CHAPTER 6 Comments and Coordination
PAST COORDINATION AND PROJECT ACTIONS
Public and agency interaction early and often in Figure 6-1 Public Involvement, South Mountain Freeway History the environmental impact statement ( EIS) process can help shape and influence proposed action- 1988 2001 Anticipated 2014 related determinations by the Arizona Department a b of Transportation (ADOT) and Federal Highway 1988 State-level EA Process 2001 Federal-level EIS Process Administration (FHWA). The involvement can also contribute to an informed public, to constructive agency Alternatives Alternatives c d e EA Project Non-ADOT Issues Public identification Impact DEIS FEIS f participation, and ultimately to better decision-making. identification additional assessment scoping analyses ROD and evaluation completion adoption and evaluation (Phase 5) (Phase 6) 6 The proposed action has a history of public involvement studies (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) (Phase 4) and agency coordination. This chapter summarizes the history and presents: ➤ activities undertaken to engage the agencies and Public involvement Public involvement public in constructive dialogue about the proposed SMCATg involvement action since the start of the EIS process in 2001 ➤ the results of those activities Agency coordination Agency involvement ➤ future coordination activities planned through the a environmental assessment b environmental impact statement c Arizona Department of Transportation d Draft Environmental Impact Statement completion of the EIS process e Final Environmental Impact Statement f record of decision g South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team SUMMARY OF PAST AGENCY Agency and public concerns over social impacts, parkland impacts, project costs, and ongoing coordination with the Gila River Indian Community have remained constant since the AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, late 1980s. PRE- EIS PROCESS
Early versions of the proposed action have been the In the early 1980s, planners from local jurisdictions that (LRTP) (which included the concept of the proposed subject of several studies to determine the need for make up the Maricopa Association of Governments freeway as a prominent piece of the planned 232-mile
the facility in the region, the integrated nature of the (MAG) membership (see text box on page 1-4 for more Regional Freeway and Highway System). information regarding MAG) began to study regional facility with other major transportation investments, In 1985, voters of Maricopa County passed transportation needs. During this time, MAG actively the location/alignment of the facility, and what it might Proposition 300 to create a one-half cent sales tax to sought public and other agencies’ input in the process look like. Every study has actively sought to engage the fund the construction of the Regional Freeway and to develop the region’s Long-Range Transportation Plan public and agencies in the processes surrounding these Highway System. The public was invited to continue determinations (Figure 6-1). South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6-1 6-2 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
The public’s 1988 study concerns its involvement through the ADOT-sponsored private consortium to construct the freeway as a toll road 232 federal, State, and local agencies. The letters planning of the South Mountain Freeway alignment kept the issue in the public arena. provided a project overview and an invitation to the in the late 1980s with the preparation of State-level agency scoping meeting and requested any initial Many of the comments received on studies In 2001, the ADOT-sponsored, FHWA-led EIS process environmental and location/design studies (see the comments from the agencies (see the mailing list conducted in the 1980s mirror concerns began (of which the Final Environmental Impact being expressed by the contributing public section, Historical Context of the Proposed Action, beginning on page A1 in Appendix 1-1, including a Statement [ FEIS] is one part). Concurrently, MAG for the EIS process. Examples of comments beginning on page 1-5, to learn more about these representative copy of the letter and comment letters began its process to update the region’s LRTP, which received on the prior ADOT-sponsored studies). received in response). studies include: it adopted in 2003 as the Regional Transportation Plan • concern about impacts on Sunridge The two studies for the Southwest Loop Highway ( RTP). The updated RTP again included the proposed A 2-day agency scoping meeting was held later in the Elementary School, located at st Avenue, (State Route [SR] 218) (previous name for the proposed freeway as a component of the Regional Freeway and month in Phoenix. On the first day, a project overview and to properties west of th Avenue freeway) were completed in January 1988. In the process, Highway System and again the process of updating was provided, followed by a tour of the Study Area. On between Interstate (I-) (Papago Freeway) and Buckeye Road public and agency involvement was actively sought: the RTP involved extensive public interaction (see the the second day, agency representatives were invited to • request to move the alignment farther ➤ section, Context of the Proposed Action in Current Regional identify issues and concerns for consideration during the Over 40 local, State, regional, and federal agencies west from the st Avenue corridor toward and utility companies were contacted and involved in Transportation Planning, beginning on page 1-9, to study by answering the following questions: a more westerly corridor along th or learn more about public involvement associated with ➤ th avenues the State environmental assessment (EA) study. What is your agency’s responsibility? If a public ➤ the RTP update). In 2009, faced with the downturn • request to obtain Community right-of- Public meetings were held with local planning entity, what is your agency’s mandate to the public? in the economy and subsequent funding shortfalls, way (R/W) to avoid impacts on Phoenix groups, City and County advisory groups, interested ➤ How is your agency’s mandate similar to ADOT’s MAG reevaluated the RTP. As a result, the proposed South Mountain Park/Preserve (SMPP) development entities, and the general public on an mandate to serve the driving public? and industrial improvements along I- action—with some modifications—remains in the plan. individual-appointment basis. ➤ (Maricopa Freeway) near Pecos Road Throughout the EIS process, ADOT has conducted an Are there specific areas/services your agency is • ➤ concerns about compensation resulting Public open houses were advertised and held at the extensive public involvement program. responsible for where the proposed action may be from R/W acquisition process Laveen School District Office in August 1986 and located? • continued engagement of the Community at Sunridge Elementary School in September and AGENCY COORDINATION ➤ What agency information will aid in communicating 6 regarding its request for a federal EIS to be November 1986 and January 1987. prepared and its off er to work with ADOT The FEIS has been prepared following FHWA agency concerns/issues/opportunities? ➤ ➤ and MAG to locate an alignment on tribal A combined location/design public hearing was held guidance for the EIS process. The process began with What maps, plans, project designs, and/or studies land for the Southwest Loop Highway in February 1987. publication of the Notice of Intent on April 20, 2001, in apply to the proposed action and the scope of the • support for locating the alignment on the the Federal Register (66[77]:20345) (see Appendix 6-1, EIS process? west side of th Avenue at I- From this interaction, certain key issues became ➤ (Papago Freeway) prominent in the earlier studies (many of these same page A741). Letters requesting U.S. Army Corps of How does your agency plan to participate in the EIS • concern regarding pedestrian access across issues and concerns have been expressed during the Engineers ( USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection process? I- (Papago Freeway) if the rd Avenue public involvement for the EIS process). The issues, Agency (EPA), U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), bridge were removed Ninety-five agency representatives participated in the concerns, and opportunities focused on social impacts, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) • questions regarding access from homes to agency scoping. The comments provided in the text box traffic-generated impacts such as noise intrusion involvement as cooperating agencies were issued. the existing st Avenue beginning on the next page generally reflect agencies’ • and air quality degradation, parkland impacts, fiscal USACE and BIA agreed to be federal cooperating opposition to extending the freeway loop initial assessments and reactions to the proposed action. responsibility, and alignment location (on and off Gila agencies. EPA and USFWS declined (see Appendix 1-1, northerly across I- (Papago Freeway) It is not uncommon for agency preferences to change • River Indian Community [ Community] land) (the beginning on page A1). In 2009, the Western Area requests for early acquisition and concern later in the EIS process as additional information is for property value impacts sidebar on this page provides examples of comments Power Administration (Western) was invited, and discovered. Included with the agencies’ comments are received during that time frame). agreed, to be a cooperating agency. The cooperating notations in italics directing the reader to the FEIS agencies (USACE, BIA, and Western) reviewed and locations of the relevant responses. Through the 1990s, comparatively few ADOT-sponsored approved the Draft Environmental Impact Statement activities to advance toward construction of what is ( DEIS) and FEIS prior to public release of each Continuous Agency Coordination now the proposed action were undertaken (see section, document. Historical Context of the Proposed Action, beginning on Beginning in July 2001, monthly progress meetings
page 1-5, to learn more about factors affecting completion Agency Scoping have been held for stakeholders to discuss alternatives, of the Regional Freeway and Highway System). During conceptual designs, environmental impacts, and public Agency coordination started early in the process, in this period, a highly publicized, unsolicited proposal by a and political acceptability of the proposed action. October 2001, when introduction letters were sent to South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-3
Agency Scoping Comment and Response Summary
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Public involvement will be an important element of the USACE permitting process. Recognition that public involvement has been an important element to the process is presented throughout the EIS and is specifi cally addressed in Chapter 6. • EPA is concerned about the proposed project’s purpose and need, as outlined in its scoping letter. Traffi c modeling is an important component in determining the purpose and need. Traffi c modeling is addressed extensively • The USACE mandate as it pertains to the proposed action is to identify the least environmentally damaging, in Chapters 1 and 3. practicable alternative. The mandate is recognized in Chapter 3 and in the section, Waters of the United States, in Chapter 4. The mandate was included from the project outset as a criterion in the process of alternatives development and • EPA representative questioned whether it would be better to use current data based on MAG projections (based screening. on 1995 special census data) or to use updated data obtained from the 2000 census. 2010 census data were used for MAG projections—discussed in Chapters 1 and 4. • USACE will have jurisdictional wetland delineation oversight, and any wetland delineation assessment is to include both total acreage to be affected and a value analysis of affected acreage (value of affected acreage would be • EPA representative asked whether regional traffi c patterns would change when updated data are input into the determined at permit issuance). The mandate is recognized in Chapter 3 and in the section Waters of the United model. This question is based on early data provided to EPA staff, which included patterns, volume projections, etc. The States, in Chapter 4; however, no wetlands were found in the Study Area. model was rerun with new data (see above bullet). • The current value of potentially affected waters associated with the planned Rio Salado Oeste project is perceived • Indirect and cumulative effects will be an important consideration to EPA. See the section Secondary and to be lower than it would be after project implementation. The Rio Salado Oeste project is discussed in the sections, Cumulative Impacts, in Chapter 4. Land Use (specifi cally, Public Lands) and Biological Resources (specifi cally in the text box regarding habitat connectivity), in • The study needs to address pollution prevention where possible. Pollution prevention is addressed in the sections Chapter 4. Water Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Hazardous Materials, Temporary Construction Impacts, and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, all in Chapter 4. Natural Resources Conservation Service EPA would like a description of effects on 1-hour ozone (O ) nonattainment and particulate matter of 10 microns • 3 • The Natural Resources Conservation Service mission is soil conservation. Comment has been noted. or less in diameter (PM ) and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM ) (even though the 10 2.5 • The study needs to consider the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). FPPA is addressed in the section, Prime Phoenix metropolitan area is not designated as being in nonattainment for PM2.5). Particulates and mobile source air toxics ( MSATs) analyses are presented in the section, Air Quality, in Chapter 4. and Unique Farmlands, in Chapter 4. • EPA encourages use of the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA)/Section 404 integration process. The • The study needs to consider direct and indirect effects on farmlands. An example of an indirect effect would be integration process was used in the EIS process as explained in Chapter 3; in the section Waters of the United States, in the conversion of farmland to a gasoline/foodmart constructed as a result of its advantageous proximity to the Chapter 4; and as agreed upon through signature by appropriate parties of the Memorandum of Agreement presented in proposed action. Direct and indirect effects on farmlands are addressed in the sections, Prime and Unique Farmlands Appendix 4-5. and Secondary and Cumulative Impacts, in Chapter 4. 6 • Environmental justice analysis should also include disadvantaged businesses analysis. Minority and low- income • The study needs to evaluate impacts on canals and irrigation. These types of impacts are addressed in the sections, populations are discussed in the Chapter 4 section, Environmental Justice and Title VI. Data regarding minority and income Prime and Unique Farmlands, Cultural Resources, Land Use, and Secondary and Cumulative Impacts, in Chapter 4. status associated with specifi c potentially displaced businesses, their employees, and their customers were either not available • The study needs to consider impacts of “remnant parcels” and land severance. These types of impacts on farmlands for analysis or the limited data available were of dubious quality. Although the City of Phoenix supplied a study that included a are addressed in the sections, Prime and Unique Farmlands and Secondary and Cumulative Impacts, in Chapter 4. qualitative analysis of minority and low- income residents along one of the Western Section action alternatives, this information was not appropriate for inclusion in the FEIS. Therefore, a determination regarding the disadvantaged status of affected U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs businesses, employees, and customers was not made. • BIA has trust responsibilities for tribal land and realty responsibilities for private (allotment) lands. Land • The study should include potential effects on native plants, and native plants should be considered for use in ownership issues associated with the proposed action include allotment lands in the western and northern project landscaping plans. Native plants are addressed in the sections, Biological Resources and Visual Resources, in portions of the Study Area. Chapter 2 is dedicated to Community issues, including those related to allotted lands. Chapter 4. • The representative from BIA suggested working closely with affected Community Districts; BIA will help with Districts 6 and 7, where the allotment lands are located. BIA is ultimately responsible for the Gila River and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ak-Chin Indian communities, especially allotment lands. Chapter 2 is dedicated to Community issues, including those • USACE will be a cooperating agency in the EIS. Noted in Chapters 1, 2, and 6. related to allotted lands. • The process for integration of NEPA and the Section 404 permitting processes may apply to the proposed • BIA will assist the project team in coordinating with Districts, individual landowners, and the tribal government to action. The integration process was used in the EIS process, as explained in Chapter 3; in the section Waters of the identify land use/ownership issues and alternative alignments. Comment has been noted. United States, in Chapter 4; and as agreed upon through signature by appropriate parties of the Memorandum of Agreement • BIA will be better able to comment on its study concerns when alignments are being evaluated. Private land ownership presented in Appendix 4-5. and real estate impacts cannot be adequately addressed until alternative alignments are defi ned. Alternative alignments • Early USACE involvement in the study is requested. USACE involvement was early and has been ongoing in the were defi ned through the alternatives development and screening process, as presented in Chapter 3. preparation of the EIS, from scoping to development of the purpose and need, alternatives development and screening, and • BIA will serve as a cooperating agency for the EIS; a confi rmation letter stating as much was sent to impact analyses. FHWA. Comment has been noted in Chapters 1, 2, and 6.
