APPENDICES 1 Family Area Yes Yes Yes VALLEY 2 Large Group Yes Yes No # 3 Playground Yes Yes Yes

Gila River Indian Community Lower Gila 3.5 Miles PaloPalo VerdeVerde Terraces and 1 1 to Maricopa Historic Trails 238 ACEC 4 6 RegionalRegional ParkPark

DRAFT 1 4 1 Preferred Alternative 2 5 6

P A Ak-Chin

L O

Indian

1-2 6-7 Hidden Valley Rd.

V Community 7 1 E R 3 Reference Features 1-2 D Ralston Rd. Proposed Park Boundary E 1 6 Farrell Rd. BLM Tertiary Unpaved Road (These are the only BLM-authorized two-track roads) 1 5 10 M National Monument Boundary O

1 2 2 3 U 4 5 9 Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) N State Trust Land T A Bureau of Land Management I N 1 2 3 Pinal County Conceptual Trail Alignment S Existing Secondary Trail 6 4 4 6 Proposed Recreation PAPAGO Complies with Consider for Preferred H DI D E N V A L L E Y Facility/Activity BUTTE County Policy Master Plan Alternative Trail (Non-motorized for Hiking/Running, Biking, and Equestrian) 1 Secondary Trails (2’ Tread) Yes Yes Yes Papago Rd. 2 Primary Trails (4’ Tread) Yes Yes Yes 3 Competitive Tracks # Yes Yes Yes (Running, Biking, Equestrian) 4 Interpretive Trails Yes Yes Yes 5 Barrier-Free Trails Yes Yes Yes 6 Trailhead Facility Yes Yes Yes (Parking, Comfort Station)

Val Vista Rd. Trails (Motorized) 1 Single Track (Motorcycle) Yes Yes  H 2 Two Track (O -highway Vehicle) Yes Yes  A 3 Jeep Tour Yes No No L # E 4 Staging Area Yes Yes Yes Y 5 Passenger Car Loop Yes No No

H I Equestrian L L 1 Riding Stable (Equestrian Stalling, V e k o l S  Yes Yes 1-2 6-7 Non-Concessionaire)  Motorized Trails Motorized # 2 Arena Yes No 3 Backcountry Water Yes Yes  Wash 7 1 4 Staging Area  Yes Yes

Warren Rd. Interpretive 1 Interpretive Center Yes Yes Yes 1-2 2 Nature Center Yes Yes No # 3 Museum/Cultural Center Yes Yes No 4 Botanical Garden Yes No No 5 Amphitheater (Small, up to 100 People) Yes Yes Yes 6 Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching Yes Yes Yes 7 Photography Yes Yes Yes Non-motorized Trails Non-motorized Picnic Area Barnes Rd. VEKOLAPPENDICES 1 Family Area Yes Yes Yes VALLEY 2 Large Group Yes Yes No # 3 Playground Yes Yes Yes

4 6 Camping 1 Backcountry Yes Yes Yes 2 Tent Site Yes Yes Yes # 3 RV/Trailer Camping (Unimproved) Yes Yes Yes 4 RV/Trailer Site (Electric, Water ) Yes Yes Yes PINAL COUNTY 5 Group Site Yes Yes Yes

MARICOPA COUNTY Shooting Sports 1 Shooting Range (Pistol & Ri e)  Yes Yes 2 Shotgun (Skeet/Trap/Sporting Clays)  Yes Yes # 3 Archery Range  Yes Yes Century Rd. 4 Archery Field Course  Yes Yes 5 Paintball Field  Yes No 3 6 6 Shooting Sports Concession  Yes Yes 7 Hunting, Backcountry  Yes Yes

Miscellaneous Alternate Camping 1 Geocaching  Yes Yes Location 2 Rock Climbing  Yes Yes Dune Shadow Rd. # 3 Challenge Course (Ropes Course)  Yes No 2 3 4 4 Zip Line  Yes No 5 BMX Bike Course  Yes No Non-motorized Trails Non-motorized 6 BMX Bike Pump Track  Yes No 1-2 6-7 5 9 7 RC Aircraft Field  Yes No 8 Large Event Area (Outdoor Theater Yes No No Performance/Large Amphitheater) 7 1 Fresno Rd. 9 O -Leash Dog Area Yes Yes Yes 10 Disc Golf Yes Yes Yes

4  With provisions 1-2  On authorized trails only  Natural backcountry water sources already exist within the park Motorized Trails Motorized Dispersed Activity Throughout Warren Rd. Ralston Rd. 3 Miles to Hwy 347 Proposed Park Access, Primary 1 2 Proposed Park Access, Secondary Proposed Competitive Track 84

8 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 Sonoran Desert National Monument O Miles September 2016 APPENDIX A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This page intentionally left blank. Kent Taylor Greg Stanley Open Space and Trails Director County Manager

Palo Verde Regional Park Master Plan

Frequently Asked Questions

1) When was this area identified/designated as the site for a future Regional Park?

