole. Page 75, fifth paragraph, Brodbeck states "that South Mountain is an important element in a far-reaching spiritual landscape of the Akimel O'Odham and Pee Posh." We would like to point out that it is our cultural landscape as well and the statement should be modified to state "cultural and spiritual" in the sentence. The GRIC-THPO looks forward to continuing consultation regarding the proposed 202 Loop. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Archaeological Compliance Specialist Larry Benallie, Jr. at 520-562-7162. Respectfully, Barnaby V. Lewi Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Gila River Indian Community 2 \llOI 20~ I oop \u:..thl 7 )(If! 202-C- 200 TRACS No. 202L MA 54.0 H5764 Ol C 202L, South Mountain Freeway. OCR and EIS Continu ing Section I 06 Consultation Revised Programmatic Agreement Mr. Brian Bowker, Director Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Regional Office 2600 North Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3050 Dear Mr. Bowker: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support ofthe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHW A, ADOT, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Museum, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, Salt River Proj ect, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Roosevelt Irrigation District, City of Avondale, City of Chandler, City of Glendale, City ofPhoenix, City of Tolleson, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kalbab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Nation, San Juan Southem Paiute, Tohono O' odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. Appendix 2-1 2 In 2005, FHWA circulated a revised draft Programmatic Agreement (P A) to agencies and tribes for review (Hollis [FHWA) to Cantley [BIA] July I, 2005). At that time, the BIA declined participation in the PA (Cantley [BIA] to Laine [ADOT] personal communication via phone call August 3, 2005). Since then, the BIA has asked FHWA to be included in the PA. Therefore, per Stipulation 14 of the P A, FHW A has revised the P A to include BIA as a concurring party. ARIZONA DIVISION us. Depatment of ia1sportalion Federal Highway 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm Admlnlsfraflon January 23, 2012 In Reply Refer To: 202-C-200 A revised PA is enclosed for your review and comment. If the BIA would like to participate, please sign the enclosed PA and return it to ADOT within 30 days. Upon receipt ofBIA's signature on the P A FHWA will forward the updated P A through continued Section I 06 consultations. Furthermore, as more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the information provided in this letter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 7I2-8636 or by e-mail at LDavis2@azdot.gov Sincerely yours, ~~ fw- Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Enclosure HOP-AZ 202-C- 200 TRACS No. 202L MA 54.0 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Revised Programmatic Agreement Mr. Brian Bowker, Director Bureau oflndian Affairs Western Regional Office 2600 North Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3050 Dear Mr. Bowker: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Museum, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, Salt River Project, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Roosevelt Irrigation District, City of Avondale, City of Chandler, City of Glendale, City ofPhoenix, City ofTolleson, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Ap.ache Nation. • A355 A356 • Appendix 2-1 2 In 200?, FHWA. circulated a revised draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) to agencies and tribes for ~e~Ie~ (H.olhs [FHWA] to Cantley [BIA] July 1, 2005). At that time, the BIA declined participation m the.PA (Cantley [BIA] to Laine [ADOT] personal communication via phone call A':lgust ~· 2005). Smce then, the BIA has asked FHWA to be included in the PA. Therefore, per Stipulation 14 of the P A, FHWA has revised the P A to include BIA as a concurring party. ARIZONA DIVISION ~~ Federal Htghway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://INWW. fhwa. dot. gov/azdiv/index. htm April24, 2012 A revis~d PA is enclosed for your review and comment. If the BIA would like to partici ate P.lease sign the enclosed PA and return it to ADOT within 30 days. Upon receipt ofBrJ.s ' signature. on the P A FHWA will forward the updated PA through continued Section 106 consultations. In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ F~e~or~, as more ~nformation becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway pro~ect, It ~11 be pr?vided t~ yo~ agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Section 4(t) Determination review the mfori?at10n pr?vided m this letter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Lmda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or by e-mail at LDavis2@azdot.gov Sincerely yours, ~lsJu Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Mr. Gregory Mendoza, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Governor Mendoza: Enclosure cc: Garry Can~ey, Archa~ologist, Bure~u oflndian Affairs-Western Region Office, 2600 N. Central Avenue, 4 Floor Mrulroom, Phoemx, Arizona 85004-3050 The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau oflndian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Appendix 2-1 2 Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies and engaging in an ongoing open dialog with GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) regarding the identification and evaluation of places of religious and cultural significance to the tribe, often referred to as traditional cultural properties (TCPs) as they may be affected by the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, the GRIC has identified five TCPs that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and could be affected by the construction of the South Mountain Freeway. These include the South Mountains (Muhadagi Doag), the prehistoric Hohokam villages ofVilla Buena (AZ T:l2:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:52 [ASM]), a shrine site (AZ T:12:112 [ASM], and a petroglyph site (AZ T:l2:198 [ASM]) that is also a contributing resource to the South Mountains TCP. In addition, GRIC has identified five other archaeological sites that contribute to the South Mountains TCP (AZ T:l2:197 [ASM], AZ T:l2:201 [ASM], AZ T:l2:207 [ASM], AZ T:l2:208 [ASM], and AZ T:12:211 [ASM]). SHPO previously concurred with FHWA's determination that Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:197, AZ T:l2:198, AZ T:l2:201, AZ T:12:207, AZ T:12:208, and AZ T:12:211 are eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [ADOT], January 23, 2006). This letter summarizes consultation between FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC relating to the eligibility of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo, as well as proposed mitigation to address any potential adverse effects to all TCPs identified within the project area. Through on-going Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC have been developing options for mitigating adverse effects to the TCPs. As a result of these discussions, avoidance alternatives have been developed for two of the TCPs, the petroglyph site and shrine site. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts to these sites. The South Mountains, Villa Buena, and Pueblo del Alamo TCPs cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore mitigation plans have been developed. The mitigation strategies are presented in Treatment Plans titled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance of Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development Summary Scope of Work (Draft) (Darling 2008), which the GRIC THPO previously approved (Manuel [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], June 23, 2010) and South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance of Traditional Cultural Properties and Mitigation ofTransportation Corridor Development Adverse Effects, Addendum Planning for TCP Mitigation Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM] and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:52 [ASM]) (Draft) (Darling 2012), which is enclosed for your review. In addition, we are enclosing the revised An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS and UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012) for your review. The South Mountains 3 The South Mountain range as a whole is considered a TCP. The range is an important element in the spiritual landscape of the Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh, as well as for some of the Colorado River Tribes. For the Akimel O'odham, South Mountains was one of the homes of the deity and creator, Elder Brother (Se'ehe) and several shrines in the range associated with his presence continue to be recognized and honored by the GRIC. Further, South Mountain served as a resource procurement area for upland plants and animals and was a focal point of prehistoric and historic rock art production. FHWA has recommended that the South Mountains is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and Bas a TCP for its significant associations with the broad patterns of traditional cultural practices and beliefs of the Akimel O'odham, Pee Posh, and other tribes, and for the close association the mountain range has with the O'odham creator deity. The GRIC previously concurred with FHWA's eligibility recommendation (Rhodes [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], December 19, 2006). Furthermore, FHWA has determined that archaeological sites AZ T: 12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:198 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T: 12:211 (ASM) are contributors to the South Mountains TCP under Criterion A. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, GRIC CRMP prepared a draft Treatment Plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse affects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP, which GRIC THPO previously approved (Manuel [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], June 23, 2010). Vdla Buena and Pueblo del Alamo Villa Buena (AZ T:l2:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 [ASM]) are prehistoric villages for which Tribal consciousness and veneration exist to the present day in the form of active association and identification of these places with religious, historical, and ideological perpetuation ofGRIC's community culture. As TCPs, therefore, it is the position ofGRIC that in regard to eligibility, these sites cannot be subdivided or otherwise segregated into areas considered contributing or non-contributing to the overall significance of the historic property under NRHP criteria. Instead, these are historic properties in their entirety that are considered sacred. Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are specifically referred to in the Akimel O'odham creation story, which plays an important role in the on-going cultural traditions of the members of the GRIC. While many aspects of the creation story detail elements of traditional history, such histories also identify places and physical associations in the landscape of the GRIC and its sister tribes (the Four Southern Tribes), as well as other Native communities in southern Arizona, Mexico, and California. By virtue of their associations with regular cycles of universal renewal, places such as Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are critical to O'odham and Pee Posh beliefs about cultural perpetuation and GRIC survival. In consultation with the GRIC THPO, FHWA has determined that Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs for their significant associations with the preservation and perpetuation of broad patterns of Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh history and culture. FHWA has also determined, through consultation with the GRIC • A357 A358 • Appendix 2-1 4 THPO, SHPO, and other consulting parties, that Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites. Both Pueblo del Alamo and Villa Buena have been subjected to considerable disturbance from agricultural activities, road construction, and modem construction, as well as bioturbation and erosion. In discussions with ADOT and FHWA, GRIC has expressed the belief that regardless of the current condition of the sites, and regardless of whether the portion of the site within the project area of potential effects (APE) retains physical integrity, these places are known to be sacred and still convey their significance under Criterion A through the perpetuation of the traditional O'odham song culture and traditional religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, the integrity of those elements that contribute to the significance of these sites under Criterion A would remain, despite any potential impacts from project-related construction, and would not be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking. 5 Please review the information provided in this letter and enclosed materials. If you agree with FHWA's determination ofNRHP eligibility for the TCPs, and the adequacy ofthe draft mitigation Treatment Plan, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, &lu ~.Petty • Division Administrator At the request of FHWA and ADOT, GRIC CRMP has prepared a draft Treatment Plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse affects to the Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo TCPs, which is enclosed for your review. AZ T:12:112 (ASM) AZ T:12:112 (ASM) includes an active O'odhamjiawul himdag shrine that is part of an archaeological site with prehistoric and historic features. The site is a traditional O'odham shrine with historic precedence used by contemporary Community members actively exercising their traditional religious and ceremonial practices and beliefs. The site and its use are part of a broad pattern of traditional religious and ceremonial practices and beliefs that define the cultural identity, continuity, and tradition of the Akimel O'odham. The site's placement on the landscape also has the potential to provide information on prehistoric networks and regional connectivity. FHWA has determined AZ T: 12:112 (ASM) is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as an archaeological site. In consultation with the GRIC THPO and CRMP, ADOT and FHWA have developed proposed freeway alternatives that would avoid the site; therefore, it would not be directly impacted by the project. Mitigation measures for any potential indirect impacts would be developed through continuing consultations withGRIC. AZ T:12:198 (ASM) AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) is a petroglyph site that, in addition to being a contributor to the South Mountain TCP, is individually eligible as a TCP. The site includes seven panels of prehistoric and historic rock art. Rock art sites such as this continue to function for the GRlC as shrines or spiritual places and they are important in the perpetuation ofGRIC's identity and culture. In consultation with the GRIC THPO, FHWA has determined AZ T:12:198 (ASM) is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion 0 as an archaeological site. In consultation with the GRIC THPO and CRMP, ADOT and FHWA have developed proposed freeway alternatives that would avoid the site; therefore, it will not be directly impacted by the project. Mitigation measures for any potential indirect impacts would be developed through continuing consultations with GRIC. Signature for THPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosures Date Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to” Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Officer, State Historic Preservation Office ARlZONA DIVISION US.Department d1alsportation Federal Highway Administration April 24, 2012 • 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.govlazdivlindex.htm !Jff(JO - J._nO 3--- I 'P 90(100 ., \;:: r -:-· ·;-· · ;~-In Reply Refer l tll:3'f.3) l·, · -· • · C .!. V APR 2 5 2012 '-· NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ :DJ .. • . i NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Section 4(f) Determination Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Musewn, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau oflndianAffairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRlC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo ofZuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the A359 A360 • Appendix 2-1 2 3 Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White MoWltain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. Tile South Mountains The South MoWltain range as a whole is considered a TCP. The range is an important element in the spiritual landscape of the Akirnel O'odham and Pee Posh, as well as for some of the Colorado River Tribes. For the Akirnel 0'odham, South MoWltains was one of the homes of the deity and creator, Elder Brother (Se'ehe) and several shrines in the range associated with his presence continue to be recognized and honored by the GRIC. Further, South Mountain served as a resource procurement area for upland plants and animals and was a focal point of prehistoric and historic rock art production. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into accoWlt the effects of their Wldertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies and engaging in an ongoing open dialog with GRIC's Tribal Historic ) Preservation Office (THPO) and Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) regarding the identification and evaluation of places of religious and cultural si~ance to the tribe, often traditional cultural properties (TCPs) as they ~aybe affected by the South referred MoWltain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, the GRIC has identified five TCPs that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and could be affected by the construction of the South MoWltain Freeway. These include the South MoWltains (Muhadagi Doag), the prehistoric Hohokam villages ofVilla Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T: 12:52 [ASM]), a shrine site (AZ T: 12:112 [ASM], and a petroglyph site (AZ T:12:198 [ASM]) that is also a contributing resource to the South Mountains TCP. In addition, GRIC has identified five other archaeological sites that contribute to the South MoWltains TCP (AZ T:12:197 [ASM], AZ T:12:201 [ASM], AZ T:12:207 [ASM], AZ T:12:208 [ASM], and AZ T:l2:211 [ASM]). to as FHWA has determined that the South MoWltains is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and Bas a TCP for its significant associations with the broad patterns of traditional cultural practices and beliefs of the Akimel O'odham, Pee Posh, and other tribes, and for the close association the moWltain range has with the O'odham creator deity. The GRIC previously concurred with FHWA's eligibility determination (Rhodes [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], December 19, 2006). Furthermore, FHWA has determined that archaeological sites AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:198 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), andAZ T: 12:211 (ASM) are contributors to the South Mountains TCP under Criterion A. At the request of FHWA and ADOT, GRIC CRMP has prepared a draft Treatment Plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse affects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP, which is enclosed for your review. SHPO previously concurred with FHWA's determination that Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:197, AZ T:12:198, AZ T:l2:201, AZ T:l2:207, AZ T:l2:208, and AZ T:l2:211 are eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [ADOT], January 23, 2006). This letter summarizes consultation between FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC relating to the eligibility of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo, as well as proposed mitigation to address any potential adverse effects to all TCPs identified within the project area. Vdla Buena and Pueblo del Al4mo Through on-going Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC have been developing options for mitigating adverse effects to the TCPs. As a result of these discussions, avoi~rna:tiUortafoo federal Highway Admlnlstratlon In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No.: 202L MA 54 H5764 OIL 202L. South Mountain Freeway DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Reassessment of Dobbins Road Historic Properties Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 13 00 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) are conducting technical studies in support of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (1-10) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoeni..'<-. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a: federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. This project has been the subject ofextensive prior consultation (SHP0-2003-1890). Recently four historic rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue in Laveen were reevaluated by AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc. The results of the reevaluation are presented in South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study: Evaluation of Four Historic Buildings and Districts, Maricopa County, Arizona (Solliday 2012), a copy of which is enclosed for your review and comment. Consulting parties for this reevaluation include FBWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona State Land Departm~t (ASLD), the City of PhoeniX-Historic Preservation Office (COP-HPO), the City of Phoenix-Pueblo Grande Museum (COP-PGM), and Salt River Project (SRP). The four historic properties near the Dobbins Road/59th A venue intersection that were reevaluated include: 1) Hudson Farm, 9300 South 59th Avenue 3) Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy, 6159 West Dobbins Road 4) Dobbins Road Streetscape, 6100 block of West Dobbins Road Hudson Farm July 11, 2012 2) Hackin Farmstead/Dairy, 10048 South 59th Avenue 2 The Hudson Farm, a historic district, was previously determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under criterion A. The boundaries ofthe district encompassed nearly 40 acres. Reassessment of the farm and historic farming in the Laveen area determined that the boundaries should encompass nearly 80 acres rather than 40. From the earliest times, the family farms in this area included two quarter~quarter sections, both before the Western Canal irrigated Laveen, and after construction of the canal and the establishment of 40-acre farm units. The original 80-acre farm remains intact, minus rights-of-way for roads and irrigation features. The cement stave silos at the farm were previously determined to be individually eligible for listing under criterion C. The reassessment agrees with this earlier determination. Hackln Farmstead/Dairy As a district, the Hackin Farmstead/Dairy was previously determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP. However, the dairy bMJ on the property was found eligible under criterion C. No changes are recommended for these previous determinations. Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy As a district, the Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy was previously determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP. However, the dairy bam on the property was found eligible under criterion C. No changes are recommended for these previous determinations. Dobbins Road Streetscape The Dobbins Road Streetscape District was previously determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under criteria A and D . The reevaluation has found that the district is ineligible. There are several characteristics of the Dobbins Road Streetscape that impact the integrity of the resource as a rural agricultural streetscape. Historic rural landscapes often include miles of roadway a:nd surrounding agricultural properties. The 325 feet of roadway along Dobbins Road is ofinadequa:te length to truly convey the rural agricultural character that once dominated this area. In addition, there are modem intrusions easily visible from the streetscape. At the west end there is a prominent 1977 house on the n.o rth side of the road and a mobile home on the south side of the road that was moved onto the site about 1970. A recently constructed subdivision of two-story houses is located just over a quarter~mile east of the streetscape, and is clearly visible from within the streetscape boundaries. Additionally, many components of the historic streetscape have lost their historic character, as detailed in the enclosed report. Therefore, FHWA recommends that this district is ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Following is a summary of the reevaluation: Appendix 2-1 This letter was also sent to: Mr. Steve Ross, Achaeologist, Arizona State Land Department Mr. Dave Gifford, Archaeologist, Bureau of Reclamation Ms. Cheryl Blanchard, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Ms. Laurene Montero, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Michelle Dodds, Historic Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Mr. Richard Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project • A365 A366 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION US. Department of lo1sportalion federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. f~wa.dot.govlazdiv/index. htm u;, !l~~rrc·."'1~·1·1\VJr~rr·. ·: ru ~\.~ ·-=. \J u,; ll!: : In Reply Rcfur To: ll NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-J\.Z JUL 1 2 2012 F-nvinir·i , .-.. :i ~·icc:·~ );,;::·:i!:-_lfl(:~ .. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No.: 2021. MA 54 H5764 OIL 202L. South Mountain Freeway DCR and EIS Continuing Scctinn 106 Consultation Reassessment ofHisLnric Properties Mr. Richard Anduze Salt River Project PO Box 52025, Mail Sta PAD355 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 Dear Mr. Anduzc: The Federal Highway Administration (FIIWA) and lhc Arizona Dcpa.~tment of Transportation {ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of !he cnvironrnental impact statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for lhe proposed South Mountain l'reeway, which would extend around lhc south side of South Mountain ti·om Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-10 in we.-;l Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject. to Section 1()(, review. This project has been the su~jeet of extensive prior consultation (SHP0-2003- l 890). Recently four historic rural properties <~long Dobbins Road and 59'h A venue in Laveen were reevaluated by AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc. The results of the reevaluation are presented in South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study: E"valuation ofFour !Iistoric Buildin!(s a11d Districts, Maricnpa County, Arizona (Solliday 2012), a copy of which is enclosed for your review and comment. Consulting parties fur this reevaluation include FHW1\, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), !he Rureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (RLM), the Arizona State Land Uepartment (ASLD), the City ofrhoenix-Historic Preservation Office (COP-HPO), the City of Phoenix-Pueblo Grande Museum (COP-PGM), and Salt River Project (SRP). The four historic properties near the Dobbins Road/59<11 Avenue intersection that were reevaluated include: 1) Hudson Farm, 9300 South 59th Avenue 2) Hackin farmstead/Dairy, 10048 South 59th Avenue 3) Tyson Parmstead/Barnes Dairy, 6159 West Dohhins Road 4) Dobbins Road Strcctseape, 6100 block of West Dobbins Road Hudson Farm July 11, 2012 lr._rt((:·fl!:;• :. 2 Tite Hudson Farm, a historic district, was previously determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRIIP) under criterion A. The boundaries ofthc district cncornpaqsed nearly 40 acres. Reassessment of the farm and hi~tor ie f intact, minus rights-of-way for roads and irrigation fev.J t . •Jh L·D •>fr-f..t rY\ Crvl cU·l..tL t,,~~-'7 'fZ.,ttft..t'jf'V)(\.{__ I b_, 6.l (-pftv..,tri; fl;L ti.:.i--r~~,..;~f<-<~1 (;J) ({ ~Vi~·t~,> QN._) Ot---vvl-·~,,..,;.(" ~.H.,..)_ j-a_J-l-fVI (,.) j);>~ .{' j.f/)(J ["'-" t~ c~ ;rpo •1 cS AocA d 10; / 1_ ()'" Wt'-.f..? 1 {'14f 'Af.. lr u &.. (L 1 d'f'1 tz.. ti.Jj11~N?'J-z-r"7 . ~'jk t~ C$.'-'LhtA.cf! tle..J-.-trU/l.-<>"~i ,d-:~t.-(L'·.....;[-L1::.V t-A },~""',)~ P41-~ :pJ £~~-cJ?l1. ;~/)1( (J(l_.":J j,;,. ~ytl-....,__, >·tt-1,-tU '-1 !1....1 fht ;Jc·--::v-,.( t-u'./14~,J, <;;/'~ fb Q[lr-J i r- .R----.-..:c-;7 ')' f?._.i--<.. eo'..? f/'u.u:f ~7 A379 A380 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Depcll1me!1t cA liaisportclloo Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm August 8, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. The E1 Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 C 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director Cultural Preservation Office Hopi Tribe P.O. Box 123 Kykotsmovi, Arizona 86039 Dear Mr. Kuwanwisiwma: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative aligrunents for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (1-10) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section I 06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix_ The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T:l2:111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:12:287 (ASM). Because oftheirproximity Appendix 2-1 4 3 _,c construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of proj cct effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~Ju; Site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modern origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRJC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T :l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T:12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T:12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRJC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T :12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. ..fv'Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Date Enclosure • A381 A382 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION Salt River PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY US.Department of Tla1Sp0rtalion Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602} 379-3646 Fax: (602} 382-8998 http://www.fhwa. dot gov/azdiv/i ndex. htm 10,005 EAST OSBORN ROADISCOITSDALE, ARIZONA 852561 PHONE (480) 362-6337 August 8, 2012 Cultural Preservation Program In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ August 14, 2012 Karla S. Petty, Division Administer US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension RE: 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ, the project would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. Ms. Louise Lopez, Chairperson Tonto Apache Tribe Tonto Apache Reservation #30 Payson, Arizona 85541 Dear Karla S. Petty: Dear Chairperson Lopez: This correspondence is in reference to 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ. This site, the location would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I -10 in west Phoenix, is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRP-MIC) is in receipt of your consultation request and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. The location of this project area is within the adjudicated ancestral claims area of the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona (SRP-MIC, Gila River Indian Community, Ak-Chin Indian Community and the Tohono O'Odham Nation). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (1-1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. The Four Southern Tribes of Arizona (Four Tribes) have an existing consultation management agreement to address consultation within the adjudicated ancestral claims area that divides the area into four geographic regions where one of the Four Tribes takes the lead and provides all Section 106 consultation (and all other federal, state, or local statutes as necessary) for specific areas on behalf of all of the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona. The Four Tribes in consensus agreed that the Gila River Indian Community will take the lead in providing comments in for this project. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please contact me at (480-362-6337) or email jacob.butler@srpmic-nsn.gov with additional questions or comments in regard to this or any other cultural resource issue in behalf of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Sincerely, Jacob Butler Cultural Resource Specialist SRP-MIC Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. Appendix 2-1 3 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. TheEl Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th A venue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1, 180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T:12:1ll (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set ofrock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Site AZ T :l2:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modem origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T : 12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a defmable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. • A383 A384 • Appendix 2-1 4 Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-863 6 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. ARIZONA DIVISION US. Department a ltrisportallon Federal Highway AdmfnlstraHon In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) tk?t-~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator NH-202~D~DY) .l?tMI{)S/7lf/llf.?S,{Jt:~el;f rHJ,V C!4f?t!'N#41Jl!'P/f Enclosures Date/ TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension AUG 16 2012 ~~1/f tgnature for Tonto Apache Tribe Concurrence http://www. fhwa.dot.qov/azdiv/index. htm August 8, 2012 Sincerely yours, .(r 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 ' 2/?J:::L Mr. Ronnie Lupe, Chairman White Mountain Apache Tribe P.O. Box 1150 Whiteriver, Arizona 85941 Dear Chairman Lupe: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. Appendix 2-1 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. TheEl Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,23 0 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of 23 7 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity 3 to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modern origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T:l2:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. • A385 A386 • Appendix 2-1 White Mountain Apache Tribe 4 Office of Historic Preservation POBox507 Fort Apache, AZ 85926 Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy ofthe report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2(a),azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~&; V Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for White Mountain Apache Tribe Concurrence Date NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure cc: Mark Altaha, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Office, P.O Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85926 (with enclosures) Ramon Riley, Cultural Resource Director, Historic Preservation Office, P.O Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85926 Ph: (928) 338-3033 Fax: (928) 338-6055 To: Linda Davis, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Date: August 17,2012 Prj: NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01C 202L South Mountain Freeway The White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office appreciates receiving information on the proposed project, August 8, 2012 . In regards to this, please attend to the following checked items below. ~ There is no need to send additional information unless project planning or implementation results in the discovery ofsites and/or items having known or suspected Apache Cultural affiliation. NIA- The proposed project is located within an area of probable cultural or historical importance to the White Mountain Apache tribe (WMAT). As part of the effort t o identify historical properties that maybe affected by the project we recommend an ethno-historic study and interviews with Apache Elders. The tribe's Cultural Heritage Resource Director Mr. Ramon Riley may be contacted at (928) 338-3033 for further information should this become necessary. ~ Please refer to the attached additional notes in regards to the proposed project: We have received and reviewed the information regarding FHW AIADOT proposed continued studies in support ofthe Environmental Impact Statement for 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS/Design Concept Report proj ect which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 in west Chandler to I-10 west Phoenix, and we have determined the proposed action/plans will not have an adverse effect on the White Mountain Apache tribe's CWMAT) historic properties and/or traditional cultural resources. We propose any/all ground disturbing activities be monitored ifthere are reasons to believe that there are human remains and/or funerary obj ects are present, and if such remains and/or objects are encountered all project activities should cease and the proper authorities and/or affiliated tribe(s) be notified to evaluate the situation. Thank you. We look forward to continued collaborations in the protection and preservation of place of cultural and historical significance. Sincerely, Mark T. Altaha White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION Us. Department dltcnsportalion Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm August 8, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 C 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Mr. Larry Hendershot, Property Manager Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 Dear Mr. Hendershot: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City ofPhoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern 2 Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. TheE l Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. =fhe land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1, 180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. • A387 A388 • Appendix 2-1 3 Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. 4 you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at lclavis2ia),azdot. gov. Sincerely yours, Site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modem origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC' s Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If ¥ Signature for FCDMC Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosures R&~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Date Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department of Trmsportation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa. dot. gov/azdiv/i ndex. htm August 8, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. TheEl Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th A venue and 27th A venue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension • Dr. Clinton Pattea, President Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation P.O. Box I7779 Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 Dear President Pattea: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate I 0 (I -1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township I South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams I989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T:12:11I (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T :12:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity • A389 A390 • Appendix 2-1 3 to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modern origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class Ill Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T:l2:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. 4 Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~&; AUG 2 3 2012 ~aria S. Petty Division Administrator c~~ ion • A399 A400 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportment d Trmsportation Federal Highway AdmJnbtratlon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa.dot.qov/azdiv/index. htm August 8, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 I C 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Dr. Beth Grindell, Director P.O. Box 210026 Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721-0026 Dear Dr. Grindell: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (1-1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum (ASM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. The E1 Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Appendix 2-1 4 3 Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot. gov. Sincerely yours, Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modern origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202£, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T:12:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a defmable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility .{;.-- ~Jyu Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for ASM Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosures • A401 A402 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm 2 Historic Properties Four historic properties have been identified near the Dobbins Road/59 1h Avenue intersection. These include: September 6, 2012 1) 2) 3) 4) In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ Alternatives NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No.: 202L MA 54 H5764 OIL 202L. South Mountain Freeway DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Project Effect on the Dobbins Road Historic Properties Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Hudson Farm Historic District, ca. 1926, Criterion A Hudson Farm- Cement Stave Silos, 1949, Criterion C Hackin Farmstead/Dairy- Dairy Flat Barn, 1952, Criterion C Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy- Dairy Head-to-Toe Barn, 1951, Criterion C The four alternatives near these historic properties are: 1) 2) 3) 4) 62"d Avenue Alignment Collapsed Diamond- Elevated Freeway 62nd Avenue Alignment Collapsed Diamond - Semi-Depressed Freeway 62"d Avenue Alignment Half Diamond- Elevated Freeway 62"d Avenue Alignment Half Diamond- Semi-Depressed Freeway Project Effect Direct Re: SHPO 2003-1890 (106135) Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (Anon are conducting technical studies in support of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. This project has been the subject of extensive prior consultation (SHP0-2003-1890). Most recently FHWA consulted on a reassessment ofhistoric rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue in Laveen. SHPO concurred to the reassessment (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty (FHWA], July 16, 2012). Consulting parties for this reevaluation of project effect on the Dobbins Road historic properties include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the City of Phoenix-Historic Preservation Office (COP-HPO), the City ofPhoenix-Pueblo Grande Museum (COP-PGM), and Salt River Project (SRP). The purpose of this consultation is to address the project effects of four alternative alignments near these historic properties. AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc. recently prepared a report that assesses the direct and indirect effects from the four alignments on the historic rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue entitled South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study: Assessment ofProject Effects on Three Historic Buildings and a District, Maricopa County, Arizona (Solliday 2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comments. All four ofthe alignment alternatives currently under consideration adequately avoid the Hudson Farm, the Dairy Flat Bam on the Hackin Farmstead/Dairy, and the Dairy Head-to-Toe Barn on the Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy; none of the properties is located within the proposed ADOT right-of-way (ROW). However, the two semi-depressed freeway alternatives would require a realignment of access to the Tyson/Barnes bam. There would be a no adverse effect on the Tyson/Barnes barn as a result of the access modification. Each of the four alignment alternatives would have a similar impact on the Hudson Farm Historic District. The freeway would be at least 200 feet west of the Hudson Farm property and 1,500 feet west of 1 59 h Avenue, and the setting of the farmstead (farmhouse and associated structures) from the primary public view (from 59th Avenue) or from within the farmstead would be buffered by the dense windbreak of trees located on the north and west sides of the farmstead. The freeway would be more visibly intrusive from the secondary public view (from Dobbins Road) and from some places in the fields associated with the property, but these vantage points do not provide a view of the district's significant features, i.e., the farmstead buildings and structures seen within the context of the whole farm. A drainage basin adjacent to the southern boundary of the Hudson Farm would not be visible from the primary public view or from within the farmstead. Thus, any visual intrusion created by the project would be negligible and would not impact the National Register eligibility of the Hudson Farm or any of its contributing elements. • • • There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to general visual intrusion. There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to increased traffic noise. There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to nighttime lighting. Appendix 2-1 3 4 The freeway would pass approximately 1,500 feet west of the Hackin barn, 1,000 feet west of the Huds?n Farm silos, ~d 10 feet e~st ?fthe Tyson/Barnes Dairy barn. Since integrity of design, mat~nals, :'~r~anshtp, and ass~ctatwn are most important for these property types, their National Re~1ster ehgtbtltty would not be Impacted by a change in setting. Likewise, the placement of a drainage basm to the south and west of the Hackin barn would not impact its integrity of design materials workmanship, and association. · ' ' • • • !here. would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to general visual tntrUSlOn. There would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to increased traffic noise. There would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to nighttime lighting . Summary of Indirect Impacts to the Dobbins Road Historic Properties j Half Halt DI'amond Diamond SemiProperty Name and Address Elevated Freeway Depressed 1 ______~__l_~F~rr.