(continued on next page) 6-4 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Agency Scoping Comment and Response Summary (continued)
Gila River Indian Community • All opportunities for environmental streamlining should be incorporated into the study. The EIS process has focused on a defensible process, document, and record, with full disclosure to the public. • Allotted land predominates, and the Community Council doesn’t necessarily speak for allottees; however, the project team needs to be sensitive to both private landowners and tribal interests. Chapter 2 is dedicated to • The study should consider impacts on the Ahwatukee Foothills Village community. Impacts on the community are Community issues, including those related to allotted lands. addressed in sections throughout Chapter 4. • Allotted lands can have many owners, at least 51 percent of whom need to agree to any proposed project • Connectivity with the Regional Freeway and Highway System is important and should be considered when solution or alignment. Chapter 2 is dedicated to Community issues, including those related to allotted lands. selecting alternatives. Recognition of the proposed action’s importance to the Regional Freeway and Highway System is discussed in Chapter 1. • A toll road corridor across the Community has been previously studied. Residents may have concerns related to the proposed action similar to those raised during the toll road corridor study. Issues surrounding the toll road • The study should consider impacts of alternatives that could eliminate existing arterial streets (e.g., Pecos Road, proposal are presented in Chapters 3 and 6. 51st Street). Impacts on the arterial street network are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. • The El Paso Natural Gas line lease renewal may present opportunities for coordinated efforts with ADOT. As stated in Chapter 2, no alternatives on Community land were developed. Effects on the El Paso Natural Gas line are ADOT Right-of-Way Group documented in the section, Temporary Construction Impacts, in Chapter 4. • Connectivity to SR 202L (Santan Freeway) at the I-10 (Maricopa Freeway)/SR 202L traffi c interchange should be • The Community is concerned about the amount of possible truck traffi c through the Community, especially maintained. Connection to the referenced interchange is discussed in Chapter 3. trucks carrying hazardous cargo. The Community would like to encourage truck traffi c to use more outlying • The I-10 (Papago Freeway) western freeway connection will require thinking “out of the box.” As another routes such as the CANAMEX Corridor. Truck traffi c and perceptions associated with the CANAMEX corridor are alternative, consider possible dual/split alignments, with a western connection at SR 101L or even SR 303L and discussed in Chapter 3. The transport of hazardous cargo is described in the section, Hazardous Materials, in Chapter 4. another closer to downtown Phoenix. Alternatives development and screening of those alternatives are presented in • The Community has the following concerns regarding air quality impacts: Chapter 3. The split alignment alternative was considered (see Figure 3-5), but was eliminated from further study and was not • Because of its location in Maricopa County, the northern portion of the Community is included in the carried into the corridor screening analysis. nonattainment area for three criteria pollutants. Because of this, the Community is submitting an application • If the previously studied alignment is to be considered for the proposed action, fi ndings must be updated using to EPA asking to be considered “unclassifi able.” Comment has been noted. current ADOT design standards. Design of the action alternatives is based on traffi c data updated in August 2013 and • The Community is concerned that the air quality impacts of a new freeway/roadway and associated traffi c current design standards, as discussed in Chapter 3. 6 emissions will affect the status of this application. The Community’s concern was noted. • A planned air quality monitoring station is to be located in the Study Area at the Vee Quiva Casino. Comment ADOT Utilities Group has been noted. • The proposed action will need to follow the ADOT Red Letter process (i.e., utilities for the project must be coordinated • The Study Area contains more than 1,000 wild horses. The Community would like to learn how the proposed with those for the Flood Control District of Maricopa County [ FCDMC], the City of Phoenix, and Salt River action would affect the wild horse population. The range/habitat of the wild horse population is discussed in Chapter 4. Project [ SRP] on the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel). The process is described in Chapters 3 and 4. • The Community would like to see continuous communication regarding impacts on cultural resources, • ADOT will be holding a utility coordination meeting in early 2002. Comment has been noted. including archaeological resources and traditional cultural properties (i.e., cemeteries, roadside memorials, historic properties, traditional housing such as sandwich houses, and the South Mountains). The continuous communications regarding cultural resources is described in Chapter 2, in the section, Cultural Resources, in Chapter 4, and Maricopa County Department of Transportation in Chapter 5. • It will be important to consider the connectivity of a true loop system. The referenced issue is discussed in Chapters 1 • The extension of 40th and 48th streets into the Community is important for economic development, and and 3. interchanges on the original alignment are desirable. The proposed locations of service interchanges are described in • For historical information, refer to the truck bypass study done for Laveen Village. Information from the referenced Chapter 3. study was considered throughout the development of the EIS. • The Community suggests that traffi c analyses identify destinations for Ahwatukee Foothills Village traffi c • Maricopa County Department of Transportation ( MCDOT) will engage its staff in this study. Comment has been and truck traffi c projections for 2025. Truck traffi c projections for 2025 could be 35 to 40 percent higher noted. because long-distance truckers would rather use services provided in Phoenix than use the SR 85/Interstate 8 bypass (CANAMEX Corridor). A select link analysis of general traffi c fl ow is presented in Chapter 1. Truck traffi c and CANAMEX-related issues are presented in Chapter 3. City of Tolleson • The City of Tolleson does not want a 99th Avenue alignment alternative to be considered. The 6-square-mile ADOT Roadway Design Group community would be split by such an alignment. The community has already lost 17 percent of city land to the I-10 corridor widening project. The City’s position is discussed in Chapters 3 and 6. Stated concerns about impacts on the City • The trumpet interchange concept should be reevaluated because the original 1988 concept may have negative were considered throughout the alternatives analysis and are presented in Chapter 3, and impacts are elaborated on in Chapter 4. traffi c/design implications for traffi c fl ow and safety on I-10 (Papago Freeway). Design of the action alternatives is • There is an increasing amount of development occurring southwest of 99th Avenue and I-10. The development in based on traffi c data updated in August 2013 and current design standards, as discussed in Chapter 3. the Study Area is referenced in Chapters 1, 3, and 4.
(continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-5
Agency Scoping Comment and Response Summary (continued)
• The study needs to consider the Durango Area Drainage Plan recommendations and facilities. The referenced • the Sun Circle National Trail recommendations have been considered in the design of the proposed action. • trails outside of SMPP (the new design will need to accommodate these trails) • Representatives from the City of Tolleson suggested that the City of Chandler may want a connection with • SMPP impacts resulting from an extension of 48th Street into the Community the Santan Freeway and that project leadership should verify this for determination of project alignment • planned parks along the 59th Avenue alignment Recreational concerns are discussed in Chapter 5 as well as in alternatives. City of Chandler representatives have engaged in discussion of the proposed action. appropriate sections in Chapter 4. • Transportation concerns in the city of Phoenix include proposed action effects on: City of Gilbert • the planned park-and-ride lot at the intersection of 48th Street and Pecos Road • The City of Gilbert will provide a copy of its noise ordinance. Comment has been noted. • the type and location of connection with I-10 • local access and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes City of Phoenix • water and sewer facilities Utility concerns are discussed in Chapter 3 as well as in appropriate sections in Chapter 4. • The City of Phoenix supports the study and the concept of the proposed freeway. Comment has been noted. The City’s position is further discussed in Chapter 3. Salt River Project • Although the City of Phoenix is sensitive to Ahwatukee Foothills Village residents’ concerns about the Pecos Road SRP Transmission Division presented: alignment, it is not suggesting shifting the alignment to the Community. Comment has been noted. The City’s • position is further discussed in Chapter 3. • maps of existing and planned facilities to the SRP Transmission, Distribution, and Water Divisions • The City of Phoenix prefers the alignment alternative near 59th Avenue in the Western Section of the Study Area • elevated facility concepts that could confl ict with the existing 500 kilovolt (kV) line paralleling Pecos Road (previously studied in 1988). Comment has been noted. The City’s position is further discussed in Chapter 3. • there is an existing 230 kV line on the northern side of Broadway Road/59th Avenue • Environmental concerns, including noise and visual impacts, should be thoroughly addressed in the study. Such • there is a current proposal for a 230 kV line from Casa Grande to the Pecos Road/56th Street substation. impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. SRP’s concerns are noted; coordination with SRP occurred throughout the EIS process. • Access to major arterial streets from traffi c interchanges is important and should be considered in the study. The • Representative from the SRP Transmission Division suggested that Western should be included in the study relationship of the proposed action to the arterial street system is discussed in Chapter 3. process, because it may have planned transmission facilities in the Study Area vicinity. Western was invited to participate in the process; see Chapters 1 and 6 • The City of Phoenix is considering a concept for a major arterial street along the south bank of the Salt River from 6 the freeway to central Phoenix (linking to Broadway Road) to relieve traffi c on I-10. The referenced project and its • SRP Distribution Division representative informed the project team that 12 kV electric distribution lines are relationship to the proposed action are discussed in Chapters 1 and 3. extensive throughout the project Study Area. Coordination with SRP occurred throughout the EIS process. Utilities are discussed in Chapter 3 and in appropriate sections in Chapter 4. • The City of Phoenix’s freeway mitigation program provides funds for noise mitigation for future development, landscape enhancements, and trails. Comment has been noted; the City’s program is referenced in Chapters 4 and 5. • SRP Water Division noted: • The Laveen Village planning area is divided between the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County. The boundaries • Irrigation facilities in the Study Area include lateral canals and drainage ditches, most of which are gravity fl ow are located roughly along the Salt River to the Community boundary, and 67th Avenue to 27th Avenue. The and could be interrupted by terrain changes. alternative near 59th Avenue (previously studied in 1988) has been incorporated into the Laveen Village land use • If the proposed action were to be located on Pecos Road, SRP suggests combining the roadway plans with its and economic development plans, so changes to the alignment alternative would be a challenge. Economic and drainage plans. land use impacts of each alternative on Laveen Village are discussed in Chapter 4. • Proposed action needs to be coordinated with the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel project, which will replace • The Estrella Village planning area is bordered by the Salt River to the south, I-10 to the north, 107th Avenue Maricopa Drain 5 south of Baseline Road. The 200-foot channel will need a bridge crossing. to the west, and 19th Avenue to the east. As with Laveen Village, the 59th Avenue alignment has already • SRP Water Division recommends an alignment along the Community boundary. been incorporated in Estrella Village planning and zoning. The Durango Area Drainage Plan also needs to be • SRP Water Division has been asked to assist a fi ber-optic company with assessing the feasibility of using SRP considered. Economic and land use impacts of each alternative on Estrella Village are discussed in Chapter 4. canal R/W for installation of a multistate fi ber-optic line. Coordination with SRP occurred throughout the EIS • The Ahwatukee Foothills Village planning area planners have stated their desire for a four-lane parkway with process. Utilities are discussed in Chapter 3 and in appropriate sections in Chapter 4. signalized intersections on Pecos Road. Comment has been noted; the facility type to satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed action is presented in Chapter 3. Southwest Gas • Emergency services issues of concern to the City of Phoenix include maintaining access for emergency vehicles, adequate water supply, containment ability, and impacts on emergency communications such as telephone • Southwest Gas has a major gas line located along Pecos Road and on the western side of the South Mountains dispatching. Emergency services issues are presented in the section, Social Conditions, in Chapter 4. (there are also other gas lines located throughout the Study Area). Coordination with Southwest Gas occurred • Recreational concerns in the city of Phoenix include proposed action effects on: throughout the EIS process. Utilities are discussed in Chapter 3 and in appropriate sections in Chapter 4. • the Rio Salado Oeste project between 32nd Street and 19th Avenue, and the Tres Rios project 6-6 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
➤ ADOT-advertised public meetings To provide continuous coordination, regularly invited Urban Project Management impacts it would create, and the level of public concern were held on the following dates attendees included representatives of federal, State, ➤ Utilities and Railroad regarding the proposed action’s effects on neighboring and times at these locations. regional, and local agencies. communities, ADOT and FHWA developed and Other team members included representatives from: implemented comprehensive, inclusive, and adaptive • The forum provided a structured opportunity for ➤ November , , Desert Vista High FHWA public involvement strategies that exceed NEPA School, S. nd Street, Phoenix, stakeholders to review and provide input to: ➤ BIA requirements for public engagement. – p.m. ➤ methodologies, approaches, assumptions, analytical • ➤ USACE November , , Fowler Elementary findings, and conclusions for each step of the EIS Public Involvement Actions School, W. Van Buren Street, ➤ process (the section, Alternatives Development and Community technical staff and elected officials Phoenix, – p.m. The effort represents ADOT’s most extensive public Screening, beginning on page 3-1, provides an ➤ MAG • September , , Cesar Chavez High involvement program undertaken in the Phoenix area. example of the stakeholder engagement in the EIS ➤ School, W. Baseline Road, Laveen, MCDOT To highlight the results of public outreach efforts process) ➤ – p.m. FCDMC undertaken leading up to publication of the DEIS in ➤ • public coordination strategies and communication ➤ October , , Desert Vista High City of Phoenix April 2013: School, S. nd Street, Phoenix, tools ➤ ➤ – p.m. ➤ City of Chandler Over 200 presentations were made to neighborhood concept design features and options to address ➤ • October , , Tolleson High School, City of Goodyear groups, homeowners’ associations, chambers of specific operational characteristics at both local and commerce, village planning committees, trade W. Van Buren, Tolleson, – p.m. ➤ City of Avondale • regional levels associations, and other interested parties. November , , Estrella Vista ➤ City of Tol leson Reception Center, N. Eliseo C. In all, 94 agency meetings were held between July 2001 ➤ Twelve public meetings were held. Fifteen days prior Felix, Jr. Way, Avondale, noon– p.m. and December 2013. Invitees played an important role Agencies played an important role in the impact analyses to each meeting, display advertising was placed in • November , , Corona Ranch, in the development of the purpose and need for the and identification of mitigation measures for the The Arizona Republic, the Ahwatukee Foothills News, S. th Avenue, Laveen, noon– p.m. proposed action and the alternatives development and alternatives studied in detail in the FEIS (Chapter 4, the Gila River Indian News, the Tribune, La Voz, • 6 November , , Grace Inn, screening process to identify alternatives to be studied in Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and and the West Valley View. Thus, newspapers with a S. st Street, Ahwatukee, detail in the FEIS. Mitigation, presents a compilation of the analyses). total circulation of approximately 260,000 carried an noon– p.m. Technical experts interacted regularly with agency announcement of each public meeting. • Progress meeting invitees represented numerous March , , Holiday Inn Phoenix West, counterparts in the development of the study approach ➤ N. st Avenue, Phoenix, – p.m. disciplines appropriate to the EIS process. One meeting notice flier and four newsletters and analytical findings for the impact analyses (technical • Representatives from ADOT departments included: were distributed throughout the Study Area in the March , , Santa Maria Middle reports addressing impacts on environmental elements School, W. Lower Buckeye Road, ➤ following quantities (per distribution, per meeting): Bridge Design are available on request and can be viewed at ADOT; Phoenix, – p.m. 28,500 door hangers, 5,000 inserts in the Gila River ➤ Communications see page 3-2). The interaction reflected a desire on the • February , , Sunridge Elementary Indian News, and 28,000 inserts in the Ahwatukee ➤ part of ADOT to ensure that Arizona divisions of the School, W. Roosevelt Street, Director’s Office Foothills News. In addition, newsletters and fliers ➤ federal agencies involved agreed that the assumptions, Phoenix, – p.m. Drainage Design were sent to more than 4,500 individuals on the • methods, and data met accepted scientific standards, and February , , Betty H. Fairfax High ➤ Engineering District project mailing list (see Appendix 6-2, beginning on also adequately captured characteristics unique to central School, S. th Avenue, Laveen, ➤ page A742). – p.m. Environmental Planning Group (EPG) Arizona and Sonoran Desert conditions. ➤ ➤ In November 2008, a newsletter was mailed to the Information about the public hearing and Geotechnical Throughout the study, coordination meetings were also entire Study Area, including 78,700 businesses and related community forums is provided later ➤ Maintenance District held with the Community and BIA (see Chapter 2, Gila residences and to 3,300 individuals on the project in this chapter. ➤ Right-of-Way River Indian Community Coordination, to learn more mailing list (see Appendix 6-2). ➤ Regional Freeway System about these coordination efforts). ➤ In February 2010, a newsletter was mailed to the ➤ Roadside Development PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT entire Study Area, including 62,400 businesses and ➤ Roadway Design residences and to 3,600 individuals on the project Because of the perceived importance of the proposed mailing list. ➤ State Engineer’s Office action to the region’s transportation network, anticipated ➤ Traffic Design South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-7
➤ ➤ In February 2011, an informational postcard was Open houses and public meetings were held at key recommendations on alternatives identified from What is the difference between mailed to 5,000 businesses and residences on the milestones in the project (see sidebar on the previous detailed study and on those eliminated from detailed a public meeting, an open house, project mailing list (see Appendix 6-2). page regarding meeting dates, times, and locations). The study in the EIS and a public hearing? ➤ purpose of the meetings was to ensure that the public A project Web site (azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway) Representatives from ADOT and FHWA attended had an opportunity to participate. For each phase, a Public meetings are held by ADOT to was developed and an e-mail address (projects@ SMCAT meetings to give members direct access series of meetings was held: in Ahwatukee Foothills provide information to the public and azdot.gov) was provided so the public could receive to those able to make determinations. Other key to solicit feedback regarding studies Village, in Laveen Village, and in the Avondale/ Tolleson the latest public project information and obtain stakeholders attended meetings as informational and proposed projects that could affect area. The agenda and presentation were the same feedback. Approximately half of the comments that resources when necessary. Facilitators monitored meeting residents and neighborhoods. Comments for each meeting, but the displays focused on issues received are recorded and responses later were received prior to publication of the DEIS in progress. The discussion topics for each meeting and significant to each respective geographic region. Each provided. Open houses are informal public April 2013 were submitted electronically through the the operating guidelines of the SMCAT were set and series of meetings was advertised in local English- and meetings that provide an opportunity for Web site or by e-mail. Over 5,000 comments were approved by the members. citizens to engage in dialogue with project received throughout the process up to publication of Spanish-language newspapers and through newsletters sponsors and technical experts. Public the DEIS . distributed throughout the Study Area. Additional The team initially met in private; in February 2004, the hearings are formal meetings held for the ➤ information regarding the extensive public involvement group agreed to open the meetings to the public. Over Since 2001 and up to publication of the DEIS , more public and agencies to provide comments specific to the review of the DEIS is provided later in time, the SMCAT developed its own public comment on the DEIS. Comments provided are than 800 news articles were published in the region’s this chapter. guidelines, which allowed members of the public to documented and responded to in the FEIS. newspapers. ➤ provide written or verbal comments to the SMCAT at the A project hotline number (602-712-7006) was South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team end of each meeting. When time permitted, the public established so that the public could provide feedback Groups and organizations in the Study Area were questions or comments were addressed by members of on the study. The hotline is monitored daily, identified and contacted in 2001 and asked to assign the project team or the SMCAT (see Appendix 6-3, with messages forwarded when necessary to the representatives to work as a voluntary, advisory team to beginning on page A773). appropriate individuals for a response within one provide advice and input to ADOT and FHWA (see working day. Between 2006 and 2013, more than Meeting times and locations were posted on the 6 sidebar on the next page on representation). The team 500 calls were received.