The area was identified as a location for a future Regional Park in the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan (OS&T Plan), which was adopted by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors in October 2007. This was one of seven (7) locations identified as future Regional Parks. Multiple public meetings for the OS&T Master Plan occurred from (June 2006) to (October 2006) with the final public meeting actually being held in the Maricopa area for citizens to review the OS&T Master Plan and provide input. The OS&T Plan was also incorporated into the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors in 2009 and updated in 2014. Additionally, The City of Maricopa General Plan 2025 designated this area as a future Regional Park. This designation continues in the current draft Maricopa General Plan “Planning Maricopa; Shaping our Community”.

Click here to see the OS&T Master Plan

2) What is meant by the term Regional Park?

As a regional government, Pinal County strives to provide high quality regional services. The OS&T Plan envisions a regional inventory of parks, trails and open space providing recreation and resource protection and preservation for Pinal County residents and visitors. Not to be confused with municipal parks that provide expansive grass multi-use areas for the public, regional parks are geared to be large, natural open space areas offering a variety of passive and active recreation opportunities. Typical recreational activities could include trails (both motorized and non-motorized), equestrian opportunities, shooting sport activities, camping facilities (both improved and unimproved), picnic areas, and wildlife viewing, just to name a few.

3) What other Regional Parks like this does Pinal County now provide its citizens?

Pinal County has plans for seven (7) future Regional Parks, but does not currently operate or manage a facility similar to this. San Tan Mountain Regional Park is one of those seven (7) identified parks. This regional park wholly resides in Pinal County (San Tan Valley area), but is owned mostly by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and operated by Maricopa County under a Cooperative Recreation Management Agreement (CRMA). This BLM/County relationship is similar to how Palo Verde Regional Park would be operated; BLM would own the land and Pinal County would operate the regional park.

4) What is a “Master Plan”?

A Master Plan is a guiding document for future land use planning. The Master Plan will define the broad concept for this Regional Park, depicting what activities will be available and where they will be located. The Master Plan is intended to be specific, but flexible and: • Will be submitted to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors for review and approval;

Revised July 2016 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS

135 North Pinal Street, Administrative Complex, P.O. Box 827, Florence, AZ 85132 T 520-866-6910 F 520-866-6355 www.pinalcountyaz.gov

• Will be reviewed and approved by the BLM, the owner of the underlying property; • Can provide the basis for future funding decisions and possible grant applications; • Can provide information to neighbors, residents, and visitors of the future uses within the park.

5) This land appears to be all BLM lands. What is their role in this process?

BLM is the underlying land owner for the proposed Regional Park and an important partner in this project. The development of a Master Plan is a required part of the BLM process to preserve and protect this land for future recreational opportunities.

6) How much will it cost to enter into a CRMA with BLM?

Nothing. Under a CRMA, the BLM and Pinal County would jointly manage expanded recreation opportunities with the County. There may be costs associated with the environmental clearances necessary to undertake a CRMA. These costs will be planned for in future year budgets, see question 15 for funding options.

7) Why is it important for the County to manage this area differently than how BLM is managing it now?

Pinal County residents, visitors, and policy makers identified this area as an important area for recreation, (OS&T Plan and Comprehensive Plan). The BLM manages land for multiple uses and high yield, including, but not limited to, commercial development, energy and infrastructure development, extractive industries, ranching, grazing, and recreation. At a future date, any or all of those uses could be located at this site. Undertaking a CRMA now adds local control over future recreational uses and helps to ensure the protection of the resource and recreation value now and for future generations to come.

8) Concerns have been expressed about the safety of future park users due to illegal activity in the area. Is the County aware of this and if so, what are the plans to address this issue?

Yes, the County is aware of these activities. Because of this, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office has a representative on the Working Group who is advising us and partnering on the development of the Master Plan. We anticipate that one of the recommendations in the Master Plan will be the development of a “safety plan” as part of the park implementation strategy.

9) Will there be a fee for use of or entry to this Regional Park?

Yes, we anticipate incorporating a fee structure for the developed areas (such as day use facilities, trailheads and campgrounds) of the park. The collection of fees will be used to offset the costs of operation and maintenance for the facility. Fees will be determined at a later date and must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Fees could include day use fees, monthly and yearly passes, and fees and/or memberships for certain activities such as campgrounds and shooting sports. For example, fees at San Tan Mountain Regional Park are $6 per car, $2 for a “walk/ride in” and $85 for a yearly pass.

2 Revised July 2016

10) Can the cost to operate and manage the regional park break even from fees or will it cost citizens county-wide more in taxes?

Yes, it is possible for the fees generated by the park to cover operating and management costs. This is dependent on how the fee structure is implemented and will be part of the future policy decisions for the Board of Supervisors.

11) When will the park open?

At this time, we do not have a definitive opening date for the park. The opening will be dependent on many variables including, but not limited to: • The BLM approval process • Necessary environmental clearances • Specific site design and engineering • Funding Generally, based on similar projects in other Counties, the BLM process is anticipated to be 5-10 years. Again, this is only an estimate; there are many variables that could impact this timeline.