~ee~~ -:~~~J;:>-=~~~~-------L_______J__________i__£F'~re~e~w~a~V_l Eli~tible Historic Districts I I Primary · Criterion Hudson Farm 9300 S. 59th Avenue Collapsed DiamondElevated Freeway !I C:ollapsed Daamond Sema· Depressed j I I Continuing Cultural Resource Management In order to proactively address the potential indirect and cumulative adverse effects described above, FHWA and ADOT would document the Hudson Farm Historic District and silos, the Hackin barn, and the Tyson/Barnes barn in a Historic Landscape report. The report would be consistent with the SHPO Standards for Documentation of Historic Properties. For each of the properties this documentation would at a minimum include a descriptive narrative of the property, maps showing geographic location and contextual relationships with other structures and the surrounding landscape, reproductions of original plans/engineering drawings or prepared drawings (or creation of plans/drawings ifthe originals cannot be found), and photo documentation. Please review the information provided in this letter, the attached project location maps, and enclosed report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and agree with FHWA's revised determination of project effect for each alignment and proposed documentation of the historic properties please indicate your concurrence by signing below and return to FHWA. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or e-mail LDavis2@.azdot.gov. ji A Individuallv Eligible Historic Buildings Hudson Farm - Cement Stave Silos 9300 S. 59th Avenue Hack:in Farmstead/Dairy Dairy Flat C B~ C 10048 S. 59th Avenue Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy Dairy Head-to-Toe Bam 6159 W. Dobbins Road C Signature for SHPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosures The City of Phoenix has designated this area as the core area of"downtown" Laveen. Local landowners have expressed a desire to develop their properties for commercial and/or residential uses. Housing de.velopm~nts. and some associated commercial centers have been constructed nearby; the advancement of tht~ urbaniZatiOn was_ slowed o~Iy by the eco~omic collapse. Some adjacent landowners have recently had their property reclassified for either commercial or residential property use. Therefore, it is highly likely that future development by the private landowners would also lead to the destruction of the agricultural properties and the historical setting of rural Laveen. The construction of a freeway through the South Mountain Corridor would accelerate urbanization and likely en~ourage more commercial and industrial ·development rather than the predominantly residential constructiOn that has oc~urred to date. However, since ADOT, the City of Phoenix, landowners, and developers are a~l plannmg ~or future development in the area, it is difficult to determine what the specific agent ~f change 1~. Cumulatively, the future development and construction of the freeway has the potential to contr1bute to an adverse cumulative affect the Hudson Farm and silos, Hac kin barn, and Tyson/Barnes barn. Date • A403 A404 • Appendix 2-1 J:t>l • IC&q0 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department ofTronsportaffon Federal Highway Administration {tO') r;4~lo)orth Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm September 6, 2012 2 Historic Properties Four historic properties have been identified near the Dobbins Road/591h Avenue intersection. These include: 1) Hudson Farm Historic District, ca. 1926, Criterion A 2) Hudson Farm- Cement Stave Silos, 1949, Criterion C 3) Hackin Farmstead/Dairy- Dairy Flat Bam , 1952, Criterion C 4) Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy - Dairy Head-to-Toe Bam, 1951, Criterion C In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No.: 202L MA 54 H5764 OIL 202L. South Mountain Freeway DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Project Effect on the Dobbins Road Historic Properties Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Alternatives The four alternatives near these historic properties are: I) 2) 3) 4) 62nd Avenue Alignment Collapsed Diamond- Elevated Freeway 62nd Avenue Alignment Collapsed Diamond- Semi-Depressed Freeway 62nd Avenue Alignment Half Diamond - Elevated Freeway 62nd Avenue Alignment Half Diamond - Semi-Depressed Freeway Project Effect Du ct·t lmpat:l Re: SHPO 2003-1890 (106135) Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix. As this project would employ federal nds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. This project has been e subject of extensive prior consultation (SHP0-2003-1890). Most recently FHWA consulted on a reassessment of historic rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue in Laveen. SHPO concurred to the reassessment (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA], July 16, 2012). Consulting parties for this reevaluation of project effect on the Dobbins Road historic properties include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the City of Phoenix-Historic Preservation Office (COP-HPO), the City of Phoenix-Pueblo Grande Museum (COP-PGM), and Salt River Project (SRP). The purpose of this consultation is to address the project effects of four alternative alignments near these historic properties. AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc. recently prepared a report that assesses the direct and indirect effects from the four alignments on the historic rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue entitled South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study: Assessment ofProject Effects on Three Historic Buildings and a District, Maricopa County, Arizona (Solliday 2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comments. All four of the alignment alternatives currently under consideration adequately avoid the Hudson Farm, the Dairy Flat Bam on the Hackin Farmstead/Dairy, and the Dairy Head-to-Toe Bam on the Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy; none of the properties is located within the proposed ADOT right-of-way (ROW). However, the two semi-depressed freeway alternatives would require a realignmwJ.ill..I!P.f~.t9 . the Tyson/Barnes bam. There would be a no adverse effect on the Tyson/Barnes barn as a result of the acces'smodification. ~V\~~ ~ ~ ~:r-;c..:f . lndire<:tlmpact Each of the four alignment alternatives would have a similar impact on the Hudson Farm Historic District. The freeway would be at least 200 feet west of the Hudson Farm property and 1,500 feet west of 59th Avenue, and the setting of the farmstead (farmhouse and associated structures) from the primary public view (from 591h Avenue) or from within the farmstead would b~red by the dense windbreak of trees located on the north and west sides of the farmstead . The freeway would be more visibly intrusive ..ffiffifthe secondary public view (from Dobbins Road) and from some places in the fields associated with the property, but these vantage points do not provide a view of the district's significant features, i.e., the farmstead buildings and structures seen within the context of the whole farm. A drainage basin adjacent to the southern boundary of the Hudson Farm would not be visible from the primary public view or from within the farmstead. Thus, any visual intrusion created by the project would be negligible and would not impact the National Register eligibility of the Hudson Farm or any of its contributing elements. • • • There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to general visual intrusion. There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to increased traffic noise. There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to nighttime lighting. Appendix 2-1 ~. 1- ~00 wo~ fieoway would P'" l oxhrurtely I foot of tho H"'ldn ham, 1,000 foot wo& oftho Hudson Farm silos, andJ..Q..f.e et east of the Tyson/Barnes Dairy barn. Since integrity of design, materials, workmanship~sociation are most important for these property types, their National Register eligibility would not be impacted by a change in setting. Likewise, the placement of a drainage basin to the south and west of the Hackin barn would not impact its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and association. · • • • 4 3 There would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to general visual intrusion. There would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to increased traffic noise. There would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to nighttime lighting. Summary oflndirect Impacts to the Dobbins Road Historic Pr.~o:.tp~e::.rti .=":= e::::. s ~--- -~~-----Half 1 I C :;-rcouapsed Half o11apsell 1 D' d DiamondPrimary Diamond- ' I~mo~ Property Name and Address SemiCriterion Elevated [ D emi- d 1 Freeway epresse Freewa Eli ible Historic Districts HudsonFann No adverse 9300 S. 59"' Avenue Individually Eligible Historic Build'mgs Hudson Fann - Cement Stave Silos No adverse c No adverse No adverse No adverse 9300 S. 59"' Avenue Hackin Fannstead/Dairy- Dairy Flat No adverse No adverse No adverse c No adverse Bam 10048 S. 59th Avenue Tyson Fannstead/Bames DairyNo adverse No adverse No adverse No adverse c Dairy Head-to-Toe Bam 6159 W. Dobbins Road Continuing Cultural Resource Management In order to proactively address the potential indirect and cumulative adverse effects described above, \ FHWA and ADOT would document the Hudson Farm Historic District and silos, the Hackin barn, and the Tyson/Barnes barn in a Historic Landscape report. The report would be consistent with the SHPO Standards for Documentation of Historic Properties. For each of the properties this documentation would at a minimum include a descriptive narrative of the property, maps showing geographic location and contextual relationships with other structures and the surrounding landscape, reproductions of original plans/engineering drawings or prepared drawings (or creation of plans/drawings if the originals cannot be found), and photo documentation. Please review the information provided in this letter, the attached project location maps, and enclosed report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and agree with FHWA's revised determination of project effect for each alignment and proposed documentation of the historic properties please indicate your concurrence by signing below and return to FHWA. Ifyou have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or e-mail LDavis2@azdot.gov. I Sincerely yours, ~JJ:.J ~aria S. Petty Division Administrator /Lf 5¥hision 4000 Nonh Central Awnue. Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 ru:· NH-202-DIADY) TRACS No. ~02L MA 0541-15764 OJC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing 106 Traditional Cullural Properties (TCP) Enhancement Plan. No Adverse Effect Dear Ms. Petty. Signature for SHPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure Date The Gila RiY\..>'f indian Community Tribal Historic. Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) has ro:ccived report South Mountain FreeWcJ).' (.{{1? ~02l) Traditional Uus and Cultural Significance of Tradilifmal Cultural l'mJU!rties and .Mitigation of 1i"tm.sportatiim Corridor Dewlopment Adverse Effects Addendum Planning .fnr TCl' Mitigation Villu Buena tAZ1':12:9{ASM/J, Pueblo Del Alamo (AZ T·J2.53[ASMJ) (Dar/in.~ and lmmdmj" 201 2) datoo September 26. 20 12. The report evaluates the National Register eligibility status of s.itcs Villa Buena (AZ T:l2;9fASMJ) and J'ucblo del Alanw (AZ T: l2:52!ASMI) and plans for mitigation of adverse eflects to the sites For the .:::dent of the consultation process. the GRIC-THPO has maintain~d that Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are Akimel O'Odham and Pee Posh Trailitiornt.l Cultural Pmp~"Tlies (TCPs) and Register eligible properties under Criterion A and Criterion D a<~ stipulated in 36 CFR 60: National RegisKT of Hio,wri.; Placeli. Tiu: FHWA and lhe Ari1.ona Department of Transportation (.-'\DOn haw both agreed that the sites an~ Register eligible propcrtks under Criterion A .md that there wuuld be adverse e!Tects to the sites if construction of the Loop 202 South Mountain rreeway were to proceed. The finding of site significance undt'!r Criterion A presented a situation when: mitigative actions would requir~ an altcmativc strategy to Jltl~vent potential adverse etlix:ts to the sites. The J>arling and Loendorf docunl(:nt propuscs that a TCJ> Enhancement Plan he developed and implcm~11tcd upon completion of the Hnvironmcntallmpact Statement (EIS) proc(..-ss. The TCP Enhancc:ment Plan would msure that: 1) The sites and the people ill\! phystcally and sptritually pr~pared for anticipated ground disturbance through conducting traditional rchgiou.s activities., developing and sponsoring exhibits and outreach. through continued tribal consultation, sponsoring of cultural KenSitivity training -,essions., and through thl:' prtlttx:tion of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes; and 2) The di.'Vclopment of • A421 A422 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Depcrtment cl11a'lsportotion Federal Highway progranunatic solutions focused on preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in GRIC culture and history. Through the implementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan. adverse effects to the two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. Implementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan would allow the FHWA to make a detennination of no adverse effect for Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A. The FHWA acknowledges that if the plan is not implemented, that the GRIC and the GRIC-THPO would be able to revise their position and not concur with FHWA and ADOT recommerulations. In addition, the GRIC-TIIPO and the FHWA want to make it clearly urulerstood that mitigation of adverse effects for Criterion D is still required. Data recovery efforts must still be undertaken at the two sites. The GRIC-THPO concurs with a determinations of no adverse effect to Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo as it pertains to Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act and to Criterion A which is defmed under 36 CFR 60: National Register of Historic PJaces. The GRIC-TIIPO also aCcepts the TCP Enhancement Plan and all recommendatiom put forth in the document. The TCP Enhancem~mt Plan is a thoughtful, unique way to avoid potentia! adverse effects of this undertaking. It is well written. The GRIC-THPO would like to reiterate our appreciation to the FHWA and ADOT for acknowledging and accepting the GRIC worldview. The GRIC maintains and reinforces the cultural significance of South Mountain to the Four Southern Tribes (Gila River Indian Community; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Ak-Chin Indian Community and the Tohono O'Odham Nation) together with the Pee Posh (Maricopa). O'Odham oral history and religion defines our life and relationship to the natural world and the cultural landscape. Aki:mel O'Odham and Pee Posh oral histories, religion. creation stories, ceremllnial activities and practices, and the concepts of power and sacred places are inseparably tied to every part of the natural environment. Sacred places and Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) must be treated with reverence and respect. The GRIC-TIIPO looks forward to continuing consultation regarding the proposed 202 Loop. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Archaeological Compliance Specialist Larry Benallie, Jr. at 520-562-7162. Blllllaby V. Lewi Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Gila River Indian Community Admlnlstrcdlon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http:/fwww.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htrn October 31,2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and ElS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Western Transmission Line Realignment Mr. Gregory Mendoza, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O.Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85147 Dear Governor Mendoza: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section I 06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration (Western), the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix. the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the To!tono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic propetties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies. The proposed South Mountain Freeway would require realignment of the Liberty-Coolidge 230-kV Transmission Line, which is administered by Western. At the request of ADOT, GRIC's Cultural Resource Management Appendix 2-1 2 Program (CRMP) pertonned a Class ill survey of three potential transmission line realignment corridors that would be required for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. At the time the survey was conducted, two separate eastern alignments for the freeway, the Pecos Road alignment (El) and an alignment located on the GRIC (E2), were being studied by FHWA and ADOT. Thus, the survey addressed potential transmission line realignment corridors required for both the Eland the E2 alignments. CRJ\1P documented seven archaeological sites within the Western realignment corridors. Site Number Site Type AZ T:12:52 (ASMJ I Pueblo del Alamo AZ T:12:112 (ASM) Village with platform mounds and canal Shrine site containing mound, trail, and cleared area Dry farming agricultural site Dry farming agricultural site Petroglyph site with an associated artifact scatter of sherds and lithics Dry farming agricultural site Historic artifact scatter GR-1002 GR-1003 GR-1081 GR-1569 GR-1571 South Mountain Freeway alignment alternative site is located within E1 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 3 The present surface condition of AZ T: 12:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo within the area of potential effect (APE) is highly disturbed by recent activities such as fanning and other development; however, FHWA recognizes and respects the GRIC's position that these disturbances in no way diminish the qualities of the site as a TCP. This includes the physical and spiritual aspects of the site that the GRIC believes could be negatively impacted by the proposed line relocation. Additionally, FHWA recognizes the GRIC's concerns in regard to site desecration due to intrusion and ground disturbance, which may affect the spiritual welfare of its members and other affiliated Tribes. A TCP Enhancement Plan was developed and will be implemented to address these concerns and to prevent adverse effects to the site under Criterion A. The GRIC ~0 concurred that the development and implementation of a TCP Enhancement Plan will prevent potential adverse effects under Criterion A to Pueblo del Alamo (Lewis [THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012). Therefore it is the position of the FHWA that the TCP Enhancement Plan is a sufficient and reasonable condition for recommending a fniding of"no adverse effecf' for Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 ofthe NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP. Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a ftnding of "adverse effect" is appropriate for AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion D of the NRHP and that a fmding of"no adverse effect" is appropriate under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP for the proposed Western transmission line realignment. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in thi11 letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. The E2 South Mountain Freeway alignment will not be carried forward in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, this letter does not include a discussion of the realignment corridors required for the proposed E2 alignment or the sites affected only by the E2 alignment. Sincerely yours, ~Jlli The realignment corridor alternatives required for the proposed El corridor are 200 feet wide. The corridor between transmission line structures 1811 and 1816, is located on private land; the corridor between transmission line structures 26/2 and 2615 is located on the GRIC and private land. The results ofCRMP's Class ill survey of the transmission line realignment corridors are reported in "A Class I and Class III Cultural Resource Surveyfor the Proposed Liberty-Coolidge 230-Kv Transmission Line Realignment, in Support ojth£ South Mountain Loop 2002 Alignment, in the Gila River Indian Community, the Unincorporated Community ofLaveen, and the City ofPhoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona" (McCool and Loendorf2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comment. Because ofthe confidential nature of the Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) infonnation contained within the report, FHWA has limited its distribution to Western, the GRIC, and the SHPO. -i('Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for GRIC Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosure AZ T: 12:52 (ASM), also known as Pueblo del Alamo, is a prehistoric Hohokam village site that wns previously determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as an archaeological site (Lewis [Tribal Historic Preservation Office {THPO)] to Petty (FHWA], July 3, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA], May 15, 2012). A portion of the site was documented within the Western realignment corridors. The line realignment for the El Alternative would require relocating one transmission line tower (structure 1813) within the site's boundaries. The construction of the new tower would require ground disturbing activities; therefore, FHWA has determined the transmission line realignment would resulr in an "adverse effect" to AZ T:l2:52 (ASI\1) I Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion D as an archaeological site. Mitigation of any adverse effects to the archaeological site resulting from the realignment would be developed in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) that has been developed and executed for the project as a whole. cc: Barnaby Lewis, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85147 (with enclosure) Kyle Woodson, Acting Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ, 85147 (with enclosure) • A423 A424 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportrnerlt of 'Jiaisport'aiiQ Federal Highway AdmlnlstraHon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 65012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa. dot.gov/azd iv/index.htm October 31, 2012 In Reply Refer To: 2 Program (CRMP) performed a Class III survey of three potential transmission line realignment corridors that would be required for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. At the time the survey was conducted, two separate eastern alignments for the freeway, the Pecos Road alignment (El) and an alignment located on the GRIC (E2), were being studied by FHWA and ADOT. Thus, the survey addressed potential transmission line realignment corridors required for both the Eland the E2 aJignments. CRMP documented seven archaeological sites within the Western realignment corridors.. NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Western Transmission Line Realignment Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) an:: continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statcm=t (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (1-10) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau oflndian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration (Western), the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District ofMaricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies. The proposed South Mountain Freeway would require realignment of the Libetty-Coolidge 230-kV Transmission Line, which is administered by Western. At the request of ADOT, GRIC's Cultural Resource Management Site Number Site Type AZ T:12:52 (ASM} / Pueblo del Alamo AZT:12:112 (ASM) Village with platform mounds and canal Shrine site containing mound, trail, and cleared area Dry farming agricultural site Dry farming agricultural site Petroglyph site with an associated artifact scatter of sherds and lithics Dry farming agricultural site Historic artifact scatter GR-1002 GR-1003 GR-1081 GR-1569 GR-1571 South Mountain Freeway alignment alternative site Is located within E1 E2 El E2 E2 E2 E2 The E2 South Mountain Freeway alignment will not be carried forward in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, this letter does not include a discussion of the realignment corridors required for the proposed E2 alignment or the sites affected only by the E2 alignment. The realignment corridor alternatives required for the proposed El corridor are 200 feet wide. The corridor between transmission line structures 18/1 and 18/6, is located on private land; the corridor between transmission line structures 26/2 and 26/5 is located on the GRIC and private land. The results of CRMP's Class III survey of the transmission line realignment corridors are reported in "A Class I and Class III Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Liberty-Coolidge 230-Kv Transmission Line Realignment, in Support ofthe South Mountain Loop 2002 Alignment, in the Gila River indian Community, the Unincorporated Community ofLaveen. and the City ofPhoenix. Maricopa County, Arizona" (McCool and Loendorf2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comment. Because ofthe confidential nature of the Traditional Cultural Properties (I'CP) information contained within the report, FHWA has limited its distribution to Western, the GRIC, and the SHPO. AZ T:l2:52 (ASM), also known as Pueblo del Alamo, is a prehistoric Hohokam village site that was previously determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as an archaeological site (Lewis [Tribal Historic Preservation Office(THPO)J to Petty [FHWA], July 3, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA], May 15, 2012). A portion ofthe site was documented within the Western realignment corridors. The line realignment for the E1 Alternative would require relocating one transmission line tower (structure 18/3) within the site's boundaries. The construction ofthe new tower would require ground disturbing activities; therefore, FHWA has determined the transmission line realignment would result in an "adverse effect" to AZ T:12:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion D as an archaeological site. Mitigation of any adverse effects to the archaeological site resulting from the realignment would be developed in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) that has been developed and executed for the project as a whole. Appendix 2-1 3 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportment dJmsportaHcn The present surface condition of AZ T:I2:52 (ASM)/ Pueblo del Alamo within the area of potential effects (APE) is highly disturbed by recent activities such as farming and other development; however, FHWA recognizes and respects the GRIC's position that these disturbances in no way diminish the qualities of the site as a TCP. This includes the physical and spiritual aspects of the site that the GRIC believes could be negatively impacted by the proposed line relocation. Additionally, FHWA recognizes the GRIC's concerns in regard to site desecration due to intrusion and ground disturbance, which may affect the spiritual welfare of its members and other affiliated Tribes. A TCP Enhancement Plan was developed and will be implemented to address these concerns and to prevent adverse effects to the site under Criterion A. The GRIC THPO concurred that the development and implementation of a TCP Enhancement Plan will prevent potential adverse effects under Criterion A to Pueblo del Alamo (Lewis [THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012). Therefore it is the position of the FHWA that the TCP Enhancement Plan is a sufficient and reasonable condition for recommending a fmding of "no adverse effect" for Pueblo del Alamo under Section I 06 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP. Federal Highway Admlnlstraflon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 htto:/lwww.fhwa:dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm October 31, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Western Transmission Line Realignment Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "adverse effect" is appropriate for AZ T:12:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion D of the NRHP and that a finding of"no adverse effect" is appropriate under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP for the proposed Western transmission line realignment. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. [fyou agree with the adequacy of the report and project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~dU> lf Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for SHPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure Date Ms. Linda Hughes, Environmental Manager Western Area Power Administration 615 South 43rd Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85009 Dear Ms. Hughes: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support ofthe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, ElS & Location!Uesign Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau ofLand Management, the Bureau oflndian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration (Western), the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department ofTransportation, the Flood Control District ofMaricopa County, the Roosevelt hrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ~fTolles.on, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River lndtan Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southem Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, theYavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the reguJations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and AOOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies. The proposed South Mountain Freeway would require realignment of the Liberty-Coolidge 230-kV Transmission Line, which is administered by Western. At the request of ADOT, GRIC's Cultural Resource Management • A425 A426 • Appendix 2-1 2 Program (CRMP) performed a Class III survey of three potential transmission line realignment corridors that would be required for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. At the time the survey was conducted, two separate eastern alignments for the freeway, the Pecos Road alignment (El) and an alignment located on the GRIC (E2), were being studied by FHWA and ADOT. Thus, the survey addressed potential transmission line realignment corridors required for both the Eland the E2 alignments. CRMP documented seven archaeological sites within the Western realignment corridors. Site Number Site Type South Mountain Freeway alignment alternative site is located within AZ 1:12:52 (ASM) I Village with platform mounds and canal Shrine site containing mound, trail, and cleared area Dry farming agricultural site Dry farming agricultural site Petroglyph site with an associated artifact scatter of sherds and lithics Dry farming agricultural site Historic artifact scatter E1 Pueblo del Alamo AZ 1:12:112 (ASM} GR-1002 GR-1003 GR-1081 GR-1569 GR-1571 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 3 The present surface condition of AZ T:12:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo within the area of potential effects (APE) is highly disturbed by recent activities such as farming and other development; however, FHWA recognizes and respects the GRIC's position that these disturbances in no way diminish the qualities ofthe site as a TCP. This includes the physical and spiritual aspects of the site that the GRIC believes could be negatively impacted by the proposed line relocation. Additionally, FHWA recognizes the GRIC's concerns in regard to site desecration due to intrusion and ground disturbance, which may affect the spiritual welfare of its members and other affiliated Tribes. A TCP Enhancement Plan was developed and will be implemented to address these concerns and to prevent adverse effects to the site under Criterion A. The GRlC THPO concurred that the development and implementation of a TCP Enhancement Plan will prevent potential adverse effects under Criterion A to Pueblo del Alamo (Lewis [THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012). Therefore it is the position ofthe FHWA that the TCP Enhancement Plan is a sufficient and reasonable condition for recommending a finding of "no adverse effecf' for Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 ofthe NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A ofthe NRHP. Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a fmding of "adverse effect" is appropriate for AZ T:12:S2 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion D of the NRHP and that a finding of"no adverse effecf' is appropriate under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP for the proposed Western transmission line realignment. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. Ifyou agree with the adequacy of the report and project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Tite E2 South Mountain Freeway alignment will not be carried forward in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, this letter does not include a discussion of the realignment corridors required for the proposed E2 alignment or the sites affected only by the E2 alignment. Sincerely yours, ~Svtu The realigrunent corridor alternatives re.quired for the proposed El corridor are 200 feet wide. The corridor between transmission line structures 18/1 and 18/6, is located on private land; the corridor between transmission line structures 26/2 and 26/5 is located on the GRIC and private land. The results of CRMP's Class Ill survey of the transmission line realignment corridors are reported in "A Class I and Class III Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Liberty-Coolidge 230-Kv Transmission Line Realignment, in Support ofthe South Mountain Loop 2002 Alignment, in the Gila River Indian CommWJity, the Unincorporated Community ofLaveen, and the City ofPhoenix, Maricopa CoWJty, Arizona" (McCool and Loendor£2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comment. Because of the confidential nature of the Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) information contained within the report, FHWA has limited its distribution to Western, the GRIC, and the SHPO. -v Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Western Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure AZ T: 12:52 (ASM), also known as Pueblo del Alamo, is a prehistoric Hohokam village site that was previously determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as an archaeological site (Lewis [Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO)] to Petty [FHWA], July 3, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO]to Petty [FHWA], May 15, 2012). A portion of the site was documented within the Western realignment corridors. The line realignment for the E 1 Alternative would require relocating one transmission line tower (structure 18/3) within the site's boundaries. The construction ofthe new tower would require ground disturbing activities; therefore, FHWA has determined the transmission line realignment would result in an "adverse effect" to AZ T:12:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion D as an archaeological site. Mitigation of any adverse effects to the archaeological site resulting from the realignment would be developed in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) that has been developed and executed for the project as a whole. Date Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION US. Deportment r::J~ Federal Highway AdmlnlstrI?, ~fPhoenix Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) • • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history- the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo ~ Enclosure ~\J-a~~~~ Date • A441 A442 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION US. Department of 1iunsportation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa.dot.qov/azdiv/index. htm January 31, 2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Mr. Ronnie Lupe, Chairman White Mountain Apache Tribe P.O. Box 1150 Whiteriver, Arizona 85941 Dear Chairman Lupe: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (I -1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership ofthe project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation of TCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T:12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:12:197 (ASM) and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP Appendix 2-1 3 • AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRlC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T: 12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T: 12:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planning for Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:J2:52 [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • • 4 of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of"adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ ~aria S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for White Mountain Apache Tribe Concurrence Date NH-202-D(ADY) preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes Enclosure development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history cc: Mark Altaha, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Office, P.O Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85926 (with enclosure) Ramon Riley, Cultural Resource Director, Historic Preservation Office, P.O Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85926 Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation • A443 A444 • Appendix 2-1 White Mountain Apache Tribe Office of Historic Preservation PO Box 507 Fort Apache, AZ 85926 Ph: (928) 338-3033 Fax: (928) 338-6055 To: Linda Davis, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Date: February 21, 2013 Project: NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01C 202L South Mtn Freeway DRC/EIS .......................................................................................................................................................... The White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office appreciates receiving information on the proposed project, January 31, 2013 . In regards to this, please attend to the following checked items below. ► There is no need to send additional information unless project planning or implementation results in the discovery of sites and/or items having known or suspected Apache Cultural affiliation. N/A - The proposed project is located within an area of probable cultural or historical importance to the White Mountain Apache tribe (WMAT). As part of the effort to identify historical properties that maybe affected by the project we recommend an ethno-historic study and interviews with Apache Elders. The tribe's Cultural Heritage Resource Director Mr. Ramon Riley may be contacted at (928) 338-3033 for further information should this become necessary. ► Please refer to the attached additional notes in regards to the proposed project: We have received and reviewed the information regarding ADOT’s continuing technical studies in support of the EIS for 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report proejct, Arizona, and we have determined the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the White Mountain Apache tribe's (WMAT) historic properties and/or traditional cultural resources. Regardless, we recommend any/all ground disturbing activities be monitored if there are reasons to believe that there are human remains and/or funerary objects are present, and if such remains and/or objects are encountered all project activities should cease and the proper authorities and/or affiliated tribe(s) be notified to evaluate the situation. Thank you. We look forward to continued collaborations in the protection and preservation of place of cultural and historical significance. Sincerely, Mark T. Altaha White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment ofthe TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Mfairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:12:197 (ASM) and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:12:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planningfor Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo de/Alamo (AZ T:12:52 [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation • A445 A446 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION US. Department cila1sportatioo Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa. dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm January 31, 2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Ms. Laurene Montero, City Archaeologist City of Phoenix 4619 East Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Dear Ms. Montero: 4 of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South f?e_A~ ~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Colorado River Indian Tribes Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosure cc: Wilene Fisher-Holt, Director, CRIT Museum (with enclosure) Appendix 2-1 COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES Museun~ ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department d Trorisportaffc.n 1007 Arizona Avenue • Parker, Arizona 85344 Mailing: 26600 Mohave Rd. • Parker, Arizona, 85344 Phone: (928) 669-8970 • Fax: (928) 669-1925 federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdivlindex.htm January 31 , 2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) February 25, 2013 Karla S. Petty, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 HOP-AZ FEB 2 7 201~ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 C 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties RE: NH-202-D(ADY) Dear Ms. Petty: Thank you for your letters dated August 8, 2012 and January 31, 2013 requesting comment on the following project: Dr. Alan Downer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Historic Preservation Department Navajo Nation P.O. Box 4950 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 Project Name: 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS TRACS Number: 2021 MA 054 H5764 OlC Dear Dr. Downer: In order. to fully assess Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) concerns regarding a given project area, Tnbal m~mbe~ would generally have to visit the site. For this particular project, however, CRIT would like to JOin the Ak-Chin Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in deferring to the Gila River Indian Community to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPS. At this time the Colorado River Indian Tribes is in concurrence with the Federal Highway Administration finding of"adverse effect" for the overall project, and CRIT does reserve the right to intervene if new or omitted information related to the proposed project becomes available. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2021, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Thank you. If you have any concerns please feel free to contact me at (928) 669-8970. Sincerely, c/~J.~~ Jennifer L. Barangan Archaeological Compliance Technician cc: Wayne Patch, Sr., Chairman Rebecca Loudbear, Acting Attorney General File: CPRL_1 0029 In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CPR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation of TCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South • A447 A448 • Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau oflndian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T:12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:12:197 (ASM) and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:12:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planning for Villa Buena (AZ T:/2:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:52 {ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo Appendix 2-1 4 with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). APP 1 .. 2013 Historic Preservation Department, POB 4950, Window Rock, AZ 86515 • PH: 928.871-7198 • FAX: 928.871.7886 BEN SHELLY REX LEE JIM PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT March 20, 2013 Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the .report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~4UJ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Enclosure Dear Ms. Petty: The Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department-Traditional Culture Program (NNHPD-TCP) is in receipt of the proposed project regarding technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project, Phoenix, Arizona. After reviewing your consultation documents, NNHPD-TCP has concluded the proposed undertaking/project area will not impact Navajo traditional cultural resources. The NNHPD-TCP, on behalf ofthe Navajo Nation has no concerns at this time. -fir Signature for Navajo Nation Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Karla S Petty, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Arizona Division 4000 N Central Ave. Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3500 Date However, the determination made by the NNHPD-TCP does not necessarily mean that the Navajo Nation has no interest or concerns with the proposed project. If the proposed project inadvertently discovers habitation sites, plant gathering areas, human remains and objects of cultural patrimony, the NNHPDTCP request that we be notified respectively in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The N(Jl)ajo Nation· claims cultural affiliation to all Anaasazi people (periods from Archaic to Pueblo IV) of the southwest. The Navajo Nation makes this claim through Navajo oral history and ceremonial history, which has been documented as early as 1880 and taught from generation to generations. The NNHPD-TCP appreciates the U.S. Department of Transportation's consultation efforts, pursuant to 36 CFR Pt. 800.1 (c)(2)(iii). Should you have any additional concerns and/or questions do not hesitate to contact me electronically at tony@navajohistoricpreservation.org or telephone at 928-871-7750. Tony H. Joe, Jr., Supervisory Anthropologist (Section 106 Consultation) Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department-Traditional Culture Program TCP 13-141 cc: Oflia:File/Chrono • A449 A450 • Appendix 2-1 3 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T:l2:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural • AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), andAZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section I 06 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:12:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTraditional Property and Adverse Effocts ofTransportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy ofthe South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planningfor Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:l2:112 (ASM), and AZ T: 12: 198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T: 12:197 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 4 with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration January 31, 2013 In Reply Refer To: HOP-AZ Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:l2:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy ofthe report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-863 6 or at ldavis2(a)azdot. gov. Sincerely yours, ~Jvw ~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for City of Phoenix Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure Date 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing· Section I 06 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Ms. Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman Cocopah Tribe County 15th & Avenue G Somerton, Arizona 85350 Dear Chairwoman Cordova: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (1-1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South • A451 A452 • Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-1HPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation,. the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. · During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T:12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class /II Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:l2:197 (ASM) and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:12:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planningfor Villa Buena (AZ T:l2:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in 0 'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, ~e Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqm Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-TIIPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:12:197 (ASM) and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 4 of the enhancement plan proposal dt:veloped by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a fmding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ ~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Cocopah Tribe Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosures cc: H. Jill McCormick, Cultural Resources Manager (with enclosure) • A453 A454 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportment d Tr 100 acres 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres 3,500 - 35,000 gallons per day > 35,000 gallons per day 225 - 400 gallons per day 400 - 2,250 gallons per day 2,250 - 22,500 gallons per day > 22,500 gallons per day (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Average Daily Disturbance in Acres C Other: Supply Operations 8 acres Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Metered Hydrant Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Z.1 A543 EXAMPLES FOR CORRECTLY COMPLETING PART 3 – DUST CONTROL PLAN (continued) EXAMPLE FOR USE OF CHECKBOXES Z.1 • (1) 2” Application 750 – 3,500 gal/day Quantity and Size Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other (1) 2,000 gal Example 1, Illustration: P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Pave (Choose one of the following): P C Limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day per road AND limit vehicle speeds to no more than 15 m.p.h. In the Beginning of Project* During Project* *Must specify additional primary control measure(s) that will be in place prior to paving End of Project* space provided, list the maximum number of vehicle trips on the unpaved access areas/haul roads each day (including This isvehicles, a CORRECT EXAMPLE how to and usewater available number of employee earthmoving equipment,ofhaul trucks trucks) and a description of how vehicle speeds will beControl restricted to no more than 15 m.p.h.: Measure checkboxes and avoid using non- 1. Assume the project has a disturbed area of 8 acres for staging, storage and some parking with a severe soil rating. 2. Begin with the second line under the headings in the table above. This selection shows a range of 2 – 10 acres of Total Acres Disturbed in the Severe, Soil Texture Rating field. 3. Following this to the Minimum Water Available column on the right gives a range of 750 – 3,500 gallons per day. This means that even if an amount of water toward the lower end of the range is being used (750 gallons per day) the project must have the availability of water, along with the equipment to apply it, up to the highest end of the range (3,500 gallons per day), should conditions demand the higher application. 4. The total water needed and its distribution must now be reflected in the quantity and size of the water supply methods as well as the quantity and size of the water application methods that you enter in their respective columns. available Control Measure checkboxes. C Cease operations, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. P C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – INSTRUCTIONS Page 20 of 42 Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – INSTRUCTIONS Page 21 of 42 A544 • Appendix 4-2 EXAMPLES FOR CORRECTLY COMPLETING PART 3 – DUST CONTROL PLAN (continued) Maricopa County CATEGORY I. WATER, EXAMPLE 2: Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Air Quality Department Project Phase - Mass Grading Soil Texture Rating PART 2 DUST CONTROL PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (Includes basements) Minimum Water Available (November – February) Minimum Water Available (March – October) 5,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved 10,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved 5,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved 10,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Daily Minimum Water Availability 10 acres Number of Gallons per acre per day 10,000 gal/acre/day IS MY APPLICATION COMPLETE? 100,000 gallons per day AND 90,000 gallons for material moved Quantity and Size Metered Hydrant (1) 2” Water Tower Water Pond Application (1) 700,000 gal Quantity and Size 1. Dust Control Permit Application Form: Completely answer all questions; fill in all blanks and check boxes as appropriate, in both the Applicant and Project Information areas of the Form. Attach a copy of the Project Site Drawing. 2. Dust Control Plan: Rule 310, Section 402 (Dust Control Plan requirements) requires the submission of a Dust Control Plan with your application. You may submit Part 3 of this application after completely filling in every category or subcategory; a primary and contingency control measure must be chosen for each or an explanation of why the category or sub-category is not applicable must be provided. Alternately, you may submit your own Dust Control Plan that conforms to Rule 310, Section 402 describing all dust control measures to be used during the project. 3. Fee Payment: Have the appropriate fee ready when submitting the completed permit application to the One Stop Shop referenced above, see the MCAQD website: www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/permit_engineering/permit_fees.aspx or FAQ #3 in the instructions. Fees can be paid with a check or money order when submitting the application in person or by mail. When submitting the application in person the fees may also be paid with a credit card or cash. Hose Water Truck Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other For Office Use Only Date Issued Approved By Cross Streets District # Permit # Fee Paid/Acreage (Number of Acres Disturbed) × (Number of Gallons per acre per day) Supply Return all applications to: One Stop Shop 501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone (602) 372-1071 Fax (602) 372-1078 (2) 5,000 gal (3) 10,000 gal Applicant Information Example 2, Illustration: (See Instructions page 5) 1. Assume the project entails grading 10 acres and all 10 acres are to be graded each day for five days during the March thru October time period. Additionally, 3,000 cubic yards of material are to be removed over the five days. 2. 10 acres x 10,000 gallons per acre per day = 100,000 gallons per day for all 10 acres, AND 3,000 cubic yards x 30 gallons per cubic yard = 90,000 gallons for the five day period 3. Total water need for all five days = 590,000 gallons 1. 4. The total water needed and its distribution must now be reflected in the quantity and size of the water supply methods as well as the quantity and size of the water application methods that you enter in their respective columns. Relationship to property (Check all that apply): Applicant Information must be fully and accurately completed, including full legal names of entities and individuals (no DBA’s or trade names). For all Applicants, appropriate registration in the State of Arizona will be verified with the Arizona Corporation Commission or other applicable resources before a permit will be issued. Applicant: Property Owner General/Prime Contractor Developer Lessee Type of Entity: Corporation Limited Liability Company or Partnership Sole Proprietor Individual Government Name: Address: City: Phone: State: Zip: Fax: E-Mail Address: Local Mailing Address (if not the same as above): Contractor License Number: Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – INSTRUCTIONS Page 22 of 42 Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – APPLICATION FORM Page 23 of 42 Appendix 4-2 2. Is Applicant a wholly owned subsidiary of another Company? Yes No 7. If "Yes", please provide all requested information below. If “No”, please proceed to Question 3: Type of Entity: Limited Liability Company or Partnership Sole Proprietor Individual Government Name: Certification by a Responsible Official of the Applicant: Arizona Revised Statute § 13-2704 makes it a criminal offense to knowingly make a false material statement to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license. Address: City: State: Phone: I hereby certify that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the Dust Control Permit Application, including Applicant Information, Project Information, and the Dust Control Plan, are true, accurate, and complete. Zip: Fax: State of Incorporation or Registration: Signature: 3. Printed Name: Applicant President/Owner: Name: 8. Address: Signature: City: State: Phone: 4. Zip: Fax: Type of Entity: Corporation Limited Liability Company or Partnership Title: Application completed by (if other than Signatory): Printed Name: Title Phone: Fax: E-mail Address: Property Owner/Developer, if not Applicant: Sole Proprietor Individual Government Project Information (See Instructions page 6) 9. Name of Project: 10. Project Location: (If address is not available, complete Other Location information as fully as possible) Name: Address: City: State: Phone: Address: Zip: State: City: Fax: Contact Person: Nearest Major Cross Street North/South: 5. Nearest Major Cross Street East/West: Dust Control Coordinator: • • At least one Dust Control Coordinator is required to be on-site at all times during primary dust-generating operations for any site with five acres or more of disturbed surface area subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer requiring control of PM10 emissions from dust-generating operations Is this location: List additional Dust Control Coordinators on a separate sheet of paper and include following this sheet County Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): Name: Unincorporated Area (County) AZ Zip: Incorporated Area (City) Other Location information: (If address is not available provide all information possible below) Master Plan Community Number(s): Title: Company Name: On-Site Phone: Mobile: Geographic Coordinates: 11. Project Location by Township (N or S), Range (E or W), Section (1-36): Fax: E-mail Address: Township: Dust Control Badge ID Number: 6. A545 A Responsible Official of the Applicant is the person who will be contacted or named in any enforcement action initiated by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department or the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Pursuant to Rule 310, Section 401.3, the signature on the Dust Control Permit Application shall constitute agreement to accept responsibility for meeting the conditions of the Dust Control Permit and for ensuring that control measures are implemented throughout the project site and during the duration of the project. Parent Company (if Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary): Corporation • Range: Section: 12. Brief Project Description: Expiration Date: Primary Project Contact: • • Provide a Primary Project Contact for all sites with a disturbed surface area subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer requiring control of PM10 emissions from dust-generating operations State if the Primary Project Contact is already referenced in Question #5 above or provide all of the following: On-Site Phone: No 14. Will building occur on a pre-existing pad/prepared pad? Yes No Estimated acres to be graded: Company Name: Mobile: Yes 15. Size of Project: Name: Title: 13. Will a basement or underground parking be excavated? Estimated cubic yards of Bulk Material to be moved within the boundaries of the project: Fax: Estimated cubic yards of import Bulk Material: E-mail Address: Estimated cubic yards of export Bulk Material: Total acres that will be disturbed throughout the duration of this Permit, including staging areas, stockpiles, access and haul roads, parking, driveways, as well as temporary storage yards: Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – APPLICATION FORM Page 24 of 42 Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – APPLICATION FORM Page 25 of 42 A546 • Appendix 4-2 16. Project Site Drawing: 21. Asbestos NESHAP Notification requirements: (answer all subparts of Question 21 below) SEPARATE notification and fee for demolition/renovation activities may be required. (NOTE: A Dust Control Permit will not be issued unless a drawing is submitted) Attach a separate page (8½” × 11”) with a drawing showing all of the following elements: Entire project site boundaries Area to be disturbed with linear dimensions (including staging areas, stockpiles, access and haul roads, parking, driveways, and storage) • Nearest main crossroads • North arrow • Access Point(s) – Planned exit locations onto paved areas accessible to the public Example (simplified, not to scale): • • Questions concerning the Asbestos NESHAP regulation should be referred to the Maricopa County’s Asbestos NESHAP Coordinator at 602-506-6708 or 602-506-0421. Forms, contacts, regulations and additional information not covered below may be obtained at: http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/compliance/air/asbestos_neshap/Default.aspx Be advised that Maricopa County has been delegated regulatory jurisdiction for all regulated facilities within the boundaries of Maricopa County, including within all city boundaries contained in the county. All regulated facilities scheduled for demolition or renovation (defined below) must be inspected by a currently certified Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) Building Inspector. There is no waiver of this requirement based on the age of the facility. The inspection must be performed within the 12 months preceding commencement of demolition or renovation activity. Project Boundary Demolition: The wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting structural member of a facility together with any related North handling operations or the intentional burning of a facility. Renovation: Altering a facility or one or more facility components in any way, including the stripping or removal of Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) from a facility component. 100’ Nearest Main Crossroads 21a. Does the Project include demolition or renovation? Yes No If "Yes", provide all requested information for Questions 21b to 21d. If “No”, proceed to Part 3: 21b. Description of demolition/renovation activities: Access Point(s) 21c. Has the property ever been used as a ranch, farm, business or any other commercial or industrial purpose? Yes No 21d. Is there a guesthouse, more than one livable structure on the property, or is work being done in conjunction with another property in the area? Yes No 150’ 17. Is this a Re-application? Yes Previous Permit # No A permit is valid for 1 year after the date of approval. The re-application process may take up to 14 calendar days for review and processing (not including time for postal delivery) and must be approved prior to the expiration of the old permit. You must re-apply for a permit more than 14 calendar days before the original permit expires. 