the process members of the South Mountain Citizens Advisory would be the ideal freeway (see Appendix 6-3). Once South Mountain Citizens Advisory ➤ develop and implement a process that maintains Team [ SMCAT] developed evaluation criteria and the evaluation criteria were established, members rated Team involvement open and continuing communications among the participated in an automated evaluation process to how well each alternative fulfilled the criteria of the ideal public, ADOT, FHWA, and the project team identify its preferred alternative) freeway. Inputs from individual members were made The SMCAT members each made long-term commitments to participate ➤ use multiple communication tools to effectively anonymously, but the final collective results showed the Specific items reviewed by the SMCAT included: consensus of the group. The group agreed to use decision- and contribute to the EIS process. During engage all population segments, thereby ensuring ➤ approximately 60 meetings, the group equal access to the EIS process (Table 6-1 presents conclusions reached in technical studies to identify support technology to assist in the Western Section reviewed environmental and technical the tools used to implement the strategy at major potential follow-up issues, review mitigation alternatives evaluation. data, design criteria, alternatives, and other milestones) strategies, and provide feedback on document detailed project information. content and readability 6-8 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Table 6-1 Public Involvement Tools Organizations/agencies/entities represented in the SMCAT Tool Used Information Type and Availability Observations
● • Wide distribution Ahwatukee Foothills Chamber of ● Consistency in data presented Commerce ● Typically multilingual • Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning ● Comment forms provided Committee ● Made available to residents and businesses in the Study Area through ● Not responsive to timely updates • Ahwatukee Lakewood Homeowners a combination of newspaper inserts, door-to-door distribution, and ● Association Distribution (per mailing) mailings to contacts in the project database • Arizona Public Health Association ● 28,500 newsletters ● Provided as a handout during group presentations and distributed • ● 5,000 inserts in Gila River Indian News Arizona Trucking Association Newsletters and to information repositories, local jurisdictions, public libraries, post • ● Arlington Estates Homeowners Association informational postcards offi ces, and other public areas where appropriate 28,000 inserts in the Ahwatukee Foothills News • Calabrea Homeowners Association ● Posted on the Web sitea and available to download as needed ● Direct mail • Chandler Chamber of Commerce ● Included maps, Spanish translation, and in some cases, a comment ● Project mailing list • City of Avondale form to provide feedback contact information (see Appendix 6-2, ● Realtors (newsletter issues 1 and 4) beginning on page A742, for sample newsletters) • City of Chandler ● Property owners (newsletter issue 1) • City of Tolleson ● 78,700 businesses and residences in the Study Area (November 2008 mailing) • Community, District ● 62,400 businesses and residences in the Study Area (February 2010 mailing) • Community, District ● 5,000 businesses and residences in the Study Area (February 2011 mailing of informational postcard) • Community, District • Community, Elderly Concerns Group ● Frequently updated as new information became available • Cottonfi elds Homeowners Association ● Provided project maps and technical information, a listing of ● Able to send the project team an e-mail or submit an online survey from • East Valley Partnership frequently asked questions and answers, current and past project the Web site. Approximately half of the comments received were submitted Web site newsletters, SMCATb agendas and meeting summaries, contact electronically by the online survey or e-mail. 6 • Estrella Village Planning Committee • information, schedule of upcoming meetings, a glossary, news articles, ● Notices for upcoming ADOTd-sponsored public meetings posted on the Web e Foothills Homeowners Association summary of key issues, and a survey for public inputc • site weeks in advance Foothills Reserve Homeowners ● Not all individuals use/have access to personal computers Association • I-/Pecos Road Landowners Association ● Created and distributed at the beginning of the project to help the ● Provided overview of the alternatives screening process public understand the EISe process, background, and history of the • Kyrene Elementary School District ● Created another medium to learn about the proposed action • Project video South Mountain Freeway project and the potential purpose and need Laveen Citizens for Responsible for the facility ● Not responsive to timely updates Development ● ● Shown at public meetings and mailed on request to residents Not accessible to all population segments • Laveen Village Planning Committee ● • Maricopa County Farm Bureau Business cards providing project-specifi c contact information ● Distributed at public meetings and presentations ● Succinct information for access to project team members • Mountain Park Ranch Homeowners Contact cards Association ● Cards include comment mailing address, the project telephone ● Little information about project issues and features provided information line, e-mail address, and Web site address • Phoenix Mountains Preservation Council • ● Sierra Club Aerial maps available at the Ironwood Branch, Burton Barr, Tolleson, ● Easy access to project visuals • Silverado Ranch Homeowners Association Information repositories and Avondale libraries and at the Ahwatukee Foothills Village FedEx Offi ce for review and reproduction. ● Diffi cult to communicate availability of the resource • South Mountain Village Planning Committee ● Checked daily, messages forwarded to appropriate individuals for ● Enabled residents to call, leave messages • South Mountain/Laveen Chamber of Project hotline number response ● Allowed for timely responses Commerce ● Resulted in more than 500 phone calls ● Diffi cult to document all responses • Southwest Valley Chamber of Commerce ● • Provided frequent briefi ngs to local, State, and federal elected offi cials ● Targeted specifi c groups/audiences regarding specifi c project issues United Arizona Dairymen Interviews/briefi ngs to provide new technical information and an update on public issues • ● Valley Forward Association and concerns Dissemination to larger audience sometimes diffi cult
a SouthMountainFreeway.com b South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team c migrated into Arizona Department of Transportation’s Projects Web portal (continued on next page) d Arizona Department of Transportation e environmental impact statement South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-9
Table 6-1 Public Involvement Tools (continued) Tool Used Information Type and Availability Observations
● News releases prepared and distributed by ADOT (archive of news articles posted on the project Web site) ● Over 800 news articles published regarding the EIS process ● KAET-TV (Public Broadcasting Service, Channel 8) Horizon program News releases and ● Wide coverage of project-related activities and developments ensured on the project, prior to the November 2005 public meetings media interviews ● Sometimes partial or misleading information communicated ● Live coverage of November 2005 public meetings on radio and television stations ● Frequent, ongoing newspaper coverage of SMCAT meetings and discussions
● Placed in newspapers for The Arizona Republic distribution zones 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 14, 15 days prior to any ADOT-sponsored public meeting ● Placed in the Ahwatukee Foothills News and the Gila River Indian News ● Distributed in approximately 260,000 papers ● Placed prior to public scoping meetings in November 2001, public meetings in October 2003, public meetings in November 2005, and ● Ensured wide coverage of project-related activities and developments Advertisements local access public meetings in March 2006 ● May not have reached some population segments ● Placed in the Tribune, La Voz, and the West Valley View prior to the November 2005 public meetings ● Placed in The Arizona Republic zone 5, Prensa Hispana, La Voz, and The Arizona Informant prior to the February 2010 public meeting ● Placed in The Arizona Republic zone 5 and La Voz prior to the February 2011 public meeting 6 ● Project updates and public input solicitation into the planning process provided to existing neighborhood organizations on a regular basis ● Public involvement strategy emphasized small group meetings with ● Created improved one-on-one communications Neighborhood meetings existing organizations ● Improved dialogue among ADOT, FHWAf, and affected public ● More than 200 presentations made to neighborhood groups, homeowners’ associations, chambers of commerce, village planning committees, trade associations, and other interested parties
● Comment form with two to three specifi c questions developed at each phase of the project; distributed to meeting attendees ● Comment form questions included in certain project newsletter and Comment forms available on Web site ● Using the same questions, collated responses regardless of how received and Internet survey ● Prior to November 2005 public meetings, approximately 2,250 comments received on the purpose and need for project and alternatives ● Comments solicited at public meetings for adjoining projects
● Database of more than 4,317 people who had attended meetings, Contact database requested to be on mailing list, or submitted comments maintained ● Generated comprehensive list of interested parties throughout the study process Public meetings See the section, Public Comment Summary, beginning on the next page. f Federal Highway Administration Notes: Newsletters were stocked at the Community District Service Centers and at U.S. Postal Service offi ce and branch locations in the Gila River Indian Community. The newsletters were also distributed at Gila River Indian Community meetings and festivals. Information about public involvement tools used for the public hearing and related community forums is provided later in this chapter. 6-10 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
In April 2006, the SMCAT recommended identification In the month prior to issuance of the DEIS in ➤ formal letters submitted to ADOT, FHWA, other of the W101 Alternative as the preferred action alternative April 2013, the SMCAT was reconvened to participate federal agencies, and/or elected officials in the Western Section. In making its recommendation, in a panel discussion of air quality issues. After the Each documented comment was reviewed for the group expressed concern about the impacts on the issuance of the DEIS, the SMCAT held a meeting to applicability to the scope of the EIS process. jurisdictions surrounding the W101 Alternative and express concerns and make comments on the DEIS and Confirmation of this consideration occurred through: expressed a desire to continue to work with ADOT to ask questions of project team members. Following ➤ and FHWA to identify measures to minimize impacts the meeting, SMCAT members were provided an preparation of a comment summary at the conclusion as much as possible (see Appendix 6-3). ADOT, in opportunity to submit a final recommendation of “build” of each process milestone, or “phase” recommending the W55 Alternative as the preliminary or “no-build” on behalf of their respective organizations ➤ direct verbal communication back to commenting preferred action alternative in the Western Section, based on available alternatives for the proposed South members of the public took into account the SMCAT recommendation. Mountain Freeway. The recommendations are provided ➤ dissemination of project newsletters that included Specifically, ADOT concurred with SMCAT concerns on page A809 of Appendix 6-4. “articles” about key comments received about potential effects on the jurisdictions surrounding ➤ written responses —through a formal letter from the W101 Alternative, particularly the impacts on the Public Comment Summary ADOT, FHWA, other federal agencies, and/or elected City of Tolleson. Further, ADOT concurred with Public comment was solicited from project inception and officials in the event the project team determined the SMCAT recommendation pointing to some of through key milestones in the EIS process. Comments such a response appropriate (such letters can be found the traffic operational benefits associated with the received were entered into an electronic database. Updated throughout Appendix 1-1, as illustrated by letters W101 Alternative. Based on review of more recent MAG regularly, the database allowed the project team to track starting on pages A15, and A29 through A32) forecasting, ADOT concluded the W101 Alternative issue trends, sentiment, concerns, and opinions regarding would not provide sufficient regional benefit to outweigh the proposed action. Over time and as new information Documented public comments helped to shape the EIS its greater number of residential displacements, higher about the proposed action became available, public process and the contents of the FEIS . Throughout the estimated project costs, and severe economic impacts. The sentiment, opinions, and concerns were observed to FEIS , reference is made to public concerns. A sampling 6 W55 Alternative was determined to best balance regional “evolve” as proposed action awareness increased. Tracking includes: transportation needs. The W59 Alternative now is the public input also allowed the team to tailor public ➤ influence on the content of Chapter 1, Purpose and Preferred Alternative under evaluation. involvement strategies, i.e., to target areas of population Need ➤ The SMCAT reconvened in March 2007 to begin an where input had been sparse, alter notification techniques dedication of a single chapter (Chapter 2) to evaluation of the Eastern Section alternatives. Shortly to increase participation, and/or modify project data to Community coordination make them more easily understood. ➤ after the group reconvened, SMCAT members voted to consideration of public-identified alternatives in add the following organizations: Public input was received in myriad ways, including: Chapter 3, Alternatives ➤ ➤ Arizona Public Health Association ➤ documented telephone conversations with team direct discussion regarding truck use (page 3-64),
➤ Arlington Estates Homeowners Association members vibration-related impacts (page 4-123), and ➤ ➤ hazardous materials transport (page 4-166) Bougainvillea Homeowners Association voice messages received on the project hotline ➤ Calabrea Homeowners Association ➤ written correspondence, including letters and Public comments are summarized at the end of each ➤ Mountain Park Ranch Homeowners Association e-mail messages sent to the study Web site, phase of the process: ➤ ➤ study e-mail address, or to specific project team Silverado Ranch Homeowners Association Phase 1 – Issue assessment members ➤ Phase 2 – Public scoping Subsequently, the SMCAT did not meet for over a year ➤ documented conversations with team members at ➤ Phase 3 – Alternatives identification and evaluation as discussions proceeded regarding MAG funds, freeway public meetings and open houses ➤ design options, alignment of the W59 Alternative, and air Phase 4 – Impact analyses ➤ comments on project comment forms provided at quality issues. In early 2010, the SMCAT reconvened to ➤ Phase 5 – DEIS public meetings and open houses review the changes to the RTP and the proposed action. ➤ Phase 6 – FEIS South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-11
