I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 Mitigation To comply with Section 402, a SWPPP would be prepared for this project by the Town of Marana. The SWPPP would incorporate temporary erosion control measures during construction, permanent erosion control measures when the project is completed, and good housekeeping practices for the control and prevention of release of water pollutants. The SWPPP would identify the project scope, anticipated acreage of land disturbance, and the pollution control measures that would be implemented to reduce soil erosion, while containing and minimizing the construction pollutants (including oils, gasoline, and other chemicals released by construction equipment and vehicles) that may be released to surface waters through runoff during a storm event. The ADOT District Construction Office and the contractor will submit the Notice of Intent and the Notice of Termination to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA. ADOT would monitor all mitigation measures encompassing sedimentation and erosion control measures to affirm that these measures are being followed correctly and are providing the appropriate protection to sensitive areas. During construction of the project, care shall be taken to ensure that construction materials are not introduced into the washes, in accordance with Arizona Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Section 104.09 (2000 Edition) and the Water Quality Standards in Title 18, Chapter 11 of the Arizona Administrative Code as administered by ADEQ. Excess concrete, curing agents, form work, waste materials, lubricants, and fuel would not be disposed of within the project boundaries. In the event of accidental chemical spills during construction, the site would be cleaned up to prevent chemical introduction into the surface or groundwater systems. Incidents involving hazardous materials would be coordinated by ADOT's Engineer. These measures would protect both surface and groundwater. Sole Source Aquifer Existing Conditions Under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Upper Santa Cruz and Avra Valley Basin, which underlies the study area, as a sole source aquifer. This designation means that the area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. As a result of this designation, proposed federal financially-assisted projects which have the potential to contaminate the designated sole source aquifer are subject to EPA review. Under a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and FHWA dated October 1984, any proposed project that is within a designated sole source aquifer and which is subject to analysis through an environmental assessment, is subject to a Section 1424(e) review by EPA. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-22 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 To establish compliance with Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a letter describing the project area and scope, anticipated involvement of groundwater during construction, and methods to protect groundwater resources during construction was sent to the EPA’s Groundwater Office. Impacts No Build Alternative Under the no build alternative, no affects to the sole source aquifer would occur. Preferred Alternative Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered for the majority of proposed roadway construction activities. Roadway construction efforts are anticipated to require relatively shallow ground surface disturbance on higher elevations and, therefore, are not anticipated to encounter groundwater. Construction activities likely to encounter groundwater are those involving the construction of the new bridges over the Santa Cruz River. For bridge construction, groundwater would be encountered, especially during the preparation for and placement of bridge piers and abutments; however, the bridge would be designed such that piers and abutments would not be placed within the River’s perennial flow area. Mitigation As stated in the letter to EPA’s Groundwater Office, the contractor would utilize BMPs during bridge construction. ADOT Tucson District would monitor bridge construction to ensure that BMPs are utilized by the contractor. These BMPs include: • Water repellent fluids or surface treatments would not be applied below the water surface; • Lubricants, fuels, and oils would be stored and dispensed distant from the Santa Cruz River channel; • Watercourse construction activities would occur during periods of Santa Cruz River low flow; • Disturbance to stream substrates would be minimized; • Gravels and rip-rap would be obtained from approved sources and be contaminant-free; • Catchments, silt fencing, or concrete barriers would be used to prevent debris, waste, and toxic compounds from entering the Santa Cruz River channel; • Construction equipment would be inspected daily for leaks or fluid discharges; Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-23 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: Project Purpose and Need October 20
Page 32 and 33: 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 120 and 121: Wall to Protect Rec. ID Affected En
Page 130 and 131:
Affected Environment and Environmen
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?