I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 • Maintenance yards outside the Santa Cruz River channel would be used to store and service construction equipment; • No cement dumping or equipment cleaning would occur in or near the watercourse; • Soils that are disturbed from the Santa Cruz River channel would be labeled and stockpiled outside the channel until construction activities are completed. Then the soils removed from the Santa Cruz River channel would be placed back into the areas from which they were removed; and, • Any upland soils that are removed would moved farther upland to prevent erosion into the Santa Cruz River. As a result of the limited involvement of groundwater and of the proposed precautionary practices as outlined above, EPA concurred, in a letter dated May 13, 2004, that the proposed improvements would not effect the quality of the sole source aquifer. This concurrence letter may be found in Appendix A. Conclusion The preferred alternative’s impacts to the quality of surface and groundwater resources within the study area were analyzed. This analysis determined that: • The preferred alternative would be consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs. • The preferred alternative would be the only practicable alternative for floodplain encroachment. • The preferred alternative would conform to applicable State and local floodplain protection standards. • The preferred alternative would require an individual permit under Section 404 of the CWA and would require individual water quality certification under Section 401 of the Act from ADEQ. Because the Section 404 permit and Section 401 water quality certification would be obtained by the Town of Marana prior to commencement of construction within waters of the U.S., the preferred alternative would have no negative impacts to surface water quality. • An AZPDES general permit and a SWPPP, under Section 402(p) of the CWA would be required. Because the SWPPP would be prepared and followed during construction of the proposed improvements, the preferred alternative would have no negative impacts to surface water quality. • The proposed project is in compliance with Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The project has been designed in such a manner as to not create a significant hazard to public health, interfere with public welfare, or cause any public water system to install additional treatment Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-24 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 facilities to meet the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA has concurred with this finding. Biological Resources Biological resources included in this section are general vegetation and wildlife; federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species; state listed wildlife of concern; and protected native plants. Information on biological resources was obtained from a literature review, communications with local, state, and federal resource agencies, and field surveys. The study area is within the Sonoran Desert at the northern margin of the Tucson Basin. The Sonoran Desert has a warm climate characterized by low precipitation and high evapotranspiration rates. Precipitation varies considerably, but the region is generally arid. Although average precipitation in the Tucson area is more abundant than in many other parts of the Sonoran Desert, the basin receives only about 12 inches of precipitation annually. Summer rainfall (June through August) accounts for between 30 to 60 percent of the annual total, while winter precipitation accounts for 10 to 40 percent of the annual total. Topographic variability in the study area results in four distinct environmental zones. In the valley bottom, the Santa Cruz River floodplain and adjacent terraces support riparian and wetland vegetation, and provide a potential water source for wildlife. Creosote bush and bursage along with a variety of grasses and cacti cover the lower bajadas. Paloverde-mixed cacti communities, rich in saguaro and other cacti, grow around the mountain bases. In addition, xeroriparian vegetation communities are present along the washes radiating out of the mountains. Wildlife Existing Conditions The wildlife of the area is typical of similar sites in this region of the Sonoran Desert. The study area occurs in what is known as the ‘urban wildland interface’. The ‘urban wildland interface’ is the geographical area where urban landscapes are mixed with natural landscapes. As a result, wildlife species common to both urban and natural landscapes occur in this area. Representative common wildlife species in the study area include coyote, bobcat, javelina, desert cottontail, turkey vulture, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, mourning dove, white-winged dove, great horned owl, Gila woodpecker, verdin, whiptail lizard, common collared lizard, and common kingsnake. Upland and riparian landscapes in the study area have the potential to provide movement corridors for wildlife. In particular, the Santa Cruz River connects core biological areas in the region of the study area including the Tortolita Mountains, Tucson Mountains, Waterman Mountains, and Santa Catalina Mountains. Wildlife species that may use the Santa Cruz River as a movement corridor include terrestrial species and avian species. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-25 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: 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 132 and 133:
Affected Environment and Environmen
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?