The following text summarizes each of these phases. As congestion and possibly would add to traffic problems in issues and do not believe the tribe has always been a summary, the text is appropriately not a comprehensive the corridor. Some suggested expanded mass transit or light consulted about plans that affect the Community. list of all comments received (all comments received are rail as alternatives to building an I-10 (Papago Freeway) ➤ Much of the land along the northern border of the a matter of public record and can be found in the official connection. Community is owned by individuals and families project files), but presents recurring comments and Primary Issues who are concerned that they would not receive “just trends associated with public comment. compensation” for their land. Five primary issues evolved as common to the proposed Phase 1 – Issue Assessment ➤ The tribal government has specific plans for action: development in the borderlands area. However, Prior to development of the public involvement program, ➤ Because of concerns about an alignment replacing allottees—private landowners—have their own information was collected from community leaders Pecos Road (the original 1988 alignment), development plans that sometimes conflict with in 2001 to better understand the level and nature of recommendations were made to investigate new tribal plans. concern about mobility in the area. Individuals were alignments through the Community or north of the ➤ Many members of the Community want protection identified through discussions with local and regional South Mountains. officials and from archival news reports on area of cultural, historic, and sacred sites, both ➤ If the freeway were built to replace Pecos Road, transportation issues. within and outside the Community, such as the increased traffic passing adjacent to Ahwatukee South Mountains. Approximately 40 interviews were conducted during July Foothills Village would result in substantial noise ➤ Confusion exists regarding ADOT planning efforts and August 2001 with elected officials, neighborhood problems and deterioration in air quality. for a freeway connection and Maricopa County’s leaders, residents, and major landowners throughout the ➤ Substantial opposition exists to any alignment that plans for widening 51st Avenue and establishing a Study Area, as well as with highway user organizations. would pass through SMPP or result in any adverse truck bypass. Interviews focused on perceived traffic problems in impact on the park. ➤ the area, feedback regarding the purpose and need for Because some previous transportation proposals ➤ An alignment near 99th Avenue (to connect directly potential transportation projects in this area, and critical that would have affected the Community have not to SR 101L [Agua Fria Freeway] to the north) 6 issues and concerns. materialized, many people do not take the current would divide the city of Tolleson and remove prime study seriously. Meetings were held during the time frame with a commercial property. Refer to Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community variety of organizations—such as village planning ➤ An I-10 (Papago Freeway) connection would become Coordination, for related topics. committees—and comment and survey forms were a “truck bypass,” causing neighborhoods in the distributed and collected at meetings and through the Eastern Section to suffer as a result. (Conversely, Other Issues project Web site. Meetings also were held with District concerns generated from the Western Section Also identified during Phase 1 were technical issues and Executive Committees, private landowners, Tribal expressed a need for a truck bypass, which would officials, and other Community members. potential impacts on: ease congestion on I-10 [Papago Freeway] and keep ➤ trucks off of neighborhood streets.) SRP electric and water facilities Comments, concerns, and suggestions gleaned from the ➤ interviews and meetings were summarized into four farmland and dairies Issues Specific to the Gila River Indian Community ➤ categories: purpose and need, primary issues, issues existing and future planned development specific to the Community, and other issues. Community residents and officials shared many of the ➤ security and crime same concerns as non-Community residents, such as Purpose and Need ➤ public services (e.g., schools) increased noise and deteriorating air quality that might ➤ water table Those who expressed an opinion were nearly unanimous in result if a freeway connection were to be built. However, ➤ their belief that a significant traffic problem in the Phoenix there also were issues particular to the Native American property values ➤ metropolitan area exists or will in the near future. A clear community: health majority also believe some sort of connection as proposed ➤ Some Community members said they mistrust local, Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental would help alleviate the problem. A minority believe an State, and federal governments in regard to planning Consequences, and Mitigation, addresses the above I-10 (Papago Freeway) connection would do little to ease topics. 6-12 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Phase 2 – Public Scoping Figure 6-2 Public Involvement, Phase 2 ➤ Neighborhood Meetings, have interchanges only at 40th Street and Desert Phase 2 – Public Scoping Foothills Parkway The purpose of the public scoping phase was to: Number of ➤ ➤ respondents improve 51st Avenue to four lanes identify issues and concerns the public would like to ➤ • Ahwatukee Foothills Chamber initiate rail transit have addressed during the study ➤ of Commerce 100 use an arterial connector instead of a freeway • ➤ Ahwatukee Foothills Homeowners determine whether the public believes there is a ➤ widen Ray Road and Chandler Boulevard instead of Association Annual Meeting problem that needs to be addressed and, if so, what is constructing a freeway • Ahwatukee Rotary Club (two meetings) that problem and what should be done ➤ improve mass transit • City of Phoenix Ahwatukee Foothills ➤ provide an opportunity for the public to identify Village Planning Committee (two meetings) 50 Environmental Issues – The following environmental potential alternatives • City of Phoenix Estrella Village Planning concerns were identified during public scoping: Committee Comments received between November 2001 and ➤ possibility for adverse health effects on • City of Phoenix Laveen Village Planning April 2002 were documented and submitted for neighborhoods and adjacent schools Committee inclusion in ADOT’s Scoping Summary Report (2002), ➤ noise, pollution, and degradation of lifestyle • City of Phoenix South Mountain Village and its Purpose and Need Technical Memorandum (2002) 0 Planning Committee comment e-mails additions online information Phase 3 – Alternatives Identifi cation • (see sidebar on page 3-2 for information on reviewing the forms to surveys line Foothills Block Watch mailing list phone calls and Evaluation • report and memorandum). The following summarizes Foothills Club West Community Response format Association Annual Meeting activities undertaken to engage the public in the public From September to October 2003, public input on • scoping phase: Foothills Club West Homeowners Public scoping comments were received from a wide range the alternatives identified to be studied in detail Association Board of Directors ➤ Presentations were made at 23 neighborhood of sources, but were predominantly from comment forms was received. The following summarizes activities • Joint Meeting of four City of Phoenix meetings (see sidebar on this page). Approximately distributed at meetings. Approximately 200 comments were undertaken to engage the public during this phase: Village Planning Committees 600 people participated in these meetings. received during Phase 2 of public scoping. ➤ • Lakewood Homeowners Association Presentations were made at five neighborhood ➤ 6 Annual Meeting Two public meetings were held in November 2001, meetings (see sidebar on page 6-14). Approximately
• Laveen Citizens for Responsible Growth one at Desert Vista High School in Ahwatukee Yes – There is a need. Thirty-one of the 65 responders 130 people participated in these meetings. (two meetings) Foothills Village and a second at the Fowler at the Desert Vista High School and Fowler Elementary ➤ Three public meetings were held: Desert Vista • Maricopa County Farm Bureau and Dairy Elementary School in west Phoenix. An overview School public meetings agreed there was a purpose and High School in Ahwatukee Foothills Village, Association Joint Meeting of the project was presented and a moderated need for the proposed action. Primary reasons included a Cesar Chavez High School in Laveen Village, and • Phoenix Mountain Preservation Council question-and-answer session was hosted. Following bypass of downtown traffic, relief from I-10 congestion, (two meetings) Tolleson High School in Tolleson. An overview the presentation, ADOT sponsored an open house completion of the freeway loop system, and accommodation • Public meeting at Kyrene de los Lagos of the project purpose and need and a moderated Elementary School to discuss individual issues and concerns. Sixty-five of growth in the Phoenix metropolitan area. question-and-answer session was provided. • people attended the public meetings. Realty Executives Realtors Meeting No – There isn’t a need. Fourteen of the 65 responders Following the presentation, ADOT hosted an open • ➤ Southwest Valley Mayors and Booths were hosted at three local festivals: didn’t think there was a need for the proposed freeway. house to discuss individual issues and concerns. Managers Meeting Community Fair, Tolleson Whoopee Daze, and Their reasons for opposing the projected action included Approximately 330 people attended the public • West Side City Managers Meeting ADOT Opening of SR 101L in northern Scottsdale. the belief users would be truckers, not commuters; meetings and 86 comment forms were returned. ➤ In addition to nine monthly coordination meetings Ahwatukee Foothills Village would be adversely Figure 6-3 on page 6-14 illustrates the format of the with the Community, presentations were made affected; existing freeways need to be improved; and the comments received. The comments were separated by to various Community groups. Approximately new freeway would encourage urban sprawl. location to better understand the specific issues of each 200 people attended these meetings (see Chapter 2, Alternatives to be Considered – Participants were neighborhood: Gila River Indian Community Coordination, for ➤ asked to identify potential alternatives to be considered Laveen, Estrella, and South Mountain villages information about these meetings). ➤ during the alternatives development phase of the Ahwatukee Foothills Village ➤ Figure 6-2 illustrates sources of the public scoping EIS process. Figure 3-5 on page 3-7 illustrates the Avondale and Tolleson comments. The following is a summary of the public freeway alternatives suggested. Additional suggested ➤ comments from unknown locations scoping comments received: improvements include: Comment summaries are presented in Table 6-2. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-13
Table 6-2 Public Comment Summary, Phase 3 Public Comment Comments with Laveen, Estrella, and South Mountain Villages Ahwatukee Foothills Village Avondale and Tolleson Question Unknown Origin 1. What do you think of the three alternatives ● Oppose Pecos Road as an alternative: 38 ● Prefer original alignment (and options) being ● Prefer an alignment that connects to I-10a at the SR 101Lb interchange: ● Prefer connection to SR 101L: 29 (near 59th Avenue): 13 ● Do not support Pecos Road: advanced for further 12 ● Support alignment on Pecos Road to serve the regional need, have known ● Prefer SR 101L: 8 8 study? (The number ● Prefer original alignment (near 59th Avenue): 10 it would be a freeway and chose to live here because of the freeway: 24 ● No to any 99th Avenue or ● Prefer SR 101L: 7 indicates number of ● Prefer near 71st Avenue: 6 ● Do not like any of the alternatives: 11 SR 101L connection: 8 similar comments ● Prefer original alignment (near 59th Avenue): 8 ● Prefer near 71st Avenue: 4 received.) ● Consider alternatives on Community c land farther south of Pecos Road (e.g., Beltline, Maricopa, Ocotillo, and Queen Creek roads or 5 miles south): 45 ● Do not build the freeway: 18 ● Tunnel under the South Mountains to extend light rail to the park-and- ● Move farther west ride lot: 2 2. Are there other ● Consider Riggs Road ● Move south and/or west of the Sierra Estrella: 4 ● Farther west: 5 ● Continue to work with the alternatives ● Tunnel at Central Avenue ● Connect to I-10 (Papago Freeway) 3–5 miles west of SR 101L: 3 ● Anywhere but Tolleson: 4 Community and build on its that should be ● Four-lane road like Grand Avenue ● Use Baseline Road and US 60d: 2 ● Build SR 303Lf fi r s t : 3 land: 7 considered? ● Need monorail or light rail instead of freeway ● Use Ray Road: 1 ● Extend Pecos Road as a two-lane highway: 1 ● Stack freeway: 1 ● End freeway at 40th Street: 1 ● Build an I-10 connection at both 51st Avenue and SR 101L: 1 ● Avoid SMPPe: 1 ● ADOTg needs to work harder on obtaining Community alternatives and 6 be more forthcoming with information: 11 ● Freeway will be detrimental ● 61st Avenue would split Laveen Village: 4 ● Don’t destroy Ahwatukee Foothills Village (schools, air pollution, crime) to Tolleson and its families ● Make decision now and begin construction: 4 with a freeway: 17 ● Too much studying—build it 3. Additional comments and economic future: 5 ● Live in Laveen Village and Tempe—freeway would save 10 minutes travel ● Information was one-sided and did not provide anything new: 7 now: 3 ● Sound walls are needed: 2 time; many of us live on west side and work on east side: 2 ● Good information; have more meetings to keep us informed: 5 ● Build it now: 2 ● Need more data on the need for the freeway and bypass traffi c: 4 ● Too many studies and not enough building—stop and build: 3
● Who (and how) makes the decision and when is the public notifi ed? 5 ● Why not study alternatives on Community land (e.g., Maricopa)? 3 ● What is being done to consider future development, acquire right-of- ● Who made the 1988 decision and who will decide today? 2 way, and protect potential corridors? 4 ● How much pass-through and truck traffi c will use the freeway? 2 ● When and where (which end) would construction begin? 3 ● Where will the interchanges be located? 2 Summary of questions ● Why is the freeway needed? How many vehicles and trucks will use the ● How many times has the project team met with Tolleson from presentations to freeway? Are the numbers adjusted for population growth? 3 representatives? neighborhood groups ● What is the status of the Community involvement and alignments? If it ● How much traffi c will be removed from I-10? and public meetings says “no,” what happens? 3 ● Can ADOT buy right-of-way now? ● What will be the elevation of the freeway and where will the ● Can the freeway be built in the Agua Fria riverbed? interchanges be? 3 ● How would an SR 101L connection work? ● What is the impact to SMPP? How many acres will be affected? 2 ● How much right-of-way on 99th Avenue would be needed? a Interstate 10 b State Route 101L (Loop 101) c Gila River Indian Community d U.S. Route 60 (Superstition Freeway) e Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve f State Route 303L (Loop 303) g Arizona Department of Transportation 6-14 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Figure 6-3 Public Involvement, Phase 3 Neighborhood Meetings, and Ahwatukee Foothills Village. During the During the ADOT-sponsored Phase 4 public meetings, meetings, people were able to review maps with presentations were made. As part of the presentations, Phase 3 – Alternatives Number of respondents aerial photography of the proposed alignments, the public made comments or asked questions. Questions • City of Phoenix Ahwatukee Foothills speak one-on-one to ADOT Right-of-Way Group were answered and, along with the comments, recorded. Village Planning Committee 100 representatives and engineering and environmental Table 6-4 displays summarized concerns based on • City of Phoenix Estrella Village Planning staff, and attend a presentation and question-and- written comments received, separated by Study Area Committee answer session. Participants could submit comments ZIP Codes, as well as comments from residents of • City of Phoenix Laveen Village Planning on written forms or online (during or after the surrounding jurisdictions. Committee meetings) or through a court reporter. For those • City of Phoenix South Mountain Village Figure 6-4 illustrates public and neighborhood meeting 50 who wanted to share their comments with other Planning Committee attendance and number of responses. Comments • attendees, a “sticky wall” was also provided— South Mountain Preservation Council received were separated geographically to facilitate residents put their comments on index cards and better understanding of the specific issues of each literally stuck them to a wall. ➤ neighborhood. The geographic areas are: Neighborhood Meetings, 0 ADOT hosted two public meetings, on March 7 ➤ Phase 4 – Impact Analyses comment mail/e-mail and 8, 2006, to obtain public input on the system Avondale, Buckeye, and Goodyear form ➤ traffic interchange configurations on I-10 (Papago Tol leson • Response format Ahwatukee Foothills Chamber of Freeway). The focus of these meetings was to inform ➤ Estrella Village Commerce – Policy Committee local residents and business owners of potential ➤ • Ahwatukee Foothills Homeowners Approximately 200 comments were received regarding South Mountain Village Association, Annual Meeting the alternatives to be studied in detail in the Draft changes to freeway access. As part of the meeting, • Environmental Impact Statement. attendees were able to review maps with aerial Ahwatukee Lions Club Figure 6-4 Public Involvement, Phase 4 • photography of the areas of the proposed options, as Foothills Club West Community Phase 4 – Impact Analyses Association well as speak with ADOT and FHWA representatives Number 6 • and engineering and environmental staff. of attendees/ Certifi ed Commercial Investment Member During the impact analyses phase, 2005–2011, respondents • ➤ Chandler West Rotary comments were received from forms submitted at public Presentations were made and public input requested • 3,000 City of Chandler Transportation meetings (Tables 6-3 to 6-6, beginning on page 6-16), at nine homeowners’ association and neighborhood Commission group meetings. • Web site survey responses, court reporter statements, City of Phoenix Ahwatukee Foothills and comments/letters received by mail, e-mail, or on the Village Planning Committee project hotline. The following summary is not intended • City of Phoenix Estrella Village Planning 2,000 Committee to be a quantitative or statistically defensible survey of • City of Phoenix Laveen Village Planning the communities listed. All comments were provided Committee voluntarily. The following summarizes activities • City of Phoenix South Mountain Village undertaken to engage the public during this phase. 