12) Will the entire park be opened at the same time?

No, it is anticipated that the park will be implemented in phases. As part of the Master Plan process, possible implementation schedules including associated costs will be evaluated. A proposed implementation schedule will be part of the final Master Plan.

13) Who will operate the park?

Pinal County would be the primary operator of the park. Pinal County may have agreements and/or partnerships for specific site operations within the park. As an example a camping facility or shooting facility may be operated by a third party.

14) How much will it cost to develop the park?

That is unknown at this time. This is one of the important reasons that the County is undertaking the Master Plan process. Proposed costs to develop the facility will depend on what activities and amenities are included in the final Master Plan. The approved Master Plan will identify estimated costs of development.

15) Where will the money come from to develop the park?

This park will be funded by Pinal County, but funding could include any/or all of the following: • County General Fund • General Obligation Bonds (for Capital Infrastructure) • Grants o Indian Community 12 D Funding o Recreational Trail Program (Administered by Arizona State Parks) o OHV Grant Funding (Administered by Arizona State Parks) • User Fees (Board of Supervisors approved Fee Schedule) 3 Revised July 2016

• Development Impact Fees • Partnerships, Intergovernmental Agreements • Volunteer Groups

16) Where will entrances to the park be located?

That is unknown at this time. Again, that is an important part of the Master Plan process. Possible entrance locations will be identified in the planning process and identified in the approved Master Plan document.

17) Will the park be fenced?

That is yet to be determined, but is a possibility. Fencing decisions will be determined by the needs of the proposed uses, topography, resource protection and other important considerations. The typical type of fencing used in these applications is a four (4) strand barbed wire (wildlife friendly).

18) What activities will be offered at the park?

Again, this is a major outcome of the Master Plan process. Public input from residents, neighbors, and user groups will help the County determine the preferred activities for this Regional Park.

19) Will this park have turf, ball fields, and similar amenities?

No, the County’s vision for their Regional Park inventory is to have large, natural setting parks, similar to what is seen operated by Maricopa County (as an example, San Tan Mountain Regional Park, White Tank Mountain Regional Park and Estrella Mountain Regional Park). Typical recreational activities could include trails (both motorized and non-motorized), equestrian opportunities, shooting sport activities, camping facilities (both improved and unimproved), picnic areas and wildlife viewing, just to name a few.

20) Why should residents nearby welcome the Regional Park? What is the benefit to the adjacent communities?

There are a multitude of benefits of being close to this Regional Park, they include: • Increased property values • Potential economic benefits derived from visitors to the park • Access to maintained recreation facilities nearby • Increased management presence and resource protection • Preservation of existing recreation activities and opportunities • Better managed access to the area • Increased safety, especially with regards to recreational shooting • Volunteer opportunities

4 Revised July 2016 Contact: Kent Taylor (520) 866-6910

Pinal County begins planning for a Regional Park in Western Pinal County

FLORENCE -Staff of the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department will hold a public open house to present information and maps for Palo Verde Regional Park and gather public input. Information stations will be set up at the Pinal County Public Works Hidden Valley Yard located at 43910 W. Meadowview Road, Maricopa, Arizona 85138.

The open house will take place on Thursday December 10, 2015 from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM. This will be an open house format with brief presentations at 4:30 and 6:30. Residents of Pinal County are encouraged to attend, learn more about the project and provide input that will be useful to shaping this plan.

Nearly 10 years ago, Pinal County began looking at important trails and open space areas from San Manuel to Maricopa. This study is now reflected in the Open Space and Trails Master Plan (OSTMP) adopted in 2007. In 2009 the OSTMP was included in the County's Comprehensive Plan Revision.

To continue its commitment to trails and open space, in 2013 the County Board of Supervisors created the Open Space and Trails Department. The Board appointed an Advisory Commission, and identified six items from the OSTMP as starting points for implementation of the master plan.

One of those six items includes Palo Verde Regional Park, which was identified as Regional Park #4, (RP#4).

The proposed Palo Verde Regional Park is over 20,000 acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land on the far west side of Pinal County, stretching from Interstate 8 to the south and Highway 238 to the north. "Pinal County is living up to its motto 'wide open opportunity'," stated District 4 Supervisor Anthony Smith "I would invite everyone interested to come to our open house and offer their input on this proposed Palo Verde Regional Park. This would be a great asset for both residents and visitors alike."

You can find related planning information for this project on the County website at: http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/OpenSpaceTrails/ParkTrailPlanning/Pages/PaloVerdePark.asp x

This public open house is one of several public outreach events the County will use to gather more information about what services residents want for this Regional Park. For more information contact Kent Taylor at [email protected].

December 10, 2015

Palo Verde Regional Park Comment Form

Thank you for attending tonight’s public meeting. This is the first public meeting for the planning project. Please review the resource maps that are on display, which will be used for further analysis as we begin the planning for this new Pinal County regional park. Your comments will assist us in the planning process. What can you tell us about the area?

