I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Occupied Housing Units Table 4-10. 2000 Selected Census Data Town of Pima State of Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract Marana County Arizona 44.16 44.20 46.29 46.30 46.39 4,944 332,350 1,901,327 3,219 794 2,418 555 314 % Owner Occupied 82.7 64.3 68.0 90.7 71.3 90.5 70.5 91.7 % Renter Occupied 17.3 35.7 32.0 9.3 28.7 9.5 29.5 8.3 OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING VALUE % Under $50,000 1.1 4.3 4.9 0.3 16.9 0.7 2.0 0 % $50,000-99,999 11.6 35.6 30.7 9.6 51.9 22.9 13.2 5.3 % $100,000-149,999 48.7 29.6 30.7 51.9 19.0 68.7 30.6 57.4 % $150,000-199,999 24.8 13.9 15.2 23.5 4.2 6.5 28.1 33.0 % $200,000-or higher 13.7 16.7 18.6 14.7 8.0 1.3 26.1 4.3 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT % 1990 or after 80.1 23.2 29.3 94.3 20.1 36.2 69.2 57.7 % 1980-1989 8.8 22.4 24.7 1.9 15.0 59.5 22.3 16.2 % 1970-1979 5.8 25.6 23.6 1.9 34.1 3.1 8.6 19.2 % 1960 or earlier 5.2 28.8 22.4 1.9 30.7 1.2 0.0 6.8 n/a-Not applicable Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau characterized as a new residential area with a relatively affluent low minority population. The Census Tract 44.20 contrasted strongly with the other tracts in the study area and with the Town of Marana, Pima County, and the state. This tract had a total population of 2,642 persons with 7.9% Indian, 19.3% classified as other, and only 68.2% white. This indicated a much higher minority population than surrounding census tracts, the Town of Marana, Pima County, and the State of Arizona. This was partially explained by the presence of a small pueblo of the Pascua Yaqui tribe (Yoem Pueblo) located near the northern portion of the study area. The median family income in this tract was the lowest in the study area at $30,000 and was even below the median family income of Pima County. The percentage of persons below the poverty level (15%) was also higher than the study area, the Town of Marana, the county, or the state. This tract had older homes (64.8% constructed Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-80 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 before 1979) and lower value homes (68.8% of the homes were worth $99,999 or less) than the other areas of comparison. This tract also showed a high percentage of disabled individuals in all age groups. This census tract could be characterized as an older area with lower incomes and a high minority and disabled population. Census Tracts 46.29, 46.30, and 46.39 resembled the characteristics of Census Tract 46.16. These tracts were characterized also by a relatively young, low minority, affluent population with newer, higher value homes. Minority Groups/ Title VI/Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes assure that individuals are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and disability. EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice to Minority Populations and Low Income Populations requires federal agencies to consider impacts to minority and low income populations as part of environmental analyses to ensure that these populations do not receive a disproportionately high number of adverse human health impacts as a result of a federally funded project. FHWA issues a guidance document that establishes policies and procedures for complying with this EO in relation to federally-funded transportation projects (FHWA 1998). This guidance defines a “disproportionately high and adverse effect as one that is predominately borne by, suffered by, of that is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that would be suffered by the non-minority population and/or the non-low-income population. As discussed above, the study area typically had a relatively low minority population, which reflected the overall population of the Town of Marana. However, Census Tract 44.20 exhibited a high Indian (7.9%), other (19.3%), and Hispanic (33.6%) population. This area represents the original incorporated area of Marana, while the remainder of the Town reflects a newer rapidly developing area. A small pueblo of the Pascua Yaqui tribe, the Yoem Pueblo, is located near the intersection of Sandario and Barnett Roads within Census Tract 44.20. Also of interest was the high percentage of disabled individuals in this tract. Although this census tract demonstrated the characteristics that would offer it protection under Title VI, EO 12898, and the ADA, as shown in Figure 4-5, this area is located in the extreme northern portion of the study area, approximately 8 miles from the project area. Because improvements would be distant from this area, the project would not affect this tract. In accordance with EO 12898, no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects upon minority and low income populations would occur as a result of the project. Pursuant to Title VI, individuals from the area would not be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination as a result of the preferred alternative. In addition, the project would upgrade intersections and sidewalks within the project limits to be in compliance with the ADA and resulting regulations. The preferred alternative Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-81 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 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89: Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 112 and 113: Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 114 and 115: 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 164 and 165: Public Involvement/Project Coordina
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?