1,000 Planning Committee ➤ ADOT made 19 presentations to neighborhood • City of Tolleson, City Council Open House and Meeting organizations, village planning committees, • Kyrene de los Lagos Elementary School homeowners associations, and other interested • groups (see sidebar on this page for a listing of 0 Kyrene School District Governing Board public neighborhood comments • Laveen Deep Pit BBQ meetings attended). meeting meeting received ➤ attendance attendance • Laveen Lions Club Three 8-hour public meetings were held on • November 15, 16, and 17, 2005, to obtain public Laveen Planning and Laveen Citizens Almost 3,000 people registered their attendance at the public for Responsible Development input on the alternatives for the proposed freeway, • meetings held in November 2005. The 2,000-plus attendees Trailside residents including the No-Action Alternative. The at the Ahwatukee Foothills Village meeting represented the • United Dairymen Association meetings were held in Avondale, Laveen Village, Public meeting, November 2005 largest-ever ADOT-hosted public meeting. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-15
➤ Laveen Village Table 6-5 summarizes the comments received during the boards related to historic properties in the area, the ➤ Ahwatukee Foothills Village comment period associated with the W59 Alternative City’s General Plan, and zoning designations. Roll plots ➤ public information meeting. identifying the proposed R/W necessary for the 63rd and Northwest Valley 61st Avenue Options and associated improvements were ➤ Southeast Valley On February 22, 2011, ADOT, FHWA, and MAG, available for the public to view. Public comments were ➤ in conjunction with the City of Phoenix, held a public Northeast Valley collected verbally by a court reporter and were submitted information meeting at the Betty H. Fairfax High through comment forms, e-mails, and the project hotline. ADOT hosted a public information meeting on School cafeteria (in Laveen Village) to present the February 10, 2010, to discuss the shift from the W55 to W59 Alternative and two proposed options for its Table 6-6 summarizes the comments received during the the W59 Alternative. The meeting was held at Sunridge alignment between Baseline and Elliot roads: one comment period associated with the W59 Alternative Elementary School, in Estrella Village. The purpose along 63rd Avenue and another along 61st Avenue. Options public information meeting. Only one question of this meeting was to inform area residents about the The meeting included a formal presentation by about historic properties was received, namely why, if the changes that had been approved as part of the revised ADOT regarding this alternative and the options and property owner had not expressed interest in registering RTP. A presentation was given at the meeting, followed a presentation by the City of Phoenix regarding City his or her property, were ADOT and FHWA going out by a question-and-answer session, where attendees planning efforts conducted for Laveen Village and of their way with the two options? The response was were able to present their questions and concerns to potentially affected historic properties in the area. that evaluation of historic properties is required by law. a representative from ADOT. An open house forum There were 22 other comments that focused on issues The public meeting was attended by 209 people. concluded the meeting, where representatives from the such as property acquisition, status of communication Following the presentations, a question-and-answer project team were present to answer additional questions with the Community, access to local streets, construction session was held with representatives from ADOT and from the public. Roll plots identifying the proposed phasing, ability to add future lanes, noise impacts, and the City of Phoenix. An open house forum concluded R/W necessary for the W59 Alternative and associated costs. Overall, meeting attendees expressed little interest the meeting, where representatives from the project improvements were available for the public to view. in historic properties in the area. A number of presentation boards were also displayed team answered additional questions from the public. 6 to provide the attendees with information related to A number of presentation boards were displayed to relocation, noise barriers, study process and schedule, provide attendees with information related to the RTP, alternative alignments, and freeway concepts. Public alignment options, study process and schedule, and comments were also collected verbally by a court reporter freeway concepts. The City of Phoenix also displayed and submitted through comment forms, e-mails, and the project hotline. 6-16 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Table 6-3 Questions and Comments Received during November 2005 Public Meeting Presentations, Phase 4 Southwest Valley Laveen, Estrella, and South Mountain Villages Ahwatukee Foothills Village General Responses
Meeting date Public meeting held on November 15, 2005, at the Public meeting held on November 16, 2005, at the Public meeting held on November 17, 2005, at ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental and location Estrella Vista Reception Center in Avondale. The Corona Ranch in Laveen Village. The meeting was the Grace Inn in Ahwatukee Foothills Village. The Consequences, and Mitigation, presents impacts on meeting was attended by 163 people. attended by 464 people. meeting was attended by 2,103 people. businesses, air quality, noise levels, public services, and future land use as well as implications — including residential displacements—of defi ciencies in disclosure of locational information regarding the proposed freeway to potential property buyers. ● Communication efforts with the Communitya can ● Freeway is primarily a truck bypass be found in Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community ● Build on Community land Coordination. ● Right-of-way costs, determination of fair market ● Consideration of alternatives on Community ● Why has it taken so long and will there be enough value, and relocation process land can be found in Chapter 2, Gila River Indian money this time ● Developers constructing new homes in corridor Community Coordination, and Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Interchange locations and design and effect on ● Ongoing development—lack of disclosure and ● Transport of hazardous materials ● Elements of the proposed action pertinent to right- local access uncertainty of future ● Why build in Ahwatukee Foothills Village if the of-way acquisition, construction schedule, freeway ● Purpose and need for the freeway ● Property value impacts people here don’t want it and wouldn’t use it location and design (e.g., interchange design), and ● Concern regarding a truck bypass ● SMPPc impacts ● Impact on local streets during and after other planned freeway projects are presented in ● Noise barriers and rubberized asphalt ● How decision will be made and when construction Chapter 3, Alternatives. Concerns ● Alternatives farther west of SR 101Lb ● Purpose of the freeway ● Impact of no-build ● The relation of the proposed action to the local addressed at ● Continued residential construction in potential ● Truck traffi c and bypass ● Decision-making process and construction street network is described in Chapter 1, Purpose meeting right-of-way without disclosure to potential buyers ● Number of relocations and acquisition process schedules and Need, and in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Decision-making process and how the public will ● Consideration of other options ● Noise and air pollution ● The purpose and need for the proposed action are be involved ● Noise mitigation ● Interchange locations presented in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. ● Status of communications with the Community ● SR 30d location and connection to the South ● Purpose and need for freeway ● The No-Action Alternative and its impacts are ● Home displacements and effect of freeway on Mountain Freeway ● Depressing freeway in Ahwatukee Foothills Village discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. 6 property values ● Construction schedule and impacts ● Design changes since 1985–1988 proposal ● Impacts on SMPP are presented in Chapter 5, ● What happens if not built ● Increase in crime Section 4(f) Evaluation. ● Impact on local schools ● Type of development adjacent to freeway ● Impact on property values
a Gila River Indian Community b State Route 101L (Loop 101) c Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve d State Route 30 (proposed) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-17
Table 6-4 Summary of Public Comments, Phase 4 Public Comment/ Avondale, Buckeye, and Goodyear Tolleson Area (85353) General Responses Question
ZIP Code ZIP Code 85353 includes Tolleson and several new residential developments 85353 Twenty-three comments were received from residents south of Tolleson within the city of Phoenix. During Phase 4, 149 comments in the Avondale, Buckeye, and Goodyear area were received from residents within this ZIP Code. ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, 1. Reasons for ● Need traffi c congestion ● Alternate route ● Growth warrants such a freeway ● No other alternative to ease traffi c presents impacts on businesses, air quality, supporting relief around downtown ● Traffi c has increased—east–west travel is nearly ● Needed for regional traffi c noise levels, public services, and future construction ● Reduce congestion ● Access for East impossible ● Eliminate congestion of traffi c through downtown land use as well as implications —including ● Already voted for it and West Valley ● Alleviate I-10 congestion ● Years behind in building future roads residential displacements—of defi ciencies ● I-10 c traffi c too heavy commuters ● Need to complete outer loop in disclosure of locational information ● Need to relieve west side ● Most large cities have regarding the proposed freeway to potential surface streets ring roads property buyers. ● Need more freeways ● Consideration of alternatives on a 2. Reasons for ● Can’t live near freeway ● Facility relocation ● Home in jeopardy; displaces my family ● Property values will drop Community land can be found in opposing ● Proposals are incomplete ● Air and noise pollution Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community construction ● Will not alleviate enough I-10 traffi c to offset cost ● Farther west will better serve the communities Coordination, and Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● ● Millions of dollars in economic development will be ● Impact on schools Elements of the proposed action pertinent lost ● Destroying a lifestyle and major businesses to right-of-way acquisition, construction ● East–west highway paralleling I-10 is a greater need ● Affects my place of work schedule, cost, freeway location and design ● Need mass transit, not more freeways ● Tolleson too small for a freeway (e.g., interchange design), and other planned freeway projects are presented in Chapter 3, 3. Most important ● Reduced congestion ● Cost ● Impacts on community ● Reduced congestion Alternatives. ● ● issues to Impacts on community Environmental impacts ● Consideration of other alternatives, such as 6 consider light rail or the use of Broadway Road as the In addition to supporting the construction of Responders from the 85353 ZIP Code preferred the W55 Alternative or any alternative not in Tolleson. freeway alignment, was made as part of the the freeway, residents in Avondale, Buckeye, and environmental impact statement process. Goodyear supported the W101 Alternative and Conclusions relative to such alternatives are Options. presented in Chapter 3, Alternatives. 4. Other ● Just widen existing ● Build SR 303Ld before ● Need more information on method of compensation ● People of Farmington Fields will be put into poverty ● The No-Action Alternative and its impacts comments roads. too many more for homes and businesses. with the addition of this freeway. are discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. ● Minimum number of houses are built. ● Why were we never informed of this possibility by our ● Freeways are often not the best solutions to traffi c ● Impacts on SMPPb are presented in lanes should be six to ● Neglected West builders? problems. Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation. eight at build-out. for too many ● Spend more money on light rail. ● Make Broadway Road a highway connecting ● Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, addresses the ● Hurry, make a decision years; accelerate ● Don’t need this freeway; improve existing freeways. to US 60.e intent of the proposed action to relieve and get to building. construction. ● Would mar the beauty of the South Mountains. ● Widen I-10 before starting another bad freeway. freeway and surface street congestion, serve ● Consider what alternative schools have with less land ● Spend money on trolley or subway. regional travel needs based on projected to work with in Tolleson. ● Delay of constructing freeway has caused congestion growth in the region, and optimize the ● Tolleson is too small to have another highway cut that is horrendous. regional freeway system operation. through the town. ● Why not build a freeway above existing freeways? ● Give it to Phoenix; it wants it. ● It’s needed, let’s hurry and build. ● Major impact on Tolleson’s wastewater treatment ● Why build new houses and then demolish them? plant. ● I support the construction but not in our backyard. ● Think about the toll on families. a Gila River Indian Community b Phoenix South Mountain Park/Preserve c Interstate 10 d State Route 303 (Loop 303) e U.S. Route 60 (Superstition Freeway) (continued on next page) 6-18 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Table 6-4 Summary of Public Comments, Phase 4 (continued) Public Comment/ Estrella Village (85043) South Mountain Village (85040/85041/85042) General Responses Question