1. How do you use this area? Are you involved in an organized recreation or user group?

______

2. Where does horseback riding occur?

______

3. Where does all-terrain vehicle riding occur?

______

4. What are potential access points for trailheads or day use areas?

______

5. Where do shooting sports and target practicing occur?

______

6. Are there unique areas that would be of particular interest for wildlife viewing, bird watching, or other activity?

______

7. Are there unique areas that should be protected from trails, trailheads, campgrounds, etc?

______

(continued on back) December 10, 2015

8. What is special or not special about this area?

______

9. Do you know if there are any underground mines in the study area? If yes, where are the entrances?

______

10. Other information:

______

11. Comments provided by (optional):

Name: ______

Address: ______

Contact (email or phone): ______December 10, 2015

Palo Verde Regional Park Comment Form Compiled Responses (14 Questionnaire Forms Received)

1. How do you use this area? Are you involved in an organized recreation or user group?

 UTV/ATV/Off-Road usage. Right now we’re a group of about a dozen riders. We may organize this coming year.  We hike all over the N. part of the P.V. mountains.  Quad & 4x4  Would like to use area for hiking. Access in a passenger car is a problem/unpaved roads  I don’t currently use it (it’ not very accessible) but I like most of the parks throughout the area. Happy to volunteer--  Shooting-Hiking-  Hunting, hiking, off-road driving  Geocaching  Currently I don’t use but would like to start using it. Yes  used area for shooting  I like hiking in open space; would like more accessible “park land”; not part of group

2. Where does horseback riding occur?

 Hope all over the N.P.V. mountain.  Same trails I use on the quad  Ø  Everywhere  --  have gone to South Mountain for horse back riding. Ride to T-Bone Steakhouse and back was popular ride  I like X terrain motorcycle riding on trails where permitted

3. Where does all-terrain vehicle riding occur?

 We ride primarily on the northern side of the park. Close to 238.  Mostly from the gravel pit West and all over the valley there. Also some at the N. part, east of the mountain.  Ø  Everywhere  All over the place  --

December 10, 2015

4. What are potential access points for trailheads or day use areas?

 We come into the park on a trail that runs from Rio Bravo Rd.  The gravel pit (currently not included) and at bottom of Farrel rd.  S of Robin Road in the wash  There should not be any

5. Where do shooting sports and target practicing occur?

 Same location we ride {Note: Respondent’s ride location answer was “…primarily on the northern side of the park. Close to 238.”}  at to many places along the East side of the P.V. Mountain.  All over  Box Canyon 1 mile west of Hidden Valley Rd & Century Rd State Trust Land  Everywhere  All over the place

6. Are there unique areas that would be of particular interest for wildlife viewing, bird watching, or other activity?

 There are a few areas on the top of various mountain ranges that can be accessed by vehicle or by foot.  Rock hunting in the wash and on the hills in the marked (first jut-out hill) “non quiet-zone”, just the one hill were quartz is found.  Yes

7. Are there unique areas that should be protected from trails, trailheads, campgrounds, etc?

 I haven’t come across any yet.  At the far north is a unique area, have seen turtle there and great owl would love it to remain walking trail photography area, Fam. pic-nic over the crest.  Petroglyphs west & north of Desert Valley Rd.  Yes all of it  Petroglyphs  I would love to see a developed climbing area

8. What is special or not special about this area?

 It’s a beautiful pretty well kept secret. Very special.  Walking is the easey there. Wider area, good for kids.  It is in my backyard. I open a door & ride out for miles-access to Goldwater Range  Special  The isolation, lack of people Not Special: Major drug corridor  location is great for anyone in Maricopa  I’m interested in Vekol Wash terrain

9. Do you know if there are any underground mines in the study area? If yes, where are the entrances?

 I’ve heard of some but have not run into any yet.  Not that I am aware of December 10, 2015

10. Other information:

Six forms included additional information.

(1) the “shooters” have taken over the nicest walking area. (by Hidden Valley, -well water place-end of Farrel). Were the hills go east, ~e hill. (Roding.) Otherside (W. side) of P.V. Mountains are lower hills, wider places, better than the E. side for camping. All along the W. side of N.P.V.M. is a “trail”-“road” Yes go on with this park.

(2) Safety concerns-smuggling + other illegal activity

(3) Leave this area alone. The County cannot aford this project Who will police/maintain the land? Who will pay for it? We the poor Pinal County taxpayers! Not Necessary – we have access to this land thru BLM Suggested use of this land will bleed over onto STATE TRUST LAND that “should cannot not” be accessed without a WRITTEN permit from the State

(4) there is a solar-it’s west of the County line-substation go thru the process which will run a transmission line to Pinal West Substation there is 2 outstanding CDC’s of APS not marked on the chart  going down State Rt 238 to Portor Rd & then go north on Portor Rd  go down Barnes to Santa Rosa Substation Paved/dirt Rds-The roads leading into the park must be paved before opening we are in a dead zone, what are you going to do @ that

(5) Preserving open land now is essential to insure balance & growth, meet the needs of our residents and consider all the involved stakeholders. Do nothing--we’ll have nothing for future generations.