18. Estimated Project Start Date (month/day/year). If this is a re-application, list the original project start date: If "Yes" to either Question 21c or 21d then skip Question 21e and provide all requested information for Questions 21f to 21l as the residential property exemption does not apply, If “No” to both Question 21c and 21d, continue and answer Question 21e: 21e. Is this a residential property? 21f. 19. Estimated Project Completion Date (month/day/year), the date may be beyond the one year duration of the permit: 20. List Soil Designations from Appendix F in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations or, if attaching a copy of the site geotechnical report, check here No Description of each structure: 21g. Has an asbestos inspection been conducted by an AHERA Certified Building Inspector within the last 12 months before the time of scheduled activities? Yes No If "Yes", provide requested information for Question 21h. If “No”, proceed to Question 21i: For construction projects one acre or larger, except for routine maintenance and repair done under a block permit, designate in the table below which soil texture is naturally present on the work site and which soil texture will be imported onto the work site (if applicable). If the soil on the work site has been tested, then you should rely on the test results to complete the table and you should attach a copy of the site soil report (boring logs) to this application. If the soil on the work site has not been tested, then use Appendix F in the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations to complete the table below. Texture of soil naturally present on work site Yes If "Yes", proceed to Part 3. If “No”, provide all requested information for Questions 21f to 21l: Texture of soil to be imported onto work site 21h. Date of AHERA inspection: 21i. Has a 10-Day NESHAP Notification been submitted? Yes No If "Yes", provide all requested information for Questions 21j to 21l. If “No”, you need to file the appropriate form(s), therefore, check online or call the Coordinator as referenced above. 21j. 10-Day NESHAP Notification submittal date (Attach a copy): 21k. 10-Day NESHAP Notification number: ASB0 21l. 10-Day NESHAP Notification submitted by: (provide name of the contractor, individual, etc.) For Central Office Use Only Demolition Notification number on file: Approved by: Renovation Notification number on file: Date approved: Scheduled days of operation: Date contacted: Follow up: Phone approval: Date contacted: Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – APPLICATION FORM Page 26 of 42 Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – APPLICATION FORM Page 27 of 42 Appendix 4-2 Category A. Vehicles/Motorized Equipment Maricopa County Air Quality Department (See Instructions page 10) Return all applications to: One Stop Shop 501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone (602) 372-1071 Fax (602) 372-1078 PART 3 DUST CONTROL PERMIT APPLICATION DUST CONTROL PLAN DUST CONTROL PLAN (See Instructions pages 8-13, 19-22) Unpaved Staging Areas, Unpaved Parking Areas, and Unpaved Material Storage Areas P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Pave (Choose one of the following): P C Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material P C Apply and maintain dust suppressant(s), other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than Beginning of Project* During Project* *Must specify additional primary control measure(s) that will be in place prior to paving End of Project* water” on p. 42) The following 13 pages will become the dust control plan that will be followed for the project named in this permit. Once fully completed and approved this Dust Control Plan must be posted on-site with the Dust Control Permit and supplied to all contractors and subcontractors. P C Limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day per road AND limit vehicle speeds to no more than 15 m.p.h. In the space provided; 1) list the maximum number of vehicle trips on the unpaved parking/staging/material storage areas each day (including number of employee vehicles, earthmoving equipment, haul trucks and water trucks), 2) provide a description of how vehicle speeds will be restricted to no more than 15 m.p.h., and 3) specify which area(s) this will apply to: Primary (“P”) and Contingency (“C”) Control Measures: Every category and/or sub-category requires at least one Primary control measure (“P”) and at least one Contingency control measure (“C”). A contingency control measure is the backup or secondary action(s) that needs to immediately be implemented when the primary control measure(s) fails to adequately control dust emissions at the named project. To indicate your choice, mark the box next to the appropriate letter (“P” or “C”) in front of each control measure(s) that you have chosen. Do this for both primary and contingency control measures in every category and/or sub-category. P When a category and/or sub-category does not apply to the named project this must be acknowledged by completely filling out the final entry in the category and/or sub-category. An explanation must be supplied for WHY the category and/or sub-category is not applicable. This is in addition to simply writing “NA” or “not applicable”. When completing the following Dust Control Plan, use the Instructions on pages 8-13 and 19-22 to help you select dust control measures and keep in mind the following: • Every category and/or sub-category requires at least one “P” (Primary) and at least one “C” (Contingency). • Categories and/or sub-categories of dust-generating operations C1, C3, D1, E1, F, and G, in the following Dust Control Plan, have primary control measures, “P”, required by Rule 310. You will need to choose a contingency measure, “C”, for these dust-generating operations if they are applicable to your project. • Where has replaced a "P", the dust control measure CANNOT be used as a primary control measure; this measure may only be considered a contingency control measure when selected. • Where has replaced a "C", the dust control measure CANNOT be used as a contingency control measure and is required to be used as a primary control measure whenever that category and/or sub-category applies to a project. • Where "Other" is listed without reference to opacity or surface stabilization standard(s) and is selected as a primary control measure, then the description must meet the criteria in the instructions on page 8 for “Unlisted Dust Control Measures.” • If a category and/or sub-category does not apply to the project named in this application the last item in that category and/or sub-category must be fully completed. An explanation of why it is not applicable is required. After your Dust Control Permit Application has been approved, you must post your Dust Control Permit along with this Dust Control Plan on-site, as required by Rule 310, Section 409. C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable A.2 Categories and/or sub-categories that are not applicable: Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN A.1 Unpaved Access Areas/Haul Roads P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Pave (Choose one of the following): P C Apply and maintain surface gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material P C Apply and maintain dust suppressant(s), other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than Beginning of Project* During Project* *Must specify additional primary control measure(s) that will be in place prior to paving water” on p. 42) P C Limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day per road AND limit vehicle speeds to no more than 15 m.p.h. In the space provided; 1) list the maximum number of vehicle trips on the unpaved parking/staging/material storage areas each day (including number of employee vehicles, earthmoving equipment, haul trucks and water trucks), 2) provide a description of how vehicle speeds will be restricted to no more than 15 m.p.h., and 3) specify which road(s) this will apply to: C Cease operations, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. P C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 28 of 42 End of Project* Page 29 of 42 • A547 A548 • Appendix 4-2 B.3 Category B. Disturbed Surface Areas (See Instructions page 10) B.1 P Before Active Operations occur P C Pre-water site to the depth of cuts (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time. Attach a map delineating the phases and their extent P P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) Disturbed Surface Areas: Three times per day, increased to a minimum of four times per day if there is evidence of wind-blown dust Open Storage Piles (temporarily disturbed): At least twice per hour in a PM10 nonattainment area, at least once per hour in a PM10 attainment area P C Apply and maintain surface gravel or dust suppressant(s) other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable B.2 Stabilization for any inactive period, of any length, 24 hours per day, seven days per week including weekends, after work hours, and holidays During Active Operations C Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant(s) other than water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or P C Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic or other materials such that wind will not remove the covering(s) P C Establish vegetative ground cover (landscaping) P C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) P C Apply water to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12% or at least 70% of the optimum soil moisture content for areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12% (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C In conjunction with one of the above listed measures construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high wind barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce the amount of windblown material leaving the site C Cease operations, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. P C Other: B.4 Permanent Stabilization of Disturbed Surface Areas required within ten days following the completion of the Dust-Generating Operation if finished for a period of 30 days or longer P C Pave (Choose one of the following): P C Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material P C Apply and maintain dust suppressant(s) other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than Beginning of Project* During Project* *Must specify additional primary control measure(s) that will be in place prior to paving End of Project* water” on p. 42) Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable P C Establish vegetative ground cover (landscaping) P C Implement above control measures and restrict vehicle access to the area P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) and prevent access/trespass by: (Check all of the following that apply) ditches P fences berms shrubs trees other C Restore area such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby undisturbed native conditions (desert xeriscaping) P C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 30 of 42 Page 31 of 42 Appendix 4-2 C.3 Category C. Bulk Material Handling (See Instructions page 11) C.1 P P P P Off-Site Hauling onto Pa ved Areas Accessible to the Public Required: Install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles that traverse the site NOTE: The following options CANNOT be considered for a primary control measure. C Cease operations C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable C.4 C Apply water to the top of the load (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) C Apply dust suppressant(s) other than water to the top of the load (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) Required: Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than 3 inches AND load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area AND prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment AND install suitable trackout control device NOTE: The following options CANNOT be considered for a primary control measure. Required when a cargo compartment is loaded: cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure AND load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than 3 inches AND load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area AND prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment Required when a cargo compartment is empty: cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure OR clean the interior of the cargo compartment before leaving the site Hauling/Transporting within the Boundaries of the Work Site and crossing and/or accessing a Paved Area accessible to the Public Bulk Material Stacking, Loading, and Unloading Operations P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Apply dust suppressant(s) other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) NOTE: These following options CANNOT be considered for a primary control measure. C Cease operations C Cease operations C Other: C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable C.2 P Hauling/Transporting within the Boundaries of the Work Site but not crossing a Paved Area Accessible to the Public C.5 C Limit vehicle speed to 15 m.p.h. or less while traveling on the work site such that visible emissions coming-off the load do P C Apply water to the top of the load (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Apply dust suppressant(s) other than water to the top of the load (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other P C Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure C Cease operations, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. P C Other: P Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable C When not conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material, OR Apply water to maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12% or maintain at least 70% of the optimum soil moisture content, for areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12% (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41), OR Maintain a soil crust, OR In conjunction with the two measures above, construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, or a three-sided enclosure with walls, whose length is no less than equal to the pile length, whose distance from the pile is no more than twice the height of the pile, whose height is equal to the pile height, and whose porosity is no more than 50% than water” on p. 42) P C Prior to and/or while conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations spray material with water or a dust suppressant other than water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) not exceed 20% opacity P Open Storage Piles C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 32 of 42 Page 33 of 42 • A549 A550 • Appendix 4-2 Category D. Trackout, Carry-out, Spillage, and Erosion Category E. Weed Abatement by Discing or Blading (See Instructions page 11) D.1 (See Instructions page 12) Trackout Control Device E.1 A trackout control device must be installed if a work site has 2 acres or more of disturbed surface area or if a work site has 100 cubic yards of bulk material hauled on-site or off-site per day. P Disturbance Operations Required: Pre-water site AND apply water during weed abatement by discing or blading (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) NOTE: The following options CANNOT be considered for a primary control measure. P Required: Install at all exits to a paved area accessible to the public at least one of the following: (Choose all that apply) gravel pad grizzly or rumble grate wheel wash system C Cease operations paved area C Other: C Cease operations, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. P Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable C Other: E.2 Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable D.2 Cleaning Trackout/carry-out must be cleaned up immediately if trackout/carry-out extends a cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more along a paved area accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. All other trackout/carry-out must be cleaned up no later than the end of the workday (End of Work Day is the end of a working period that may include one or more work shifts. If working 24 hours a day, the end of a working period shall be considered no later than 8:00 p.m.). P Stabilization P C Pave immediately following weed abatement P C Apply gravel P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Apply dust suppressant(s) other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) P C Establish vegetative ground cover (landscaping) P C Other: C Operate a street sweeper or wet broom with sufficient water and at the manufacturer’s recommended speed (e.g. kick broom, steel bristle broom, Teflon broom, vacuum) P C Manually sweep-up deposits P C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Category F. Blasting Operations (See Instructions page 12) Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable P Required: Discontinue blasting, if wind gusts above 25 m.p.h., AND Required: Pre-water AND maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition where support equipment and vehicles will operate (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Apply water (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P C Apply and maintain dust suppressant(s) other than water (Fill out Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) C Other, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. Or, explain why this category and its control measures are not applicable Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 34 of 42 Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 35 of 42 Appendix 4-2 H.2 Category G. Demolition Activities Temporary Disturbed Surface Areas after work hours, weekends, holidays and any other inactive periods 24 hours per day, seven days per week (See Instructions page 12) P P Required: Apply water or water in combination with dust suppressant(s) to demolition debris immediately following demolition activity (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42), AND Required: Apply water or water in combination with dust suppressant(s) to all surrounding areas and to all disturbed soil surfaces immediately following demolition activity (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) C Apply and maintain surface gravel or dust suppressant(s) (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) P C Apply water or water in combination with dust suppressant(s) to all disturbed surface areas three times per day. If there is evidence of windblown dust, increase watering frequency to a minimum of four times per day. (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) P C Apply water or water in combination with dust suppressant(s) on open storage piles at least twice per hour (once per hour if outside the nonattainment area) to maintain a visible crust (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) NOTE: The following options CANNOT be considered for a primary control measure. C Thoroughly clean debris from paved and other surfaces following demolition activity P C Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material such that wind will not remove the coverings C Other, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. C Other: Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Or, explain why this category and its control measures are not applicable Category I. Water Category H. Wind Event (See Instructions page 13) (See Instructions page 13) H.1 P During Active Operation C Cease dust-generating operation for the duration of the wind event when the 60-minute average wind speed is greater For each of the different project phases, indicate how the water is to be stored on or supplied to the project site in the “Supply” column, specifying the quantity and size of the supply method (e.g. (2) 3,000 gallon water towers). Also designate how the water will be applied to control dust-generation throughout the project lifetime in the “Application” column, stating the quantity and size of the application method (e.g. 1 fire hose, (3) 1,000 gal. water trucks). Minimum water availability means water supply in conjunction with the water application system. than 25 m.p.h. and stabilize work area if dust-generating operation is ceased for the remainder of the work day P Soil Rating: (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) P Soil Texture Rating C Apply water to maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D2216-05 or other equivalent method as approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) C Maintain at least 70% of the optimum soil moisture content for areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D1557-02e1, or other equivalent method as approved by the Control Officer or the Administrator Of The Environmental Protection Agency (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41) P Moderate (all other classifications) C Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant(s) at least twice (once if outside the nonattainment area) per hour and construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high wind barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce the amount of windblown material leaving the site (Fill out Category I, “Water” on pp. 37-41 or Category J, “Dust Suppressants other than water” on p. 42) C Other, NOTE: This option CANNOT be considered a primary control measure. Or, explain why this sub-category and its control measures are not applicable Severe Project Phase - Site Clearing/Removal of Vegetation/Debris/Demolition Total Acres Disturbed 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Supply