ZIP Codes 85040, 85041, and 85042 are ● Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, addresses the ZIP Code 85043 includes the city of Phoenix’s ZIP Code outside of the Study Area, but represent the ZIP Codes 85043 85040 intent of the proposed action to relieve Estrella Village. Thirty-nine comments were opinions of residents in the city of Phoenix’s 85041 received from this ZIP Code. South Mountain Village. Thirty-three comments 85042 freeway and surface street congestion, were received from this area. improve projected travel times, serve regional travel needs based on projected growth in the region, and optimize the 1. Reasons for ● Area needs traffi c congestion relief on ● Relieve congestion on I-10 ● Without the freeway, we will be at ● Graceful way to get to East Valley, regional freeway system operation. supporting surface streets and I-10 ● Another way to move around the gridlock where wife and I work ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, construction ● Population is increasing; need to Phoenix area ● Reduce congestion ● Relieve pressure on secondary roads Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, reduce congestion ● Needed long before this ● Ease of transportation around Phoenix ● Relieve I-10 presents impacts on businesses, air ● Easier access south of the South ● More complete highway system area ● Reduce congestion on I-10 out of quality, noise levels, public services, and Mountains ● Reduce bottleneck from west through ● Rapid growth; additional freeways Ahwatukee Foothills Village future land use as well as implications — ● Traffi c will get better and result in downtown Phoenix needed ● Relieve congestion through central including residential displacements—of shorter commute times ● Back way into and out of Ahwatukee ● For a city to grow, it must have Phoenix defi ciencies in disclosure of locational ● Traffi c congestion is getting worse on a Foothills Village highways ● Add transportation corridor for information regarding the proposed daily basis ● Decrease travel time ● Need to get to work Southwest Valley freeway to potential property buyers. ● Good for urban modernization ● West side needs better freeways ● Elements of the proposed action pertinent ● Relieve heavy truck traffi c on to right-of-way acquisition, construction 51st Avenue schedule, cost, freeway location and 2. Reasons for ● No real traffi c need ● By the time it is completed, it will be ● We don’t want it, so forget it ● Population growth will require new design (e.g., interchange design), and other opposing ● Can’t afford to sell obsolete ● Home would be torn down transportation infrastructure planned freeway projects are presented in construction Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Consideration of alternatives on 6 3. Most important ● Impacts on neighborhood ● Environmental impacts ● Reduce congestion ● Environmental impact Community land can be found in issues to ● Reduced congestion ● Impacts on neighborhood consider Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Although residents in this area support construction of the freeway, they are divided Almost half of the South Mountain Village residents preferred construction of the Coordination, and Chapter 3, Alternatives. on what is the appropriate location, with almost equal numbers preferring the W55 Alternative and about one-third preferred the W101 Alternative and Options. ● Consideration of other alternatives, such W55 Alternative and the W101 Alternative and Options. as light rail or the use of Broadway Road 4. Other ● Should be one (alternative) that ● Make decision on the best and real ● Delay fi nal decision until an option on ● Great job informing the public. as the freeway alignment, was made comments has least negative effect on current traffi c benefi t, not some compromise. the Community can be included. ● Time to quit waiting on the Community as part of the environmental impact residents’ lives. ● Businesses can be relocated a lot easier ● Southwest Phoenix is only area without and accept burden ourselves. statement process. Conclusions relative ● Felt we were kept in the dark until it is than 1,300 homes. freeway; it’s our turn. ● Going to be necessary even if I don’t to such alternatives are presented in too late. ● W71 Alternative is a bad idea. ● Can’t wait; start now. like it. Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● ● Rush it through; we need it. ● Even the No-Action Alternative will ● Devaluation of property if purchased. ● Analyze placement very carefully so as The No-Action Alternative and its impacts ● Stay off I-10. affect a large number of people. ● Shouldn’t take 2 years to make not to add further congestion to I-10. are discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. ● ● Widen I-10. ● Build with carpool lanes from decision. Impacts on SMPP are presented in ● Rather go through my house than next beginning. Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation. to it; don’t mind being bought out. (continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-19
Table 6-4 Summary of Public Comments, Phase 4 (continued) Public Comment/ Laveen Village (85339) Ahwatukee Foothills Village (85044) General Responses Question
ZIP Code 85339 includes not only Laveen Village ZIP Code 85044 is generally outside of the
in the city of Phoenix, but also portions of the Study Area and includes the Ahwatukee Foothills ZIP Code ZIP Code 85044 Community. Responses were received from 85339 Village residents living adjacent to I-10. Responses ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, 149 people within this ZIP Code. were received from 139 residents from this area. Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, presents impacts on businesses, air 1. Reasons for ● Alleviate traffi c and congestion due to ● Continued economic expansion of ● Pinal County growth will congest I-10 ● Been the plan for 20 years quality, noise levels, public services, and supporting growth Phoenix area ● Need to relieve Broadway Curve ● Will ease Ahwatukee Foothills Village future land use as well as implications — construction ● Need freeway through this area and ● Completion of SR 202Le ● Good for the region traffi c congestion including residential displacements—of outside ● Voters approved ● Less congestion on I-10 ● Bypass for trucks during rush hour defi ciencies in disclosure of locational ● More freeways to relieve congestion on ● Will help my daily driving and home ● Build, no matter the residential impact ● Most logical and cost-effi cient information regarding the proposed local streets values ● Need more freeways; need to fi nish alternative freeway to potential property buyers. ● Continue to develop Laveen Village ● Southwest Valley needs transportation SR 202L ● Traffi c will get worse with growth ● Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, addresses the ● Either build it now or later; we will alternatives ● Moved here because of freeway ● Need western route for safety of intent of the proposed action to relieve need it ● Traffi c situation has become hazardous ● Without this freeway we will have Ahwatukee Foothills Village freeway and surface street congestion, ● Bypass for interstate traffi c on Baseline Road gridlock ● Stalled traffi c causes more air pollution improve projected travel times, serve 2. Reasons for ● Citizens misplaced ● Creation of a general pollution source ● Noise ● Not needed; no purpose regional travel needs (including those opposing ● Moved to get away from city ● Would not use it ● Pollution ● Have enough freeways; need more outside Maricopa County) based on construction ● Disruption of neighborhood, ● Adjacent to home ● OK with traffi c jams open space projected growth in the region, and destruction of the mountains ● No mitigation for bypass ● Pecos Road OK as is ● Destroy cycling route optimize the regional freeway system ● Why pay for poor planning ● Taking all the farmland away ● Doesn’t help daily traffi c ● No road through the South Mountains operation. ● ● Will have blighted neighborhood ● Displaced homes Elements of the proposed action ● Foothills Village crime ● Cost pertinent to right-of-way acquisition, 6 ● Property value loss ● Truck traffi c construction schedule, cost, freeway ● Negative impact on Ahwatukee ● Additional traffi c on local streets location, design, access, and other Foothills Village ● Need mass transit instead of freeways planned freeway projects are presented in Chapter 3, Alternatives. The chapter ● Reduce congestion ● Environmental impacts ● Impacts on community ● Environmental impacts 3. Most important includes discussion regarding the status ● Impacts on community ● Reduced congestion issues to of the preferred alternative in relation to consider During the Laveen Barbeque, staff conducted an informal poll of 100 people Of those respondents who indicated a preference, almost half (47 percent) preferred alignments in the Western and Eastern who stopped to discuss the freeway project. Of those who expressed an opinion, an alignment on Community land. Another 40 percent indicated preferences for the Sections. 48 percent preferred the W101 Alternative and Options and 29 percent supported E1, W101, and W55 Alternatives. ● Traffi c vehicle mix that would use the W55 Alternative. However, of the 149 people who submitted comment forms the proposed action includes trucks. and sent e-mails, preference for the W55 Alternative was slightly more (4 percent) Discussion in Chapter 3, Alternatives, than those who preferred the W101 Alternative and Options. presents truck traffi c-related issues. ● Consideration of alternatives on ● ● ● ● 4. Other This whole thing stinks. Choose the least destructive route. Like the I-10 (Maricopa Freeway) Consider air conditioned underground Community land can be found in comments ● Wasting State money. ● Hypocritical of City of Phoenix to project. rail. Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community ● ● ● Please do not build. argue 20-year plan alignment is not No access ramps to the Community if Get started; another 5 years of study Coordination, and Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● built on Pecos Road. will create more problems. Laveen Village is one of the few pristine appropriate for Ahwatukee Foothills ● Consideration of other alternatives, such ● ● communities left. Village but we must adopt same plan If it goes through, I will move. Good plan in place, let’s get going. as light rail or the use of Broadway Road ● ● ● Sad to see all our farmland taken away. on west side because that has always People in Ahwatukee Foothills Village I feel intimidated to say much positive as the freeway alignment, was made ● Please consider depressed freeway as been the plan. will not let you do this. because most of people attending as part of the environmental impact ● ● much as possible. I admire the fact your team would A decision has to be negotiated meeting are opposed. statement process. Conclusions relative ● Let’s get it done. invest so much time and effort into now—don’t leave us in limbo. to such alternatives are presented in ● Businesses and homeowners need fi nal grasping public opinion. Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● route as quickly as possible. Not building freeway is not a viable ● The No-Action Alternative and its impacts ● Please listen to us. option. are discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. ● We knew freeway would go through ● No exit at 51st Avenue. home when we bought it. ● Please don’t allow people in Ahwatukee ● Air and noise quality is defi nitely a big Foothills Village to dictate what others concern. want. e State Route 202L (Loop 202) (continued on next page) 6-20 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Table 6-4 Summary of Public Comments, Phase 4 (continued) Public Comment/ Ahwatukee Foothills Village (85045) Ahwatukee Foothills Village (85048) General Responses Question
ZIP Code 85045 includes the western portion of The southeastern section of Ahwatukee Ahwatukee Foothills Village, where most of the Foothills Village is located in ZIP Code current residential construction is occurring. ZIP Code ZIP Code 85048; 973 comments were received from 85048 Responses were received from 543 people in this 85045 this ZIP Code. ZIP Code. ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, presents 1. Reasons for ● Relieve traffi c and congestion ● Need an alternative to I-10 ● Relieve traffi c and congestion ● Population will continue to grow impacts on businesses, air quality, noise supporting ● Need it to be on Community land ● Need a means to travel to the West ● Route is needed regionally ● Bought home based on planned levels, public services, and future land use construction ● Route is needed Valley ● Should be on Community land freeway as well as implications —including residential ● Anticipated growth (traffi c and ● Need another route out of Ahwatukee displacements—of defi ciencies in disclosure of population) Foothills Village locational information regarding the proposed freeway to potential property buyers. 2. Reasons for ● Impacts on SMPP ● Few residents would use it, just cross- ● Disruption to neighborhood and ● Pecos Road alignment would be ● Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, addresses the opposing ● Residential displacement country truck traffi c quality of life too close to churches, schools, and intent of the proposed action to relieve construction ● Freeway noise and pollution ● Ruin mountain views ● Residential displacement neighborhoods freeway and surface street congestion, improve ● Crime ● Impacts on SMPP ● Plan for Pecos Road outdated, was projected travel times, serve regional travel ● Freeway noise approved when only a few thousand needs (including those outside Maricopa ● Air pollution residents in Ahwatukee Foothills County) based on projected growth in the ● Crime Village region, and optimize the regional freeway ● Will increase traffi c ● Jeopardize rare vegetation and wildlife system operation. 3. Most important ● Impacts on neighborhood ● Other ● Impacts on neighborhood ● Other ● Elements of the proposed action pertinent to issues to ● Environmental impacts ● Environmental impacts right-of-way acquisition, construction schedule, consider cost, freeway location, design, access, and 6 Of those who expressed a preference for a specifi c alternative, 71 percent included Of those who expressed a preference for a specifi c alternative, 69 percent included other planned freeway projects are presented a preference for an alignment on Community land, 15 percent suggested the a preference for an alignment on Community land and 12 percent suggested the in Chapter 3, Alternatives. The chapter includes No-Action Alternative, and 7 percent specifi cally stated “no alignment on Pecos No-Action Alternative. In addition, 3 percent specifi cally stated “no alignment discussion regarding the status of the preferred Road.” Some comments included multiple preferences. on Pecos Road,” while 2 percent preferred an alignment on Pecos Road. Some alternative in relation to alignments in the comments included multiple preferences. Western and Eastern Sections. 4. Other ● Don’t build the freeway and ruin a ● It is a 20-year-old plan that doesn’t ● Either build on Community or don’t ● Move the process faster. ● Traffi c vehicle mix that would use the proposed comments wonderful community! work today. build it at all. ● Unfortunately, I think the South action includes trucks. Discussion in Chapter 3, ● Building permits were issued as ● Why not propose a toll road to the ● This freeway needs to be built below Mountain Freeway is a necessity to Alternatives, presents truck traffi c-related issues. little as a year ago for houses to be Community? ground level. handle future traffi c patterns. ● Consideration of alternatives on Community demolished according to proposed ● Keep negotiating with the Community ● Negotiate such that it is a win-win ● I’ve lived here for 18 years and land can be found in Chapter 2, Gila River routes. on using its unused land. situation for both the Community and anticipated it being built! Indian Community Coordination, and Chapter 3, ● If it can’t be built on Community land ● Seems like the Community would want our neighborhood. ● There are lots of silent people who Alternatives. or farther south, don’t build it! traffi c to run by its gambling facilities. ● The plan is out-of-date and does not would like to have the freeway built. ● Consideration of other alternatives, such as ● Who is this freeway for anyway? It ● If the Community does not allow refl ect the current situation. Right now probably you only hear light rail or the use of Broadway Road as the certainly does not serve the people of placing the roadway on its property, ● Don’t destroy Ahwatukee Foothills voices from those who are against the freeway alignment, was made as part of the Ahwatukee Foothills Village. then obviously there will be no exits Village and SMPP just to enable more plan. environmental impact statement process. ● If it needs to be built, please at least built leading to its property. urban sprawl! ● Please do not pressure the Conclusions relative to such alternatives are put it below ground. ● Why not develop a true Phoenix ● What about Riggs or Maricopa roads? Community. It deserves its land. Let it presented in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● It would be better to have NO freeway bypass—Gila Bend–Buckeye? ● Property values will decline; crime will decide without pressure. ● The No-Action Alternative and its impacts are at all than to devalue our community. ● Build it! increase. ● A ground-level highway with walls discussed in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. ● Give the Community what it wants . . . ● Why did you let builders build on land would ruin the views of the Sierra ● Impacts on SMPP are presented in Chapter 5, more $$$! you knew about in 1988? Estrella for many residents. Section 4(f) Evaluation. ● I’m concerned about a drop in value ● I don’t believe there is a large benefi t of my home based on outcome of to the neighborhood that will be study. disrupted. This is primarily a bypass route for truckers.