(6) I am not alone feeling this should not pass. Those of us who live in the effected areas and will have to burden the cost. People can use this now as is. It doesn’t need to be altered This is put in the planning by people who do not live in this area. Who will not be effected by this. There are alot of parks already. Not enough unspoiled area.

Note: All comments are recorded verbatim from comment forms. No grammatical, word choice changes or spelling are corrected. If handwriting is unclear, then correct spelling is used and the most contextual word choice is assumed or marked illegible with ~. Upper case sentence structure is revised to standard sentence case. Personal identifiable information, if provided, is deleted from the comments. Pinal County Press Release

For Immediate Release Contact: Kent Taylor (520) 866-6910 March 1, 2016

Palo Verde Regional Park Public Open House #2

FLORENCE – Staff of the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department will hold the second public open house for the planning of Palo Verde Regional Park, a proposed regional park in western Pinal County. The open house will take place on Thursday March 31, 2016 from 4:30 PM to 7:00 PM at the Copper Sky Multi-Generational Center, Multi-Purpose Room A, 44345 West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Maricopa AZ 85138. This will be an open house format with brief presentations at 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Residents of Pinal County, especially residents of the City of Maricopa, are encouraged to attend, learn more about the project and provide input regarding:  Possible recreation activities for this park;  Potential park access points, and;  Preliminary concepts of trailhead and campground configurations at one or two of these access points. Pinal County began the planning process for this regional park in the fall of 2015 and expects to complete the planning process in the fall of 2016. The proposed Palo Verde Regional Park comprises more than 20,000 acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land approximately 5 miles west of Maricopa, in the northwest area of Pinal County, stretching from Interstate 8 to the south and Highway 238 to the north. “Pinal County is living up to its motto ‘wide open opportunity’,” stated District 4 Supervisor Anthony Smith “We have had great public participation so far and encourage everyone interested to come to our open house and offer their input on this proposed Palo Verde Regional Park. This would be a great asset for both residents and visitors alike.”

You can find related planning information for this project on the County website at: http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/OpenSpaceTrails/ParkTrailPlanning/Pages/PaloVerdePark.aspx

###

March 31, 2016 Palo Verde Regional Park Comment Form

Thank you for attending the second public meeting for the planning project. Your comments will assist us as we move forward in the planning process.

STATION 1

Please review the Recreation Activity Evaluation matrix. The “Public Interest” and “Rank by Survey” columns were compiled from citizens’ comments from the first public meeting and the online survey. There were 435 respondents during the survey period from December 10, 2015, through January 18, 2016. The remaining columns are based on analysis by the stakeholders and planning team.

1. TRAILS (Non-motorized and Motorized) were overwhelming ranked high. In keeping with the public’s interest, trails should be a focus for the park. However, jeep tours and a passenger car loop won’t be considered for the master plan.

Comments: ______

______

2. EQUESTRIAN facilities and activities were ranked with a moderate interest. Therefore, equestrian facilities might be planned and constructed in future phases.

Comments: ______

______

3. INTERPRETIVE facilities and activities were ranked with low interest. Therefore, interpretive related buildings might be planned and constructed in later phases. Interpretive related activities such as wildlife viewing could occur regardless of phase. However, a botanical garden won’t be considered in the master plan.

Comments: ______

______

4. PICNIC AREAS were ranked from high (family area) to low (playground). Therefore, picnic facilities might be planned and constructed across multiple construction phases.

Comments: ______

______

5. CAMPING facilities were ranked high. Therefore, in keeping with the public’s interest, camping should also be a focus for the park.

Comments: ______

______

6. SHOOTING SPORTS were ranked from high (shooting range) to low (concession store). Therefore, constructed shooting sports facilities might be planned across multiple construction phases.

Comments: ______

______(continued on back) March 31, 2016 7. The MISCELLANEOUS facilities and activities were ranked from moderate to low interest. Therefore, the miscellaneous related facilities might be planned and constructed in later phases. However, a large event area won’t be considered for the master plan.

Comments: ______

______

STATION 2

Please review the three example site concepts. Based on the public’s interest, concepts have been prepared for a Day-use Area/Trailhead, a combined Campground and Day-use Area/Trailhead, and a Shooting Sports Area.

8. DAY-USE AREA/TRAILHEAD. This example is located at the end of McDavid Road in the vicinity of the existing hiking trails at the north end of the Palo Verde Mountains.

Comments: ______

______

9. CAMPGROUND and DAY-USE AREA/TRAILHEAD. This example is located at the end of Farrell Road, which is about midway along the Palo Verde Mountains.