Minimum Water Available 500 - 1,000 gallons per day 1,000 - 5,000 gallons per day 5,000 - 50,000 gallons per day > 50, 000 gallons per day 300 - 600 gallons per day 600 - 3,000 gallons per day 3,000 - 30,000 gallons per day > 30,000 gallons per day Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Application Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 36 of 42 Moderate (See Appendix F of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations as well as the Instructions, pages 13 and 15-17) C Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant at least twice per hour (once per hour if outside the nonattainment area) Quantity and Size Page 37 of 42 • A551 A552 • Appendix 4-2 Project Phase - Mass Grading Soil Texture Rating Severe 5,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved 10,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved Moderate 5,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved 10,000 gallons per acre per day and 30 gallons per cubic yard of material moved (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) (all other classifications) Soil Texture Rating (Includes basements) Minimum Water Available Minimum Water Available (November – February) (March – October) Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Number of Gallons per acre per day Quantity and Size Supply Application Quantity and Size Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Soil Texture Rating Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Supply Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Supply Quantity and Size Application Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Quantity and Size Project Phase - Vertical/Paved Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Application Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 38 of 42 Quantity and Size (This pertains to Dust Control during the vertical phase of the project) Total Acres Disturbed Minimum Water Available 0 - 2 acres 250 - 500 gallons per day 2 - 10 acres 500 - 2,500 gallons per day 10 - 100 acres 2,500 - 25,000 gallons per day > 100 acres > 25,000 gallons per day 0 - 2 acres 150 - 300 gallons per day 2 - 10 acres 300 - 1,500 gallons per day 10 - 100 acres 1,500 - 15,000 gallons per day > 100 acres > 15,000 gallons per day Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Number of Gallons per day Application Metered Hydrant Soil Texture Rating Minimum Water Available 500 - 1,000 gallons per day 1,000 - 5,000 gallons per day 5,000 - 50,000 gallons per day > 50, 000 gallons per day 300 - 600 gallons per day 600 - 3,000 gallons per day 3,000 - 30,000 gallons per day > 30,000 gallons per day Minimum Water Available 375 - 750 gallons per day 750 - 3,500 gallons per day 3,500 - 35,000 gallons per day > 35,000 gallons per day 225 - 400 gallons per day 400 - 2,250 gallons per day 2,250 - 22,500 gallons per day > 22,500 gallons per day Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Project Phase - Underground Utilities Total Acres Disturbed 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres Total Acres Disturbed 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Daily Minimum Water Availability (Number of Acres Disturbed) × (Number of Gallons per acre per day) Supply Project Phase - Unpaved Access Areas/Haul Roads Quantity and Size Page 39 of 42 Appendix 4-2 Soil Texture Rating Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Project Phase - Staging/Parking Areas/Storage Areas Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Supply Application Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Severe (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) Moderate (all other classifications) Supply Application Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Minimum Water Available 500 - 1,000 gallons per day 1,000 - 5,000 gallons per day 5,000 - 50,000 gallons per day > 50, 000 gallons per day 300 - 600 gallons per day 600 - 3,000 gallons per day 3,000 - 30,000 gallons per day > 30,000 gallons per day Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Application Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Quantity and Size Import/Export Operations Number of Yards Involved in this Phase Number of Days for Operation Number of Yards Imported/Exported × 30 gallons of water per yard = (Total Gallons required) Total Gallons required divided by number of days = Supply Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Total Acres Disturbed 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres 0 - 2 acres 2 - 10 acres 10 - 100 acres > 100 acres Metered Hydrant Project Phase - Structure Excavation A553 Project Phase - Fine Grading Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Quantity and Size (Includes stem walls, footings, culverts, abutments, caissons) Total Acres Disturbed Minimum Water Available 0 - 2 acres 500 - 1,000 gallons per day 2 - 10 acres 1,000 - 5,000 gallons per day 10 - 100 acres 5,000 - 50,000 gallons per day > 100 acres > 50, 000 gallons per day 0 - 2 acres 300 - 600 gallons per day 2 - 10 acres 600 - 3,000 gallons per day 10 - 100 acres 3,000 - 30,000 gallons per day > 100 acres > 30,000 gallons per day Average Daily Disturbance in Acres Supply Severe Number of Gallons per day Quantity and Size Soil Texture Rating Soil Texture Rating Including Landscaping Installation Total Acres Disturbed Minimum Water Available 0 - 2 acres 375 - 750 gallons per day 2 - 10 acres 750 - 3,500 gallons per day 10 - 100 acres 3,500 - 35,000 gallons per day > 100 acres > 35,000 gallons per day 0 - 2 acres 225 - 400 gallons per day 2 - 10 acres 400 - 2,250 gallons per day 10 - 100 acres 2,250 - 22,500 gallons per day > 100 acres > 22,500 gallons per day • Quantity and Size Quantity and Size Application Metered Hydrant Hose Water Tower Water Truck Water Pond Water Pull Off-Site Water Buffalo Other Other Quantity and Size Page 40 of 42 Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application Package – DUST CONTROL PLAN Page 41 of 42 Manufacturer Name Product Maricopa County Dust Control Permit Application – DUST CONTROL PLAN **The amount used over a period of time (e.g. gallons/minute) *How often the surface will receive a complete application of dust suppressant (e.g. 3 times a day) H Wind Event G Demolition Activities F Blasting Operations E Weed Abatement by Discing or Blading D Trackout, Carry-out, Spillage, and Erosion C Bulk Material Handling B Disturbed Surface Areas A Vehicles/Motorized Equipment Application Area Application Frequency * Intensity** Page 42 of 42 Although water is a dust suppressant, the information required by Table J should not include information on water supply and water application. The information required by Table J is for all other dust suppressants that you use. Fill out the applicable areas in the table below and attach information on environmental impacts and approvals or certifications related to appropriate and safe use for ground application. Also, attach product specification(s) and application sheet(s) or label instructions. • (See Instructions page 13) Category J. Dust Suppressants other than water A554 Appendix 4-2 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 4-3 APPENDIX 4-3 OPERATING AGREEMENT OPERATING AGREEMENT The Integration Process Relative to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Appendix 4-3, Operating Agreement, contains the Operating Agreement committing FHWA, USACE, and ADOT to integrating NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act into the transportation planning, decision-making, and implementation process of the project. The completion of this operating agreement is required as a component of a coordinated environmental review process to improve interagency communications, protect Waters and wetlands, expedite construction of necessary projects, and enable more projects to proceed on budget and schedule. For projects involving: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Arizona Area Office Arizona Division of the Federal Highway Administration Arizona Department of Transportation I. II. APPLICABILITY A. This Operating Agreement (OA) applies to transportation projects that are both a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) individual permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This OA is limited to issues pertaining to Waters of the United States (Waters), including wetlands. B. Participation in this OA does not imply endorsement of all aspects of a transportation plan or project. Nothing in this OA or its Appendix is intended to diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or regulatory authorities of the participating agencies. C. This OA is contingent upon the dedication of an employee located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Arizona Office, funded by either the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and working solely on Arizona transportation projects. In the event that a dedicated employee funded by either the FHWA and/or the ADOT is not located in the COE Office, this OA will become null and void. BACKGROUND In a May 1, 1992 agreement, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Army (Civil Works), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted as agency policy (1) improved interagency coordination, and (2) integration of NEPA and the CWA Section 404 procedures. Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) calls for a coordinated environmental review process to expedite federal highway projects. In July 1999, a National Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Departments of Transportation, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Army (Civil Works); the EPA; and the • A555 A556 • Appendix 4-3 Operating Agreement Page 2 of 7 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, was executed to support this environmental streamlining process. This MOU implements these policies and agreements as they relate to CWA Section 404 Individual Permits. III. Whenever avoidance of Waters, including wetlands is not practicable, minimization of impacts will be achieved, and unavoidable impacts will be mitigated to the extent reasonable and practicable. The signatories will integrate compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, with compliance with NEPA. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROCESS The process embodied in this OA will: 1. Improve cooperation and efficiency of inter-agency operations, thereby better serving the public, 2. Protect and enhance the Waters, including wetlands which will benefit the region’s aquatic ecosystems and the public interest, 3. Expedite construction of necessary transportation projects, with benefits to safety, mobility, and the economy at large, and 4. Enable more transportation projects to proceed on budget and on schedule. V. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES The implementation procedures are outlined in the attached Appendix. VI. VII. PARTICIPATION If any Signatory Agency chooses not to participate in this NEPA – 404 Merger process for a particular project, at any time during the project, they will notify ADOT in writing. This does not mean that they will abdicate their involvement if there are scope changes or other reasons for their involvement at a later date. However, if they chose to participate in later stages during the project, they agree not to revisit earlier stages of the project. MONITORING / EVALUATING IMPLEMENTATION OF OA The signatory agencies will monitor the success of this OA process and modify it as necessary to improve it. NEPA-SECTION 404 INTEGRATION The signatories to this OA commit to integrating NEPA and Section 404 of the CWA in the transportation planning, decision-making, and implementation process. The signatories are committed to ensuring the earliest possible consideration of the potential social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed transportation action as they relate to Waters, including wetlands, and associated endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant and animal species. IV. Operating Agreement Page 3 of 7 VIII. AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The roles of the agencies are outlined in the attached Appendix. IX. MODIFICATION / TERMINATION This OA may be modified upon approval of all signatories. One or more signatories may propose modification. Proposals for modification will be circulated to all signatories for a 30-calendar day review. Approval of such proposals will be indicated by written acceptance. A signatory may terminate participation in this agreement upon written notice to all other signatories. Appendix 4-3 • Operating Agreement Page 5 of 7 OPERATING AGREEMENT APPENDIX NEPA – Section 404 Individual Permit Process* I. The Environmental & Enhancement Group (EEG) of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will contact the employee (hereby known as “Liaison”) dedicated to working solely on transportation projects for the Arizona Department of Transportation at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office (COE), and inform the Liaison that a proposed transportation project will require an Individual Permit. This contact may be via phone, email, or written communication. II. The EEG will invite the COE Liaison to be a cooperating agency for the proposed transportation project in a written letter with a copy to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The invitation letter will include the scope of the proposed project, project location, project team members, any known information regarding project design and the construction schedule, and any known project team meetings, contact lists or document distribution lists. The COE Liaison will provide a written response accepting or rejecting the invitation. The FHWA will be the lead federal agency with the responsibility to comply with NEPA and other federal legal requirements for all proposed transportation related activities that will utilize Federal aid funds. III. The EEG will provide the Liaison with a proposed Jurisdictional Delineation (Delineation) of the project area. The Liaison will review the proposed Delineation, and determine if it is complete. If it is incomplete, the Liaison will inform the EEG of missing and/or incomplete information, and EEG will ensure the missing and/or incomplete information is transmitted to the Liaison. If the delineation is complete, the Liaison will review the proposed delineation, and either revise the Jurisdictional Delineation and approve, or approve as proposed. (See attached document “Requirements for Obtaining a Section 404 Clean Water Act Delineation.”) . IV. The EEG will provide the Liaison with the proposed transportation project’s statement of Purpose and Need. Preparation of the Purpose and Need will be done in coordination with FHWA. The Liaison will review and provide written comments back to the EEG. V. The EEG will provide the Liaison with the proposed transportation project’s Alternative Analysis, including the No Action alternative. Preparation of the Alternatives Analysis will be done in coordination with FHWA. The Liaison will review the Alternative Analysis for compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and return comments on the analysis to EEG. The Liaison will provide written approval of the Alternatives Analysis if there are no comments. In the event that the Liaison returns comments to EEG without approval, EEG will work with the Liaison until the Alternatives Analysis is approved by the Liaison. A557 A558 • Appendix 4-3 Operating Agreement Page 6 of 7 VI. EEG will provide the Liaison with a draft copy of the environmental document being prepared for the proposed project for review and comment. The Liaison’s review will occur concurrently with FHWA’s review. The Liaison will return any comments on the environmental document in writing to EEG. VII. In the event that complete avoidance of Section 404 jurisdictional waters is not possible, EEG will provide the Liaison with a Mitigation Proposal to offset the proposed loss of waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The Liaison will review the proposal, and either return comments to EEG, or provide approval. In the event that comments are provided back to EEG without approval, EEG will take into consideration the comments provided by the Liaison, and will work with the Liaison until the proposal is approved by the Liaison. VIII. The EEG will provide the Liaison with the Individual Permit package application. The Liaison will determine if the application is complete. If incomplete, the Liaison will inform EEG of missing and/or incomplete information, and EEG will ensure that missing and/or incomplete information is transmitted to the Liaison. If the application is complete, the Liaison will begin processing the application package. Concurrent with the Individual Permit, EEG will provide the Liaison with the COE’s EA 404 (b)(1) Evaluation, in draft form. The Liaison will begin working on the COE EA, and work with EEG on any missing and or incomplete information necessary for the finalization of the draft EA. (See attached “List of Information Required for Complete Application.”) IX. The Liaison will issue the COE’s Public Notice after determining the Individual Permit application is complete. In accordance with COE regulations, the Public Notice will last 30 calendar days. X. In the event that other agencies or the public submit comments on the Public Notice, the Liaison will collect these comments and transmit these to EEG for review and response. The EEG will provide written response to these comments and return these to the Liaison. The Liaison, in coordination and cooperation with EEG, will resolve and finalize any comments. XI. The Liaison will finalize the Mitigation Proposal, if not finalized before this point, and ensure that any agreements reached in the proposal become Special Conditions in the Individual Permit. XII. The Liaison will finalize the draft copy of the COE’s EA. XIII. The Liaison will transmit two (2) copies of the draft Individual Permit, and one (1) copy of the draft EA to the COE Chief, Arizona Area Office, for review and signature. Once reviewed and signed, the COE Chief, Arizona Area Office will forward the Individual Permit (2 copies) and EA (1 copy) to the COE’s Branch Chief in Los Angeles for review and signature. Once signed, the Branch Chief will send 2 signed draft Individual Permits to the ADOT District responsible for the project for review and signature by the ADOT Operating Agreement Page 7 of 7 District Engineer. The ADOT District Engineer will send the signed copies back to the Branch Chief in Los Angeles, where the Branch Chief will finalize the permits via final signature, unless the Branch Chief assigns this task to the Arizona Section Chief. The Branch Chief will send one (1) final Individual Permit to the ADOT District Engineer, and one (1) approved Individual Permit to the COE Chief, Arizona Area Office for the project file. XIV. The ADOT District engineer will notify the Liaison seven (7) calendar days before the commencement of construction with the estimated construction period, name of contractor(s), and sign the postcard. Likewise, the ADOT District Engineer will notify the Liaison once construction is complete, via postcard. [See attached “Department of the Army Permit” (Notification of Commencement and Completion of Work).] * Process is documented in typical order of occurrence. For projects in which atypical situations arise (i.e., change in project scope, change in project design, etc.), order may vary and process will adjust accordingly. Appendix 4-3 • A559 A560 • Appendix 4-3 Appendix 4-4 APPENDIX 4-4 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT Appendix 4-4, Programmatic Agreement, presents the final Programmatic Agreement that will guide the Section 106 process in the determination of project effects as they become known through the course of the project. Implementation of the Programmatic Agreement assists to ensure resources and their proper treatment are taken into consideration in the planning process. • A561 A562 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A563 A564 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A565 A566 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A567 A568 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A569 A570 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A571 A572 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A573 A574 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A575 A576 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-4 • A577 A578 • Appendix 4-4 Appendix 4-5 • A579 APPENDIX 4-5 FARMLAND CONVERSION Appendix 4-5, Farmland Conversion, contains the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (form NRCS-CPA-106) for Corridor Type Projects. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was established to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. This impact rating is being completed to ensure compliance with FPPA. ✔ :HVWHUQ6HFWLRQ : :::)5:&35 A580 • Appendix 4-5 NRCS-CPA-106 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev. 1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request 1. Name of Project South Mountain Transportation Corridor 5. Federal Agency Involved 2. Type of Project EIS/LDCR 3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? (If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form). N/A 3 YES 2. Person Completing Form Leslie Glover II 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size ✔ NO 302 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction alfalfa, cotton, grains Sheet 2 of Maricopa County, Arizona 1. Date Request Received by NRCS PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 4. Federal Highway Administration 6. County and State 5. Major Crop(s) 4/15/11 Acres: 267,295 % 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System Acres: 190,182 % 3.2 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS 3.2 N/A 4/28/11 Alternative Corridor For Segment - Western Section PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) W101EPR A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly W101WPR W101W99 W101CFR 863 851 817 863 851 817 863 851 817 0 22 0 25 0 25 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services C. Total Acres In Corridor PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 15 10 20 20 10 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 25 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 25 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 88 10 7 12 0 5 10 3 15 8 4 74 84 86 10 7 12 0 5 10 3 15 8 4 10 7 12 0 5 10 3 15 8 4 74 74 86 84 74 74 74 162 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be Converted by Project: 88 3. Date Of Selection: 158 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? YES 5. Reason For Selection: Signature of Person Completing this Part: NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor DATE NO Appendix 4-5 NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse) CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent - 15 points 90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent - 0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent - 10 points 90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent - 0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent - 20 points 90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent - 0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected - 20 points Site is not protected - 0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger - 10 points Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available - 5 points Some required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available - 0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment - 20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment - 0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points This page intentionally left blank • A581 A582 • Appendix 4-5 APPENDIX 4-6 RIO SALADO OESTE Appendix 4-6, Rio Salado Oeste, The Rio Salado Oeste study area is located in Maricopa County, Arizona, and is entirely within the city of Phoenix encompassing 8 miles of the Salt River from 19th to 83rd avenues. The recommended plan would restore approximately 1,500 acres of riverine habitat to a more natural state by grading and terracing the river channel. The site map shows how the proposed restoration features have been coordinated with the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which will cross the river corridor. Appendix 5-1 APPENDIX 5-1 PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 4(F) CONSIDERATION Appendix 5-1, Properties Excluded from Section 4(f) Consideration, details the properties initially considered, but determined as not qualifying for protection under Section 4(f). A brief description of each property is provided, followed by reasons for the determinations. • A583 A584 • Appendix 5-1 Appendix 5-1 • A585 A586 • Appendix 5-1 Appendix 5-1 • A587 A588 • Appendix 5-1 Traditional Cultural Properties Excluded from Section 4(f) Consideration Villa Buena Traditional Cultural Property Description Villa Buena is the remains of an approximately 537-acre prehistoric Hohokam village. The majority of Villa Buena is located on Gila River Indian Community (Community) land; however, the site extends outside the Community onto private land. The Community, Akimel O’odham, and Pee Posh tribes consider Villa Buena an important site that plays a role in their culture, identity, history, and oral traditions. Because of its importance in the Native American community’s history and cultural identity, Villa Buena is considered a traditional cultural property (TCP) and is National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible under Criterion A. The portion of Villa Buena off Community land in the Study Area was leveled by agricultural development in the early 1900s. The remainder of the site was largely undeveloped land used for livestock. Despite the agricultural development and land use over the decades, it is likely that cultural features and deposits are preserved below the plow zones. Impacts The W101 and W71 Alternatives would cross the off-tribal land portion of Villa Buena. It should be noted that the size and boundaries of Villa Buena are based on the archeological site boundaries and the TCP does not have defined boundaries. Using the archeological limits, 112 of approximately 537 acres would be converted to a transportation use. To mitigate the impacts, the Community has prepared a conceptual mitigation plan (described further in the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) to implement measures that would document the cultural attributes associated with the site’s TCP status. The off-tribal land portion of the TCP has been subject to disturbance through development, and it is reasonably foreseeable that regardless of the proposed action, further development as planned for will substantially alter the physical attributes of the land associated with the TCP. Because it is possible the TCP would be affected by the proposed action, the mitigation plan, as agreed upon by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the Community, will help preserve the traditional cultures, practices, and oral histories associated with the TCP. Section 4(f) Eligibility Upon review, the nontribal land portion of the Villa Buena TCP should not be considered a Section 4(f) property. Although eligible under Criterion A of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), stakeholders concur the attributes of the TCP are importantly associated with oral history and not from an association with physical attributes of the land. Therefore, the attributes of the traditions will be protected through the mitigation plan and the attributes will be preserved despite any development plans for the area (including any involving the proposed action). For this reason, the nontribal land portion of the Villa Buena TCP is not considered a Section 4(f) property. Appendix 5-1 Pueblo del Alamo Traditional Cultural Property Description Pueblo del Alamo was a Hohokam village site from the Colonial to Classic period. It is located north of the Salt River, north and south of Lower Buckeye Road, and extends east and west of 59th Avenue. Pueblo del Alamo also has been subject to several archaeological excavations as well as substantial disturbance through agricultural development, road construction, house and power line construction, trash dumping, and erosion. The Community, Akimel O’odham, and Pee Posh tribes consider Pueblo del Alamo an important site that plays a role in their culture, identity, history, and oral traditions. Because of its importance in the Native American community’s history and cultural identity, Villa Buena is considered an off-tribal-land TCP and is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A. Impacts The W59 Alternative would likely cross Pueblo del Alamo. It should be noted that the size and boundaries of Pueblo del Alamo are based on the archeological site boundaries and the TCP does not have defined boundaries. To mitigate the impacts, the Community has prepared a conceptual mitigation plan (described further in the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) to implement measures that would document the cultural attributes associated with the site’s TCP status. The off-tribal land portion of the TCP has been subject to disturbance through development and it is reasonably foreseeable that regardless of the proposed action, further development as planned for will substantially alter the physical attributes of the land associated with the TCP. Because it is possible the TCP would be affected by the proposed action, the mitigation plan, as agreed upon by ADOT, FHWA, SHPO, and the Community, will help preserve the traditional cultures, practices, and oral histories associated with the TCP. Section 4(f) Eligibility Upon review, the Pueblo del Alamo TCP should not be considered a Section 4(f) property. Although eligible under Criterion A of Section 106 of the NHPA, stakeholders concur the attributes of the TCP are importantly associated with oral history and not from an association with physical attributes of the land. Therefore, the attributes of the traditions will be protected through the mitigation plan and the attributes will be preserved despite any development plans for the area (including any involving the proposed action). For this reason, the nontribal land portion of the Villa Buena TCP is not considered a Section 4(f) property. This page intentionally left blank • A589 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 5-2 APPENDIX 5-2 SECTION 4(F) CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS Appendix 5-2, Section 4(f) Correspondence and Documents, includes a right-of-way easement document from the City of Phoenix (June 20, 1977) and letters from the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (April 20, 1989), and ADOT Highways Division (June 20, 1989) that provide insight on treatment of the South Mountain Park in relation to Section 4(f). The letters also address the applicability of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and Historic Preservation Zoning, respectively. Correspondence and documents regarding the Hudson Farm are also included in this appendix. The reader is referred to Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Appendices 2-1 and 2-2 for more information pertaining to communications associated with the Section 4(f) evaluation. • A591 A592 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A593 A594 • Appendix 5-2 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Steve Ybarra, Principal, Carl Hayden High School Ms. Cynthia Burson, Principal, Esperanza Elementary School Ms. Kathy Kadderlick, Principal, Fowler Elementary School Mr. John Fernandez, Assistant Principal, Isaac Middle School Ms. Noreen Didonna, Principal, Isaac Preschool Ms. Mary-Lou Cavez, Principal, J.B. Sutton School Ms. Sharon Wilcox, Principal, Kyrene de la Estrella Elementary School Mr. Jim Strogen, Principal, Kyrene de los Lagos Elementary School Mr. Alfonso Alva, Principal, Morris K. Udall school Ms. Carmen Gulley, Dean, Omega Academy Charter School Ms. Brenda Martin, Principal, Pendergast Elementary School Mr. Jim Paxinos, Principal, Porfirio H. Gonzales Elementary School Mr. Jack Beck, Principal, Santa Maria Middle School Ms. Belinda Quezada, Principal, Sunridge Elementary School Mr. Harold Crenshaw, Principal, Tolleson Union High School Mr. Justin Greene, Principal, Union Elementary School Appendix 5-2 • A595 A596 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 The previous letter was also sent to: Ms. Cindy Lester, Department of Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers, Arizona-Nevada Area Office Mr. Steve Thomas, FHWA, Arizona Division Mr. Bill Vachon, FHWA, Arizona Division Mr. Jim Burke, Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, City of Phoenix Ms. Karen Williams, Planning Department, City of Phoenix Mr. Jack Allen, HDR Engineering, Inc. Ms. Amy Edwards, HDR Engineering, Inc. Ms. Audrey Unger, HDR Engineering, Inc. • A597 A598 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A599 A600 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A601 A602 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A603 A604 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A605 A606 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A607 A608 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A609 A610 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A611 A612 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A613 A614 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A615 A616 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A617 A618 • Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-2 • A619 A620 • Appendix 5-2 This page intentionally left blank 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 FHWA, in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation, is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) 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. • A621 This page intentionally left blank 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 • A623 A624 • 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 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 • 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 A625 Appendix 6-2 Declaración del Impacto al Medio Ambiente 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). 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 Población Proyectada para el Área Metropolitana de Phoenix 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 • Millions Millones A626 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 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. • A627 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 A628 • 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 Appendix 6-2 • A629 A630 • Appendix 6-2 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 A631 A632 • 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. 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. 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 década de los 80s. Las tres alternativas podrían resultar en reubicaciones residenciales y de negocios. 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. 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. ¿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 Appendix 6-2 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: 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. Click on the project website at www.SouthMountainFreeway.com for complete details, past newsletters, frequently asked questions and their answers, and regular updates. Be Part of the Process Warner Rd. I-10 Para Más Información 48th St. For More Information 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: ___________________________________________ 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 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: ______________________________________________ City/Ciudad: ___________________________ • N A633 A634 • Appendix 6-2 Appendix 6-2 • A635 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 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 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 pˆ†•™@r‡N ›”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 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 SR”‡@sšN • RTš‹@p’N A636 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 Appendix 6-2 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 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 Dysart Rd. 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 35th Ave. 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 51st St. I-10 48th 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 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 • A637 • Appendix 6-2 South Mountain South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study Transportation Corridor Study 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 Avenue GLENDALE Black Canyon 17 Freeway Bethany Home Road 60 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 A638 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 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 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). Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released for public review 90-day review period 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. Public Hearing and CAT Recommendation Public comments on Draft EIS evaluated 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 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. 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85003-1923 2009 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. • 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. A639 • Appendix 6-2 Estudio del Pasillo de Transporte de Estudio del Pasillo de Transporte de 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 Avenue GLENDALE Black Canyon 17 Freeway Bethany Home Road 60 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 A640 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 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. 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 A641 • Appendix 6-2 South Mountain South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study Transportation Corridor Study 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 GLENDALE Black Canyon 17 Freeway 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 A642 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. Appendix 6-2 South Mountain 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% RADISE ALLEY <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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released for public review 90-day public review period 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. 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% 3200 East Camelback Road Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 What are the next steps? A643 PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOEnIx, AZ PERMIT nO. 815 Transportation Corridor Study udy • 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 A644 • Appendix 6-2 South Mountain South Mountain PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOEnIx, AZ ERMIT nO. 815 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 GLENDALE 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 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 Appendix 6-2 South Mountain 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 % 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? A645 PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOEnIx, AZ PERMIT nO. 815 Estudio del Corredor de Transportación n • 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 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 51st 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 59th Avenue • 67th Avenue A646 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 Appendix 6-2 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2010 6 P.M.-8 P.M. PRESENTATION AT 6:15 P.M. 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 Transportation Corridor Study PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 59th Avenue South Mountain 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. • A647 Appendix 6-2 South Mountain Estudio del Corredor de Tranportación ReuniÓn de infoRmaciÓn pÚblica 10 de febrero, 2010 6 p.m.-8 p.m. presentaciÓn a las 6:15 p.m. PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 actUaliZaciÓn de la aUtopista soUth moUntain Reunión de la Conexión de la Avenida 59 Papago 10 Freeway Van Buren Street 51st Avenue • 59th Avenue A648 Buckeye Road I-10 62nd Avenue Roosevelt Street 61st Avenue 63rd Avenue Latham Street Meeting Location Sunridge Elementary School Lower Buckeye Road • Reducir la autopista propuesta a ocho carriles (del concepto previo a 10-carriles) Broadway Road Sunridge Park Sunridge Elementary School Cafetería 6244 W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ 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: 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. 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 51st Avenue Van Buren Street Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway update 59th 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 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: 67th 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 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 • A649 Appendix 6-2 ariZona departMent oF tranSportation and FederaL highway adMiniStration puBLiC inForMation 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 10 Van Buren Street 51st Avenue Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway update 59th avenue Connection Meeting 59th Avenue • Buckeye Road 67th Avenue A650 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 Appendix 6-2 February 2011 Martes, 22 de febrero, 2011 6 p.M.—8 p.M. presentación a las 6:15 p.M. 63rd Avenue 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 JUNTA DE INFORMACIÓN PÚBLICA A651 souTh mounTain Freeway updaTe 59th Avenue Transportation Corridor Study PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 61st Avenue South Mountain • 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 public information meeting inforMación MÁs reciente-aUtopista 202 soUtH MoUntain Febrero 2011 Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6 p.m.–8 p.m. presenTaTion aT 6:15 p.m. 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 Transportation Corridor Study PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 815 Avenida 59th South Mountain Avenida 61st • Avenida 63rd A652 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 Appendix 6-2 • A653 This page intentionally left blank Appendix 6-3 APPENDIX 6-3 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. • A655 A656 • 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. 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. 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. 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. 7-22-04 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. Ross Hendrix, Ahwatukee Question: What percent is “pass through,” that is Tucson to California traffic? 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. 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. 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. 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: 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. • A657 A658 • 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. 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 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. 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 • A659 A660 • 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 • A661 A662 • 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 (