(continued on next page) South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-21
Table 6-4 Summary of Public Comments, Phase 4 (continued) Public Comment/ Northwest Valley Southeast Valley Northeast Valley General Responses Question The Northwest Valley includes communities Twenty-one comments were received from the such as Glendale, Peoria, and North Phoenix. The Southeast Valley—consisting of Tempe, Chandler, and Gilbert— Northeast Valley, which includes the communities of Twenty-four comments were received from this generated 37 comments. Scottsdale and northeast Phoenix. area. ● 1. Reasons for ● Needed; downtown ● Need alternative ● Need access from Southeast to ● Important link for ● Regional mobility ● Reduce traffi c Chapter 4, Affected Environment, supporting traffi c congestion to I-10 to get to West Valley Chandler/ Gilbert/ Ahwatukee ● Growth; need in West congestion Environmental Consequences, and construction has to be relieved East and Southeast ● Ease future growth and Foothills Village to get to West Valley ● Citizens need and Mitigation, presents impacts on ● Live on west side valleys congestion Valley events ● Traffi c better today deserve best possible businesses, air quality, noise levels, and travel to ● Meet needs of ● Necessary to overall freeway ● We must move forward and than 30–40 years ago freeway system public services, and future land use Southeast Valley growing Phoenix system build it without freeways ● South Valley is as well as implications —including weekly area ● I-10 can’t carry the SR 202L ● Help truck traffi c avoid ● Complete necessary booming; we need it residential displacements—of ● Obvious link traffi c if not built downtown part of transportation ● I’m paying for it defi ciencies in disclosure of locational between East ● Greater good for the 3.7 million ● Solution to future traffi c plan ● Regionwide traffi c information regarding the proposed and West valleys; residents vs. 250 homes problem ● Need to remain ahead improvement freeway to potential property buyers. ● without regional displaced ● Need more freeways to of growth Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, addresses freeway, the existing ● Existing freeways will be parking accommodate growth the intent of the proposed action system in between lots without this freeway ● Would reduce commute and to relieve freeway and surface street would be overtaxed ● Part of complete RTPf save time/gas congestion, improve projected travel times, serve regional travel needs 2. Reasons for ● Not going to help ● Will turn I-10 ● Displace too many homes and ● Unacceptable alignment ● Hate freeways ● Too many homes (including those outside Maricopa opposing ● Affects friend’s into a mess businesses ● Disrupt Ahwatukee Foothills ● Won’t help displaced County) based on projected growth in construction house ● Too costly ● Damage environment Village Interstate 17 and the region, and optimize the regional ● Potential for commercial ● Work on roads we already have Deck Park Tunnel (I-10) freeway system operations. development south of and on light rail extension ● Elements of the proposed action 6 Ahwatukee Foothills Village pertinent to right-of-way acquisition, ● Pollution and noise construction schedule, cost, freeway 3. Most important ● Impacts on ● Cost ● Reduced congestion ● Environmental impacts ● Reduced congestion ● Impacts on location, design, access, and other issues to neighborhood ● Impacts on neighborhood neighborhood planned freeway projects are presented consider ● Reduced congestion in Chapter 3, Alternatives. The chapter includes discussion regarding the status For those who indicated a preference, Area residents were somewhat split in their alignment preferences, Almost half (49 percent) of the respondents favored of the preferred alternative in relation 42 percent preferred the W101 Alternative and with 40 percent preferring the W101 Alternative and Options and the W101 Alternative and Options and about one to alignments in the Western and Options and about 30 percent preferred the 32 percent wanting an alignment on Community land. third (33 percent) preferred the W55 Alternative. Eastern Sections. W55 Alternative. ● Traffi c vehicle mix that would use 4. Other ● The W71 Alternative ● It takes 2 hours, ● No access from the Community ● Excellent presentation; ● Resolve the west side ● Please build it. the proposed action includes trucks. comments is a total surprise sometimes, to go if not allowed to build on its impressed with layout and sooner for our peace ● With other pressing Discussion in Chapter 3, Alternatives, and should be from West Valley to land. number of people able to of mind. transportation presents truck traffi c-related issues. abandoned. East Valley. ● Don’t need to tie west Phoenix answer questions ( Laveen ● Regardless of needs in Phoenix ● The No-Action Alternative and its with Gilbert. Village) alignment, build it metropolitan area, use impacts are discussed in Chapters 1, 3, ● Please build. ● Put HOVg lanes in from the soon. money in most effi cient 4, and 5. ● Don’t let small number of start. ● Post signs to identify manner. people say it is not necessary, ● Reservation is made up of potential alternatives. because it is. people just like other side of ● Buy house now. street: we don’t want it either. f Regional Transportation Plan g high-occupancy vehicle 6-22 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Table 6-5 Additional Phase 4 Comments Received during and after the February 2010 Public Meeting Table 6-6 Additional Phase 4 Comments Received during and after the February 2011 Public Meeting Concerns General Responses Concerns General Responses ● Ability to add future lanes ● The confi guration of the proposed action is presented in ● Addition of future lanes ● The confi guration of the proposed freeway is presented in Chapter 3, Chapter 3, Alternatives. Alternatives. ● Air quality, traffi c, and noise impacts ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, ● Alignment shift ● Elements of the proposed action pertinent to freeway design can be found in and Mitigation, presents impacts on air quality and noise levels. Chapter 3, Alternatives. Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents traffi c information. ● Alternative alignment preferences ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, provides information about the different alignment ● Alignment shift ● Elements of the proposed action pertinent to freeway design options. can be found in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Alternative costs ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents details regarding the cost of the action ● Alternative design details ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents details regarding the design of alternatives. the action alternatives. ● Business and neighborhood impacts ● Impacts on neighborhoods and businesses are discussed in Chapter 4, ● Neighborhood and business impacts ● Impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, businesses, and property Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, and in and effects on property values values are discussed in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Chapter 3, Alternatives. Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, and in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Construction phasing and schedule ● Information about the construction phasing and schedule can be found in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Concern regarding truck traffi c and a ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents information regarding truck a truck bypass traffi c and the CANAMEX Corridor. ● Coordination with the Community ● Coordination efforts with the Community are presented in Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination. ● Construction phasing and schedule ● Elements of the proposed action pertinent to the construction phasing and schedule can be found in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Current and future zoning and ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, development presents information regarding zoning, land use, and future development. ● Coordination with adjacent projects ● Coordination of the proposed action with other projects is addressed in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental ● Decision-making process ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents information regarding the alternatives Consequences, and Mitigation, and in Chapter 6, Comments and development process. Coordination. ● Drainage ● Drainage impacts are presented in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, 6 ● Coordination with Union Pacifi c Railroad ● Information regarding the railroad is presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation. Alternatives. ● Economic impacts ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, ● Costs related to utilities ● A discussion of costs related to the proposed action and presents information regarding economic impacts. utilities is presented in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Historic properties ● Historic properties are addressed in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, ● Decision-making process ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents information regarding the Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, and Chapter 5, Section 4(f) alternatives analysis and outcome. Evaluation. ● History of the alternatives ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents information regarding the ● History of alternatives ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents information regarding the alternatives alternatives development process. analysis and outcome. ● Impacts on access to local streets ● Impacts on local streets are discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Multimodal options ● Consideration of multimodal alternatives, such as light rail, is discussed in during and after construction Chapter 3, Alternatives. ● Impacts on local schools ● Impacts relating to local schools can be found in Chapter 3, ● Noise and air quality impacts ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, Alternatives, and Chapter 5, Section 4(f) Evaluation. presents impacts on noise levels and air quality. ● Property acquisition and relocation ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, ● Right-of-way acquisition ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, assistance information and Mitigation, presents information regarding residential presents information regarding residential displacements, relocation displacements, relocation assistance, and disclosure of location assistance, and disclosure of location information regarding the proposed information regarding the proposed freeway. freeway. ● Public comments with regard to ● Public comments are addressed in Chapter 6, Comments and ● Schedule of EISb ● Study schedule and timeline are provided in the Summary chapter and in alternatives and fi nal decision Coordination. Chapter 6, Comments and Coordination. ● Specifi c property concerns ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, ● Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ● Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation, and Mitigation, presents information regarding residential and presents information regarding Title VI. business impacts. ● T r a f fi c ● Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents traffi c information. ● Status of communications with the ● Communication efforts with the Community are presented in a b Communitya Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination. Gila River Indian Community environmental impact statement a Gila River Indian Community South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-23
Phase 5 – DEIS the 90-day comment period (the minimum requirement Through these public outreach components, as well as The agency and public outreach program for the DEIS under NEPA is 45 days). Interested agencies received a study hotline and Web site available throughout the phase (April 2013 to July 2013) was developed to letters with compact discs of the DEIS and appendices 90-day comment period, members of the public and maximize opportunities for agencies and the public to and the DEIS was made available online at
Online Public Hearing Outreach to the Gila River Indian Community during the DEIS Public Review Period For those who could not attend the public hearing, an alternative was available through the online public Leading up to the release of the DEIS, the Chapter 2 for more information related to these project team communicated regularly with the organizations). At the meeting, the Community hearing Web site. The Web site went live at 10 a.m. on Community’s Communications and Public Affairs was given the following materials for distribution May 21, 2013, at
➤ June 18, 2013, The Foothills Golf Club, Figure 6-5 Public Involvement, Phase 5 2201 E. Clubhouse Drive, Phoenix, 4–7 p.m. Number of attendees ➤ June 22, 2013, Komatke Boys & Girls Club, 2,000 5047 W. Pecos Road, Gila River Indian Community, 9 a.m.–12 p.m. ➤ June 25, 2013, Windmill Suites, 1,500 3535 W. Chandler Boulevard, Chandler, 11 a.m.–2 p.m. 1,000 ➤ July 9, 2013, Laveen Education Center, 5001 W. Dobbins Road, Laveen, 4–7 p.m. ➤ July 11, 2013, Hilton Garden Inn Phoenix/ Avondale, 500 11460 W. Hilton Way, Avondale, 11 a.m.–2 p.m. 0 These forums provided a more informal opportunity online public Ahwatukee Gila River Laveen Chandler Avondale Estrella to learn about the DEIS. Attendees could watch the public hearing Foothills Indian Village forum forum Village hearing Village Community forum forum study video, view study materials, and talk to project forum forum team members. Court reporters were available to take individual verbal comments with no time limit, and Almost 1,900 people participated in the online public hearing. About 900 attended the public hearing or one of the forums in written comments could also be submitted. person. Summary of Phase 5 Public Involvement
Public involvement during the DEIS 90-day public 6 comment period included participation by 1) attending from the online hearing (see Table 6-8). Figure 6-5 shows Figure 6-6 Comments Submitted, Phase 5 the public hearing or community forums, 2) viewing the number of people participating in the public events and the online public hearing, or 3) reviewing the DEIS online hearing. The project team received 8,201 comments ADOTa e-mail (9%) and submitting a comment. Approximately 900 people from federal, State, local, and tribal agencies; special Web comment (4%) Hotline call (8%) attended one of the public events held during the comment interest groups; businesses; and members of the public (see Form letter and petition period. Almost 1,900 unique visitors viewed information Figure 6-6 for a breakdown of the comments by submittal (number of signatures) (75%) method). When combined, over 10,000 people participated Mailed letter (1%) in the DEIS phase through one or more of the public Court reporter comment (3%) involvement methods available. Comments received on the DEIS were reviewed by the project team and categorized according to the topic addressed ( air quality, alternatives, noise, etc.). Responses to each comment were developed. Appendix 7, Volume III, documents the comments received and the responses provided.