Comments: ______

______

10. SHOOTING SPORTS. This example is located along Hidden Valley Road in an area currently used extensively for target practice.

Comments: ______

______

OTHER COMMENTS

______

Comments provided by (optional):

Name: ______

Address: ______

Contact (email or phone): ______March 31, 2016

Palo Verde Regional Park Comment Form

Thank you for attending the second public meeting for the planning project. Your comments will assist us as we move forward in the planning process.

STATION 1

TRAILS (Non-motorized and Motorized) were overwhelming ranked high. In keeping with the public’s interest, trails should be a focus for the park. However, jeep tours and a passenger car loop won’t be considered for the master plan.

Comments:

 I agree.  Jeep tours and passenger car loops should have consideration-especially for an aging population.  I agree w/ the results of the survey. It is a good starting point.  Agree.  ATV/4WD trails already present in the area. Make sense to include.  Not needed.  Mountain bike, 4WD, and ATV trails priority. Lower area is a high drug smuggling area.  I see high-quality, low-impact trails as the highest priority.  Agree  Okay.  Non-Motorized trails highly needed (Secondary) (Separate mountain bike trails).  Please Keep motorized vehicles away from hiker paths. Also, trails should not all be flat. Make some up and down.  Agree with that concept-obviously now-motorized trails are far separated for motorized.  Trails Exist. No Need for More.  It would be great to have some sort of off road trail.  In consideration of the neighbors, the less noise, and dust, the better. Bike and horse trails okay.  I strongly agree that keeping trail use limited to non-motorized use is a positive direction that will improve safety and quality of the trails.  This will cause more accidents by attracting more people.

March 31, 2016

 The drug cartel have made several trails already feel free to use them.  Yes fo trails.  See comment under interpretive/nature trail. Consider a handicap accessible/barrier free short trail in addition to the standard gravel track.  This area needs hiking trails of 5 miles or more and orienteering trails. These would be used by Scout units as well as other youth groups.  The motorized trails need to be on west side of mountain-away from all housing is critical.  This proposed path seems too small for motorized use.  Highly recommend preserving off-road trails for UTV/ATV use.  The existing trails are fine how they are.  As long as residential areas remain quiet zones. That’s why we moved to the area. Will hikers be protected from the criminal elements in the area-drug scouts and illegal aliens coming through? Law enforcement has their hands tied now.  Leave it alone.  We did not attend the 1st meeting or participate in the original survey, but we agree TRAILS=#1 for hiking.  Cancel the park. Can ride both as is-or use the trails created by the drug cartel.  Good no jeep trails/roads for cars beyond basic access. Would like to be sure parking includes room for trailers and equestrian staging.

EQUESTRIAN facilities and activities were ranked with a moderate interest. Therefore, equestrian facilities might be planned and constructed in future phases.

Comments:

 Not a horse person. No comment.  Agree-Makes sense. But don’t give up on it.  Agree.  I feel equestrian staging/parking areas are more practical that developed facilities.  Not needed.  Parking area for trailers.  These would be good, as long as, the horse trails are built correctly to cities land use.  Not of interest to me but ok.  No interest.  Please keep equestrian trails (and bike trails) separate from pedestrian/hiker paths  Good idea.  A great majority of land owners have horses and moved to the area specifically for riding.  A lot of neighbors have horses. Equestrian facilities are a good idea.  No need for park to ride horses.  Yes light riding and camping w. horses.  You can ride a horse anywhere on BLM land. Facalities are not required as this is a day use park.  Please add equestrian trails-can be multiuse trails.  Staging area for equestrian trail riding should be initial facility.  I agree this is a future phase.  Need to move up the list. Need bathrooms, campsites needed.  Equestrians will need parking to access the trails to me those are facilities. March 31, 2016

 Sounds good provided taxes will not be raised in the process. Folks already use existing trails for horse back riding.  We alread have it.  We personally have no use for equestrian facilities, but know several people who would.  Not required- can ride there as it. We currently ride in these area- would we now be excluded if it’s a park? Horses and hikers routinely share trails all over the state.

INTERPRETIVE facilities and activities were ranked with low interest. Therefore, interpretive related buildings might be planned and constructed in later phases. Interpretive related activities such as wildlife viewing could occur regardless of phase. However, a botanical garden won’t be considered in the master plan.

Comments:

 Maybe a few signs in parking lots or elsewhere with pictures and names of park trees and cacti.  Agree-Makes sense.  Agree on interpretive, but like the idea for botanical garden.  Not needed.  Not needed at this time.  I agree if that is the will of the majority.  Agree.  Low interest.  Sorry to hear no one wants botanical gardens. I like them.  Ok.  Keep the open range open and free of buildings.  Anything requiring maintenance is costly.  Public safety is a big concern.  Not required.  In lieu of a botanical garden, consider a natural trail with interpretive/informational signage. Area volunteers or garden clubs might assist with plantings and maintenance.  This may be more important because of the lack of interpretive facilities in the Sonoran Desert National Monument.  Might want to consider some trail boards and instructional use.  See general comment about facilities and activities are ranked w/ low interest.  Don’t need it.  Are fine with this plan.  N/A.  Agree.

