I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 proposed improvements and during R/W negotiations with individual property owners. Conclusion Social and economic impacts may result if the proposed improvements: 1) produce changes in neighborhood or community cohesion or continuity; 2) specially benefit or harm protected groups; 3) affect highway and traffic safety, or overall public safety; 4) affect access to social services, schools or recreational resources; 5) result in relocations or displacements of residents or businesses; 6) affect the economic viability of existing highway-related businesses through changes to access or disruptions to business activities; or 7) produce changes in travel patterns and accessibility. The preferred alternative would produce positive effects to overall public safety, access to services, and travel patterns and accessibility, especially for pedestrians, bicyclists, and the disabled. Impacts to business and residences would occur through acquisition and relocation and modification of access; however, these impacts would be minimized through relocations which follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and Sections 28-1841 through 28-1853 of Arizona Revised Statutes. The traffic control plan developed for this project would ensure that access to businesses is maintained at all times. During the final design of the proposed improvements and R/W negotiations with individual property owners, providing access to the access road would be addressed. Section 6 (f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) of 1965 established a grants-in-aid fund to assist states in the planning, acquisition, and development of outdoor recreational land and water areas and facilities. Section 6 (f) of the Act prohibits the conversion of any property acquired or developed with the assistance of the fund to anything other than public outdoor recreation use without the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI). The National Park System (NPS), within the DOI, administers the program at the federal level. At the state level, Arizona State Parks administers the program through the Grants and Recreation Programs Section. Town of Marana and Pima County Parks and Recreation Departments administer the program locally. Existing Conditions Arthur Pack Regional Park, administered by Pima County, is located at 9101 N. Thornydale Road, south of Linda Vista Boulevard and west of Thornydale Road. Facilities available include ADA accessible facilities, golf course, lighted baseball and football/soccer fields, ramadas, basketball court, concession building, picnic Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-88 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 area, playground, restrooms, and drinking water on 500 acres. LWCFA funds were used in 1980 to build a softball field and again in 1983 for ball field lighting; therefore, this facility is protected under Section 6 (f) of the LWCFA. Impacts No Build Alternative The no build alternative would not acquire recreational properties funded with LWCFA funds; therefore the no build alternative would have no impacts to Section 6 (f) facilities. The no build alternative would not improve access to or connectivity between recreational facilities or provide increased availability of bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative would not acquire recreational properties funded with LWCFA funds; therefore the preferred alternative would have no impacts to Section 6 (f) facilities. The preferred alternative would improve regional access to the recreational facilities. Mitigation No mitigation is required because no effects to Section 6 (f) facilities would result from the preferred alternative. Conclusion The preferred alternative would have no impacts to Section 6 (f) facilities, but would improve access to and connectivity between recreational facilities. Section 4(f) Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 states that the FHWA “may approve a transportation program or project requiring publiclyowned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if there is no prudent or feasible alternative to using that land and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use” (49 U.S.C. 303). A use of a Section 4(f) resource, as defined in 23 CFR 771.135 (p), occurs: when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purposes, and/or; when there is a constructive use of land. A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from the Section 4(f) resource, but the project’s Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-89 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:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?