a Arizona Department of Transportation A large majority of comments (75 percent) were submitted Community forum, June 2013 through form letters or petitions. 6-26 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
FUTURE COORDINATION AND PROJECT ACTIONS How has public input influenced the project? ➤ ADOT and FHWA will continue to seek input from ➣ Tolleson West Public Library All or parts of the FEIS are available for the cost of From initial suggestions of topics and the public, agencies, and jurisdictions regarding the 9555 W. Van Buren Street, Tolleson, AZ 85353 printing at the FedEx Office Print & Ship Center, issues for project team focus to alignments proposed action through the EIS process and, if an ➣ Tempe Public Library 4940 E. Ray Road, Phoenix. to consider to measures that could be taken action alternative were to be selected in the record 3500 S. Rural Road, Tempe, AZ 85282 ➤ Notice of document publication will be accomplished to minimize project impacts, the public ➣ has contributed critical and timely insights of decision ( ROD), through the design phase and Gila River Indian Community District 1 Service through: that have served to focus scarce analytical construction. ADOT and FHWA will continue to Center ➣ Publication in the Federal Register resources and to enhance the quality both encourage the Community to recommend alternatives 15747 N. Shegoi Road, Coolidge, AZ 85128 ➣ Direct mail and/or e-mail notice. Notice will of the evaluations and of the proposed to study on Community land for the eastern portion ➣ Gila River Indian Community District 2 Service action: be provided to all participants who provided an of the proposed action. Efforts to date in this regard Center • contributed more than alternatives, address or e-mail during the public involvement including alternatives under study are discussed in the section, Content and Status of 9239 W. Sacaton Flats Road, Sacaton, AZ 85147 process for the project. Direct mail will be used ➣ • assisted in determining interchange Coordination and Activities, on page 2-10 in Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community District 3 Service for key agencies. locations, including shifting the proposed Gila River Indian Community Coordination. Center ➣ Advertisement of FEIS availability in local st Avenue interchange in Laveen 31 N. Church Street, Sacaton, AZ 85147 newspapers of wide distribution. EIS PROCESS ➣ Village and eliminating the proposed Gila River Indian Community District 4 Service ➤ nd Street interchange in Ahwatukee Following its publication, a 60-day public review Foothills Village The public, agencies, and jurisdictions will have the Center period for the FEIS will be provided. • reviewed options along Pecos Road in opportunity to review the FEIS during the review period 1510 W. Santan Street, Sacaton, AZ 85147 ➤ ➣ Comments can be submitted through the following Ahwatukee Foothills Village Gila River Indian Community District 5 Service following circulation of the FEIS and publication of its methods: • proposed measures to minimize impacts Center Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (Phase 6). ➣ E-mailing comments to [email protected] on sensitive resources, including alignment 3456 W. Casa Blanca Road, Bapchule, AZ 85121 ➣ Mail to: shifts near Tolleson High School in Phase 6 - FEIS ➣ Gila River Indian Community District 6 Service 6 Tolleson and SMPP in Laveen Village South Mountain Freeway Project Team Center • provided input on locally important issues, Interested parties are encouraged to review the FEIS. Arizona Department of Transportation including well locations in Ahwatukee 5230 W. St. Johns Road, Laveen, AZ 85339 The FEIS and associated technical reports may be ➣ 1655 W. Jackson Street, MD 126F Foothills Village, major employers, and viewed through the following methods: Gila River Indian Community District 7 Service potentially historic properties throughout Phoenix, AZ 85007 ➤ Center the entire Study Area Electronic placement of the FEIS and technical ➤ On August 29, 2014, ADOT hand-delivered a letter • 8201 W. Baseline Road, Laveen, AZ 85339 recommended alignment changes to avoid reports at:
of the forum, including date, time, location, and taken a final action regarding the decision-making process CONSTRUCTION format. Times and locations of the potential forum for the proposed action. This final action (in the case of During construction, ADOT typically holds will be posted at
CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS AS APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Public comments have been received requesting the stakeholders to preserve and enhance the human and The desired outcomes of CSS application are not new application of the principles of context-sensitive solutions natural environment became a central component to to the transportation industry. They have been applied (CSS) to the EIS process and to the design of the project implementation. Momentum for the application to project planning and development since 1970 after proposed action. Before addressing the request, a brief of CSS principles accelerated as a byproduct of a passage of NEPA. Clear examples of how the application definition of CSS, a historical overview of CSS, and a transportation industry workshop, Thinking Beyond the of the EIS process is directly consistent with the intent brief summary of the concept are provided. Pavement: National Workshop on Integrating Highway of CSS principles can be seen in Title I, Declaration of Development with Communities and the Environment National Environmental Policy, alone: As defined by FHWA (2007), CSS is “a collaborative, while Maintaining Safety and Performance, held in interdisciplinary approach that engages all stakeholders The Congress authorizes and directs that, Maryland in 1998. to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and FHWA and ADOT are committed to the advancement regulations, and public laws of the United environmental resources, while maintaining safety of CSS principles. FHWA’s 2003 Performance Plan States shall be interpreted and administered in and mobility.” The CSS approach considers the total establishes three goals—known as the “Vital Few accordance with the policies set forth in this Act,
context within which a transportation project will exist. Goals”—for the agency. One of these, “Environmental and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government
CSS principles apply to both the process to develop the Stewardship and Streamlining,” includes an objective to shall . . . utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary project and to the design features of the project itself. incorporate CSS into agency planning and development approach which will insure the integrated efforts. Specifically, the objective is: use of the natural and social sciences and the From a historical context, CSS principles gained environmental design arts in planning and in a foothold in the transportation industry after the To improve the environmental quality of decisionmaking which may have an impact on Interstate Highway System was substantially completed. transportation decisionmaking, all 50 States, man’s environment. (Sec. 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]) Around that time, transportation issues shifted from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 6 the federal level (e.g., the interstate movement of goods the Federal Lands Highway . . . Divisions will Table 6-9 provides some comparisons of definitions, and people and national defense) to the state level use . . . objectives, and outcomes of the CSS approach with the ➣ (e.g., congestion management and system preservation Integrated approaches to multimodal planning, EIS process. The similarities are evident. The FEIS of existing facilities). Involvement by community the environmental process and project presents numerous process-related matters and design development at a systems level; and/or outcomes that exceed the intent of CSS. ➣ Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) at a project level. South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination 6-29
Table 6-9 Application of Context-Sensitive Solutions in the EIS Process Corresponding Element of the National Environmental Policy Act Examples within the FEIS/Commentsa Element of Context-Sensitive Solutions and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is defi ned as . . . A collaborative, interdisciplinary NEPA urges . . . all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . utilize a systematic, Text beginning on page 3-1 highlights an example of the interdisciplinary, approach that engages all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and collaborative approach undertaken. Text beginning on page 3-62 presents the fi ts its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking systematic, interdisciplinary approach used in the alternatives screening process. resources, while maintaining safety and mobility.b which may have an impact on man’s environment. [42 U.S.C. § 4332] NEPA provides guidance on determining the signifi cance of a facility’s impact by defi ning the A CSS in which the features of the proposed action are designed so that the facility context in which the impact would occur and by the impact’s intensity. The signifi cance of an “fi ts” into its surroundings in order to preserve those surroundings. action must be analyzed in several contexts and, therefore, an impact will vary with the setting Mitigation under NEPA is applied when the proposed action is determined to have of the proposed action. Intensity refers to the severity of impact (40 C.F.R. Part 1508.27). the potential to adversely affect its surroundings (i.e., affect the environment); by Further, NEPA establishes mitigation of impacts to include: avoiding, reducing, minimizing, or eliminating the impact, the facility “fi ts its physical b ● Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources.” Text throughout Chapters 4 and 5 presents impacts and examples of how the impacts CSS is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation ● Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its would be mitigated. Discussion is provided to place the degree of impact into the improvement project will exist.b implementation. context of the surrounding environment and also to provide clear direction regarding ● Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected stakeholder responsibilities. environment. ● Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. ● Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. [40 C.F.R. Part 1508.20] The EIS process establishes that . . . there shall be an early and open process for Examples of engagement of the public and agencies since the EIS process are determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the signifi cant found throughout the DEIS. Text boxes and sidebars are used throughout to clarify CSS principles include the employment of early, continuous, and meaningful issues related to a proposed action. The process shall be termed scoping. . . . main text based specifi cally on comments received by the public. Entire chapters involvement of the public and all stakeholders throughout the project development [40 C.F.R. Part 1501.7] (2 and 6) are dedicated to the tailored public involvement process and the results of b process. (Further, NEPA provisions encourage the constructive facilitation of public involvement in that process to date. Text beginning on pages 3-7, 3-13, 3-69, 4-108, 4-123, 4-137, 6 decisions that affect the quality of the human environment.) (40 C.F.R. Part 1506.6) and 6-26 are examples of how the public affected alternative design or affected impact analyses. Examples of how the public would remain involved in the project At the project level, CSS application . . . integrate[s] environmental and community Scoping is the engagement of agencies, organizations, and the public to identify and fl esh out development process are provided on pages 4-100, 4-108, 4-171, and 6-26. values into transportation decisions at an early point in planning, and continue[s] issues, preferences,and concerns regarding project alternatives, potential impacts, recommended through project design.b mitigation, and future actions. The process starts early in the EIS process and continues to the ROD. Because each project is unique, how scoping occurs and how subsequent public involvement occurs should be tailored to the needs of the EIS process. NEPA promotes . . . integrating the NEPA process into early planning to insure appropriate Examples of how the proposed action relates to earlier planning efforts or is An FHWA objective is . . . To improve the environmental quality of transportation consideration of NEPA’s policies and to eliminate delay. [40 C.F.R. Part 1501.1] NEPA also integrated into other processes are provided on pages 1-5 and 4-108. Text on decisionmaking, all 50 States . . . will use . . . integrated approaches to multimodal calls on federal agencies to . . . integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning page 3-27 refl ects how the requirements of Section 404 of the CWA have been planning, the environmental process and project development at a systems level . . . and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that incorporated into the EIS process for the proposed action. and/or context sensitive solutions at a project level.b all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively. [40 C.F.R. Part 1500.2(c)] NEPA procedures must ensure that . . . environmental information is available to public The manner in which the FEIS has been prepared has been largely driven by offi cials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The stakeholder concerns and issues. Examples of how determinations have been made information must be of high quality. Accurate scientifi c analysis, expert agency can be found on pages 3-4 and 3-62. Relative to text beginning on page 3-62, comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important, the status of the alternatives screening process is clearly described along with NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly signifi cant to the a presentation of future actions. Methodologies established for all analytical An outcome of the CSS approach would . . . be refl ected in higher quality decisions, better action in question, rather than amassing needless detail. . . . Ultimately, of course, requirements in preparing the FEIS were reviewed and agreed upon by ADOT, FHWA, environmental documents, greater consensus, and timelier project delivery.b it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPA’s purpose is not and stakeholders, and were shared with EPA; state-of-the industry methodologies to generate paperwork—even excellent paperwork—but to foster excellent action. were applied in all instances. The EIS process established using a consensus-based The NEPA process is intended to help public offi cials make decisions that are based approach; at each step, methods, assumptions, and analytical tools were reviewed on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, and agreed upon by the project team (see page 3-1) prior to analysis, and results were restore, and enhance the environment. These regulations provide the direction to shared for review and agreement prior to moving to the next step of the EIS process. achieve this purpose. [40 C.F.R. Part 1500.1(b and c)]
Note: Abbreviations and acronyms are provided at the end of the table, on page 6-31. (continued on next page) a Examples provided in the column do not refl ect a comprehensive list of the application of the related objectives in the FEIS; as stated, they are examples. Additional examples can be found throughout the FEIS . b from FHWA’s 2003 Performance Plan (see “Vital Few Goals – Environmental Stewardship and Streamlining”),
Table 6-9 Application of Context-Sensitive Solutions in the EIS Process (continued) Corresponding Element of the National Environmental Policy Act Examples within the FEIS/Commentsa Element of Context-Sensitive Solutions and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Under the EIS process, the federal government has the responsibilities to ensure its actions The goals and responsibilities established for CSS and NEPA respectively are (e.g., proposed facilities): strikingly similar. The agency scoping efforts at the start of the EIS process, as ● fulfi ll the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for presented on page 6-2, are representative of the cooperative, consensus-based succeeding generations . . . efforts that occurred throughout the process. Attended by 95 agency representatives, scoping involved 2 days of project overview, fi eld study, and brainstorming of issues, ● assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally concerns, and opportunities. pleasing surroundings; . . . Under the CSS approach, the goals for the physical end product of the process include qualities ● that characterize excellence. These include: attain the widest range of benefi cial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences . . . ● The project is seen as having added lasting value to the community. ● preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, ● The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community. and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and ● The project is in harmony with the community, and it preserves environmental, variety of individual choice; scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area, i.e., exhibits ● achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high context-sensitive design. standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; ● The project exceeds the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and ● enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable achieves a level of excellence in people’s minds. recycling of depletable resources. [42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(1–6)] ● The project involves effi cient and effective use of the resources (time, budget, Further, NEPA urges that: community) of all involved parties. ● The federal government . . . use all practicable means, consistent with the ● The project is designed and built with minimal disruption to the community. requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national policy, to ● The project satisfi es the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize stakeholders. This agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human amended as warranted as the project develops.c environment. [40 C.F.R. Part 1500.2(f )] ● Agencies . . . integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time 6 to insure that planning and decisions refl ect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential confl icts. [40 C.F.R. Part 1501.21] ● Agencies emphasize . . . cooperative consultation among agencies before the environmental impact statement is prepared rather than submission of adversary comments on a completed document. [40 C.F.R. Part 1501.1(b)]
Under the CSS approach, characteristics of a project development process that signifi es ● There shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be Chapter 6 presents the extensive public engagement efforts undertaken in the excellence are: addressed and for identifying the signifi cant issues related to a proposed action. EIS process as specifi cally tailored to the proposed action. As an example, the ● Communication with all stakeholders is open, honest, early, and continuous. This process shall be termed scoping. [40 C.F.R. Part 1501.7] SMCAT (see page 6-7) was created to ensure full representation of a broad range of ● . . . All agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . utilize a systematic, community stakeholders. As presented in Chapter 3, charrettes were held to engage ● A multidisciplinary team is established early, with disciplines based on the needs of the public in the alternatives development process. As outlined in Chapter 6, myriad the specifi c project, and with the inclusion of the public. interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in tools were used to communicate project information to the public. ● A full range of stakeholders is involved with transportation offi cials in the scoping decisionmaking which may have an impact on man’s environment. [42 U.S.C. § 4332] phase. The purposes of the project are clearly defi ned, and consensus on the scope ● is forged before proceeding. . . . Use all practicable means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality ● The highway development process is tailored to meet the circumstances. This of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of process should examine multiple alternatives that will result in a consensus of their actions upon the quality of the human environment. approach methods. [40 C.F.R. Part 1500.2(f )] ● A commitment to the process from top agency offi cials and local leaders is secured. ● The public involvement process, which includes informal meetings, is tailored to the project. ● The landscape, the community, and valued resources are understood before engineering design is started. ● A full range of tools for communication about project alternatives is used (e.g., visualization).c
c from the 1998 workshop, Thinking Beyond the Pavement: A National Workshop on Integrating Highway Development with Communities and the Environment while Maintaining Safety and Performance, held in Maryland, (continued on next page)
Table 6-9 Application of Context-Sensitive Solutions in the EIS Process (continued) Corresponding Element of the National Environmental Policy Act Examples within the FEIS/Commentsa Element of Context-Sensitive Solutions and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Use the EIS process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that Alternatives analysis begins with the RTP (see page 1-5), which attempts to optimize will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the quality of the human environment. the integration of the proposed action with other modal considerations. The modeled Under NEPA, agencies should: traffi c projections further enhance alternative modes as potentially viable options (see page 3-4). The alternatives development and screening process (beginning on ● The CSS approach promotes the important evaluation of project alternatives and alternative . . . Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for page 3-1) clearly presents an interdisciplinary process embraced by stakeholders designs (including nontraditional solutions, such as use of alternative routes or modes). The alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefl y discuss the reasons to consider a variety of solutions to address the purpose and need for the project. evaluation allows stakeholders the ability to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a for their having been eliminated. Reasons some alternative modes were eliminated are presented on page 3-5. variety of approaches for addressing a project’s purpose and need. ● Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. ● Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. ● Include the alternative of no action. [40 C.F.R. Part 1502.12(a–d)]
ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation C.F.R. – Code of Federal Regulations CSS – context-sensitive solutions CWA – Clean Water Act EIS – environmental impact statement EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement FHWA – Federal Highway Administration NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act ROD – record of decision RTP – Regional Transportation Plan SAFETEA-LU – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SMCAT – South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team U.S.C. – United States Code 6 6-32 Chapter 6 • Comments and Coordination South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation
CONCLUSIONS
Since the start of the EIS process in 2001, ADOT, of communication tools; responsiveness to arrange stakeholders for a project in the Phoenix metropolitan with the concurrence of FHWA, has exceeded the meetings with interested parties upon request; advertised area have been extensive and are continuing. The input minimum requirements of NEPA with respect to agency meetings; and other actions to identify opinions, provided has helped to direct the EIS process, affect coordination and public involvement. To engage all seek input about key issues, and obtain input into the location of action alternative alignments, influence segments of the public in each step of the EIS process components of the proposed action. design-related determinations, and identify appropriate in a meaningful way, ADOT and FHWA implemented mitigation in response to project-related impacts. As a result, efforts by ADOT and FHWA to engage several strategies. These included the use of a spectrum all segments of the public as well as agencies and other
6