PICNIC AREAS were ranked from high (family area) to low (playground). Therefore, picnic facilities might be planned and constructed across multiple construction phases.

Comments:

 Picnic areas could benefit from shape. March 31, 2016

 Makes sense.  It is important to have picnic area.  Not needed.  Picnic areas great idea and can generate interest for use of the rest of the area.  These will be good in order to manage human impact.  Agree.  Low interest.  Please include shade-either trees or fixed cover-for picnic areas- this will extend the use in summer.  Good idea.  Picnic areas would be great.  Picnic areas need shade, restroom.  Public safety is a big concern.  If not protected 24/7 they will be destroyed and a large percent of people who use it leave a mess.  Always nice to have.  Interpretive nature trail would fit well in proximity to picnic area.  Family picnics in an area like this would be helpful to give people close options.  Covered picnic areas needed.  Again see comment on low.  As long as taxes are not raised.  Don’t need them.  Are fine with this plan.  N/A Can picnic there as is.  Ok. Would like some picnic areas to include hitching posts or horse tethering facilities and corrals w/ H2O.

CAMPING facilities were ranked high. Therefore, in keeping with the public’s interest, camping should also be a focus for the park.

Comments:

 Bathrooms would be a good plan to keep from soiling the desert.  Good.  Yeah.  Agree.  I agree. RV spots could provide funding, but also unimproved, dispersed camping should be an option.  Not needed.  Improved campsites can generate good revenue.  Yes. This will be good and will draw visitors to the area to spend money.  Agree.  No interest, but understand interest from campers.  Glad it will help with revenue, but how will they be monitored so some campers don’t spoil experience for others (drunken, parties, guns, rowdy crowds)?  Good idea.  Camping is a high priority. There are not enough existing facilities in this area. March 31, 2016

 Camping requires supervision, support and maintenance. Public safety is a known issue in the area.  Public safety is a big concern and feel you shouldn’t have to pay to camp.  Day only not overnight.  Not wanted.  Primitive is ok.  Campground revenue will make RV facilities a higher priority/public safety. In light of existing drug and illegal activity a concern.  There are roughly 10 club scout packs, 10 boy scout troops, varsity scout teams, and venture crews in Maricopa that would use the camp area in the winter.  Need improved and unimproved.  Many people are not camping at Kortson so why do we think that they would be camping at Palo Verde?  Anyone can camp anywhere right now?  As long as taxes are not raised.  Get state permit and camp.  We have an RV and are very interested in RV camping. We also know others who would use the RV sites as well.  Is at least 10 know drug cartel camp sites most along your recreation trail along the mountain tops.

SHOOTING SPORTS were ranked from high (shooting range) to low (concession store). Therefore, constructed shooting sports facilities might be planned across multiple construction phases.

Comments:

 When shooting facilities are installed be sure new residents dont push it out like Williams Air Force Base.  Yeah  Agree  Not needed.  Good idea, because of all the careless shooters now will be controlled and reduce trigger trash.  Ok, as long as done safely, which is the highest priority.  Agree  Very good idea.  No interest.  Keep this minimal. Keep everyone safe from stray bullets.  Please keep away from the trails for a proper natural experience.  Consider noise in planning.  The area is currently and frequently used for target practice. Organizations will make it safer and cleaner.  Shooting should be restricted to a designated range and banned elsewhere within the park.  People who shoot out there now are safe. NO accidents reported. You should be able to shoot for free. Thats what makes AZ great.  There are many natural areas where shooting is safe. I wish people would clean up after themselves.  Good idea. March 31, 2016

 Exisiting sure should be managed/maintained. This area is another potential for revenue.  This would be a facility that Boy Scouts would use. It would be easy to set up merit badge clinics.  Archery ok. No guns.  With the high interest, I think it would be good to incorporate this into the park if possible.  Recommended shooting areas.  Many people come to Marropa to shoot in an area thats not confined for long range shooting. I have been shooting in this area for 9 years and have never had a problem.  As long as taxes are not raised.  Don’t need it.  We are shooting advocates and would definitely use the range as would other people we know.  BLM- Can shoot there now leave it alone.  People currently shoot out here weekly. What happens once park is designated. How will danger be mitigated.

MISCELLANEOUS facilities and activities were ranked from moderate to low interest. Therefore, the miscellaneous related facilities might be planned and constructed in later phases. However, a large event area won’t be considered for the master plan.

Comments:

 Good. Large groups may not be compatible.  Agree.  If there’ll be a camping and picnic area in the master plan. I don’t see why not to have a large event area in the same plan.  I think this is a good area for hiking trails.  Not needed.  N/A  Maybe rock climbing.  No interest.  OK.  I support a regional park in this area. I think it would benefit residents in the area.  Copper sky should meet this need for this area. No need to do it in Palos Verde Park.  We don’t need a park to do things we want to do.  Not needed.  Safety concerns for some activities (such as rock climbing) emergency medical facilities are ½ hour away at present.  Environmental education in an outdoor setting is important. I’m sure several organizations would be willing to help.  Again see comment about low interest.  Good  We are fine with this plan.  N/A Can’t the park-who is paying for this?  Glad to hear it.

