I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 Impacts No Build Alternative The no build alternative would not effect the geological setting or mineral resources in the project area. Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative would have no effect on the geological setting or mineral resources in the project area. Although the study area contains former and existing sand and gravel mining and abode mining and manufacturing, the proposed improvements would not impact any existing mining operations. There are no special seismic design requirements for the foundations and abutments of proposed bridges in the project area. Mitigation No mitigation measures are necessary because the preferred alternative would have no effect on the geological setting or mineral resources in the project area. Agriculture Existing Conditions Two large areas west of I-10 and east of Silverbell Road were identified as prime irrigated farmland in the most recent Important Farmlands map published by the NRCS. Since the NRCS last surveyed for prime farmlands in 1982, the land designated as prime irrigated farmland has been developed for commercial or residential uses. One of these areas was located west of the Santa Cruz River and is now occupied by Continental Ranch, a large master-planned community. No farming occurs in this area. The other area was located between the Santa Cruz River and I-10 and stretched from Cortaro Road north to the southern part of the project area. This area is currently occupied by the Pines Golf Club at Marana and is not farmed. As a result of development in the area, no prime farmland exists in the study area. Impacts No Build Alternative Because no prime, unique, or farmland of state or local importance exists within the project area, the no build alternative would have no effects on agricultural land. Preferred Alternative Because no prime, unique, or farmland of state or local importance exists within the project area, the preferred alternative would have no effects on agricultural land. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-8 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 Mitigation No mitigation measures are required because the preferred alternative would have no effects on agricultural land. Conclusion The preferred action would not alter or impact slopes or substantially effect important topographic features in the project area. Although disturbed soils in the project area would be vulnerable to water and wind erosion, the SWPPP and air quality permitting regulations followed for this project would result in no impacts to area soils. The preferred alternative would have no effects on the geological setting or mineral resources in the project area and no prime, unique, or farmland of state or local importance exists within the project area; therefore, the preferred alternative would have no effects on agricultural land. Water Resources The following sections discuss surface water and groundwater conditions within the study area. Surface water resource concerns include potential impacts to rivers and intermittent washes. The Santa Cruz River and numerous washes that drain into the Santa Cruz River are the dominant surface water features in the study area. Groundwater is defined as stored water beneath the ground surface that can be used to supply wells and springs. This water is stored in natural underground reservoirs composed of loose rock fragments called aquifers. Surface Water Existing Conditions The main surface water drainage in the study area is the Santa Cruz River, which runs approximately parallel to and west of I-10 within the study area. The Santa Cruz River originates in the San Rafael Valley in Arizona, and then flows south into Mexico before bending west and north and reentering the United States east of Nogales, Arizona. Near the study area, a perennial nine-mile reach of the Santa Cruz River flows north consisting of treated effluent discharged into the channel by the Ina Road and Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plants. According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the portion of the Santa Cruz River that flows through the study area is classified as Effluent Dominated Waters. Swimming and fishing are deemed not allowable uses for the Santa Cruz River, but it is suitable for bird-watching and other terrestrial activities. With the exception of this effluent dominated reach, the remainder of the Santa Cruz River within the study area is intermittent and flows in response to rainfall events. The Canada del Oro Wash and many minor unnamed washes drain into the Santa Cruz River within the study area. All of these washes are ephemeral, flowing only in response to rainfall events. According to the Drainage Report prepared for this study, the Canada del Oro Wash and several minor unnamed washes originate in Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-9 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 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 116 and 117:
Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Wall to Protect Rec. ID Affected En
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
44.20 Avra Valley Rd Twin Peaks Rd
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?