I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 The monitoring data indicate that the study area generally meets the NAAQS for monitored pollutants; however, particulate matter and CO are of general concern in the study area and Pima County. The project area lies completely within the boundaries of the Rillito Planning Area, which has been designated by EPA as a moderate nonattainment area for PM10. As opposed to the remainder of Pima County, which is under the auspices of PDEQ, the ADEQ has regulatory authority in the Rillito Planning Area. The primary sources of particulate emissions in this area include the Arizona Portland Cement Company, construction, unstabilized river banks, agriculture, unpaved roads, and unstabilized road shoulders. The Rillito PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) was submitted to EPA in April 1994, but was never approved by EPA. However, the SIP does not include extraordinary particulate (dust) control mechanisms. According to ADEQ, compliance with Pima County’s Natural Events Action Plan (discussed in the following paragraph), ADOT standard specifications for dust suppression during construction, and the completion of a SWPPP would comply with the submitted Rillito Planning Area SIP. Table 4-5. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards National and State Standards Pollutant Averaging Period Primary Secondary Carbon Monoxide (CO) Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 8-Hour 9 ppm No Standard 1 Hour 35 ppm No Standard 24-Hour 150 µg/ m 3 Same as Primary Standard Annual Arithmetic 50 µg/ m Mean 3 Same as Primary Standard Source: EPA (49 CFR 50). Abbreviations: ppm: parts per million, µg/m 3 : micrograms per cubic meter Although still considered an attainment area, Pima County exceeded the PM10 NAAQS six times in 1999. As a result, PDEQ developed a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) to protect public health, educate the public about high wind events, mitigate health impacts from future events, and identify and implement control measures for man-made sources of dust. The NEAP (and the ensuing Pima County ordinance) requires an activity permit from the PDEQ before activities such as earthmoving, trenching, or road construction are conducted. The ordinance also limits the amount of dust generated from these activities to a maximum opacity (cloudiness) of 20 percent. In addition to the NEAP, dust generation is also limited through grading permits issued by the Town of Marana and by ADOT standard specifications for dust suppression during construction. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-46 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 Table 4-6. 2002 Monitoring Data from Coachline Site compared to NAAQS Site/Location Pollutant (Averaging Period) Federal Standard Monitored 2002 Value PM2.5 (maximum 24-hour 65 µg/m concentration) 3 37.0 µg/m 3 Coachline (9597 Coachline Boulevard) PM2.5 (annual arithmetic mean concentration) 15 µg/m 3 13.0 µg/m 3 Source: PDEQ In addition to the requirements discussed above, additional particulate restrictions apply in the area. SNP, which is within approximately 3 miles of the project area, is a listed Federal Class I area subject to special particulate matter provisions. Class I areas, such as national parks, national wilderness areas, and national monuments are granted special air quality visibility protections under the federal Clean Air Act; however, these protections apply to stationary sources of pollutants (i.e. manufacturing and mining) and not to mobile sources of pollutants (motor vehicles). CO concentrations within the study area are determined by pollutants emitted into the airshed (primarily from motor vehicles) and the lack of pollutant dispersion due to topographical and meteorological characteristics of the Tucson basin. As a result of these conditions, exceedances of the CO NAAQS were relatively common in the 1970s; however, no CO violations have been recorded since 1984. The improvement in CO levels resulted in the Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA) being redesignated by EPA to an attainment area for CO in 2000. A limited maintenance plan was approved that establishes procedures and contingency measures to be implemented, if necessary, in the future. The plan requires additional monitoring and modeling of CO concentrations at intersections with the worst level of service and highest ADT. A limited maintenance plan applies to areas whose monitored CO concentrations are equal to or less than 85% of the 8hour CO NAAQS for at least 8 consecutive quarters. PAG has the responsibility of maintaining the TAPA SIP. In this role, PAG determines the compliance of local transportation implementation programs and long range transportation plans with the SIP and conducts the microscale CO modeling analyses as required by the limited maintenance plan to address those areas most susceptible to CO violations. Impacts No Build Alternative The no build alternative would not provide an additional access point to I-10 nor a grade-separated crossing of the UPRR; therefore, traffic congestion on area roadways would not be improved and would worsen over time. Increasing traffic congestion would result in higher emissions from stop and go traffic and idling vehicles, which would negatively impact air quality. Pedestrian and bicycle facility Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-47 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Page 1:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 4 and 5:
Draft Environmental Assessment Octo
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Mitigation Measures October 2005
Page 14 and 15:
Mitigation Measures October 2005 19
Page 16 and 17:
Mitigation Measures October 2005 St
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction October 2005 CHAPTER 1
Page 20 and 21:
AVRA VALLEY RD MARANA I-10 SCENIC D
Page 22 and 23:
Introduction October 2005 Cortaro R
Page 24 and 25:
Project Purpose and Need October 20
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Alternatives October 2005 CHAPTER 3
Page 36 and 37:
Alternatives October 2005 Figure 3-
Page 38 and 39:
Alternatives October 2005 • Shall
Page 40 and 41:
Alternatives October 2005 Interstat
Page 42 and 43:
Alternatives October 2005 Road). Pr
Page 44 and 45:
Alternatives October 2005 Preferred
Page 46 and 47:
Alternatives October 2005 Twin Peak
Page 48 and 49:
Alternatives October 2005 I-10 Fron
Page 50 and 51:
Alternatives October 2005 Linda Vis
Page 52 and 53:
Alternatives October 2005 Twin Peak
Page 54 and 55: Alternatives October 2005 and sidew
Page 56 and 57: Alternatives October 2005 proposed
Page 58 and 59: Alternatives October 2005 Near the
Page 60 and 61: Avra Valley Rd. Twin Peaks Rd. Silv
Page 62 and 63: Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 78 and 79: Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 120 and 121: Wall to Protect Rec. ID Affected En
Page 136 and 137: 44.20 Avra Valley Rd Twin Peaks Rd
Page 154 and 155:
Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Public Involvement/Project Coordina
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Conclusion October 2005 Interstate
Page 178 and 179:
Bibliography October 2005 CHAPTER 8
Page 180 and 181:
Bibliography October 2005 Tetra Tec
show all

I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?