I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 These effects, however, are market driven. Properties with easy access to an interstate become more desirable for service-oriented businesses; therefore, it is likely that property values in the vicinity of the Twin Peaks Road TI would increase substantially after completion of the Twin Peaks Road TI. As a result, businesses may choose to sell existing properties and relocate their businesses to parcels of lesser value. Access SNP 1988 General Management Plan (GMP) stated a desire to close Picture Rocks Road through the SNP, if the Twin Peaks Road TI is constructed. SNP is updating its GMP currently and the NPS is obtaining public comments and developing proposed uses for the Park; however, the closure of Picture Rocks Road through SNP does not appear in any of the alternatives currently under consideration. Because the closure of Picture Rocks Road is not proposed currently and any proposed closure would be subject to environmental and public review based upon its own merits, the impacts of the closure of Picture Rocks Road are not discussed in this EA. Conclusion Secondary impacts to land use and access may occur with the completion of the preferred alternative. These may include changes to land uses near the Twin Peaks Road TI and access through the SNP. Cumulative Impacts According to the CEQ, cumulative effects are defined as the impacts on the environment that result from the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative effects of this project may be undetectable when considered for its direct and secondary effects only, but may add to a measurable environmental change. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are considered in this analysis include the transportation projects planned over the next 20 years, as represented in the 2025 RTP, and the development expected to occur within the area. In addition, a number of conservation efforts are underway in the region and these efforts are expected to mitigate some of the development impacts. The area of analysis is the northwest portion of the Tucson metropolitan area, although air quality is discussed from an airshed perspective. For this assessment, only those “at risk” critical resources would be evaluated. These would include: land use, air quality, threatened and endangered species and natural resources, noise, and water resources. Each are discussed below. Land Use The completion of the projects contained within the RTP may result in additional development beyond those forecast in the area; however, these developments are Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-102 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 controlled by the formal planning processes, zoning regulations, land use codes and regulations, and other land use controls of the Town of Marana and Pima County. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that these developments would comply with these regulations and ordinances and reflect the overall development patterns approved by the Town of Marana and Pima County. Because the developments would comply with land use regulations, the infrastructure needed to supply this growth (i.e. water supply, sewer and/or other utilities) would be provided also. Air Quality Pima County and the State of Arizona have programs in place to address particulate matter and CO. Because Pima County is classified as attainment under a limited maintenance plan for CO, the County must meet the conformity provisions of the federal Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments. As a result, all transportation projects that appear in the RTP are analyzed and the preferred alternative, along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future transportation projects have been demonstrated to not contribute to a CO nonattainment designation. Likewise, regulatory controls in Pima County are likely to protect the County from reaching nonattainment for particulate matter despite future development. As the area develops, sources of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen would be added to the area (gasoline stations, vehicles, lawnmowers, etc.); therefore, it is likely that the airshed’s ground level ozone levels would increase. Recent local data from PAG indicate that the Tucson region experiences ozone levels approaching the 8-hour federal standard. It is likely that ozone levels would continue to increase and additional control measures may be required to keep the area in attainment of the standard. Threatened and Endangered Species and Natural Resources As discussed in the Biological Resources section (page 4-25), the analysis conducted for the preferred alternative determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the CFPO or its habitat due to the project design and mitigation measures that would be implemented as a part of this project. Although the listing of the owl as an endangered species is under review by the courts, the protections afforded the owl are still in place. If the owl is delisted, it is anticipated that one or more of three major conservation efforts proposed by the Town of Marana and Pima County would be in place and protection to the owl would be continued. These efforts are: 1) Pima County’s SDCP; 2) the Town of Marana’s Habitat Conservation Plan; and, 3) the Town of Marana’s Bajada Environmental Resource Overlay District. All of these programs are designed to preserve appropriate CFPO habitat and provide contiguous corridors between quality habitat areas, while allowing limited development to occur in areas deemed less desirable for the CFPO. Other animal species, vegetation, and natural surface features would benefit also from these efforts. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-103 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:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111: 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?