March 31, 2016

STATION 2

DAY-USE AREA/TRAILHEAD. This example is located at the end of McDavid Road in the vicinity of the existing hiking trails at the north end of the Palo Verde Mountains.

Comments:

 I have hiked the trail there. Nice mid level challenge.  Like the night spot for easy access and variety of elevations.  Agree.  I think this is a good area for hiking trails.  Not needed.  This is good. Its a good way to educate the public and generate revenues.  Agree.  Have used the existing trail- Needs expansion (Keep mountain bike trails separate if possible).  Please include trailhead restrooms. Please build well marked trails.  Makes sense to build first. –I hope its no fee or very low fee.  Bathrooms are very important, both for day use and camping.  Great idea.  Keep parking area open 24/7 to allow night-time use of the trails ( crucial during summer).  No.  Trails already exist. I do not want to pay for property and facalities that will not be used.  Looks good.  This is an area that girl scouts and boy scouts could use for their program.  Will there be park rangers there?  Just leave it alone.  Hiking trails are very high on our list.  Like this, esp if equestrian use part of trails plan.

CAMPGROUND and DAY-USE AREA/TRAILHEAD. This example is located at the end of Farrell Road, which is about midway along the Palo Verde Mountains.

Comments:

 Good location.  Looks like the right spot for easy access and variety of elevation.  Agree.  Not needed.  Southern area should be looked at for computers, near I-8.  Please keep the day use and camping areas separate, this will enhance both groups experience.  Agree. March 31, 2016

 Good place for it.  Don’t use, but necessary.  Do, please, include trailhead restrooms.  Ramadas restrooms w/ showers for camping.  Skip the campground unless it funds a full time public safety person.  See above. (Above, Keep parking area open 24/7 to allow night-time use of the trails (crucial during summer).  No.  Not wanted. Not needed.  With as many scouts as are in Maricopa (See #5) this would be a great area especially in winter. A certain number of sites need to be for short-term camping.  Good location.  I think that the host site should be spaced throughout the camp rather than all at one end.  We alread have that.  RV and tent camping are also high on our list!  Why not put campground on W side of mtns, away from existing homes? What is recompense to current homeowners who will lose their privacy and seclusion from which they paid?

SHOOTING SPORTS. This example is located along Hidden Valley Road in an area currently used extensively for target practice.

Comments:

 Please keep. I have shot there at about 3 miles from my house as crow flys—noise not to bad.  Is it far enough from hikers and campers? Is it far enough from potential development? Maybe need to consider.  Disagree—Should be far end going west (if applicable) as there close by within reasonable distance homes (going east).  No needed.  Ok. As long as it is done safely.  Agree.  New idea, not too bad.  No interest.  Make sure this is far from all other uses. Post signs in areas not meant for shooting that shooting is not allowed.  Move to a more isolated location—more south.  The most important consideration is noise impact to nearby residents.  Great idea.  No.  This area already exist. We do not need to pay to use a facality that already exist.  Excellent idea.  This area is used by many people already. It would be nice to formalize the area a little more.  No shooting on eat side of mountains.  At least one are should be designated for a a shooting area. This area is already established so it makes sense to improve and expand this area if possible.  Leave it there. Works for us already.  Shooting is high on our list! March 31, 2016

 There is a home right about this proposed area! What happens to them? Rt not it’s just a weekend issue, w/this it would become a daily nusance.

OTHER COMMENTS

 Good plan to preserve land and maybe push out the criminal element.  1. I love that you are seeking public input. 2. Further delays in starting will only lead to further degradation of the land. 3. This project will surely add quality of life to a very large segment of the population. 4. This project will increase property values especially in closer proximity, but could add value to entire county. 5. I would strongly recommend phasing with at least some (in picnic area) started as soon as possible.  Really good presentation. Well communicated as to why things were included and/or excluded. Only real question are astericks above. I do believe that this improvement is important to this area. Not only for them but also for improving safety and security.  I support fee areas but believe that the unimproved areas of the park should not be a fee area. People should be able to enjoy the park regardless of financial concerns. Obviously improved areas such as campground-shooting area would be fee-based.  Stop.  Whole park should not be free area. Only improved areas.  Please continue to plan trails for all areas especially mountain bikes. Thanks for all of your work on this project.  I love the idea!  Better advertisement i.e. in mailboxes, flyers. Who is responsible for others :users” i.e. “Documentation challenged” and drug traffic i.e. 2 and 4 legged, ATV, 4X4. More restrictions, more traffic on access roads.  Hunting access/ restrictions vs. now.  Concern; Having enough monitoring so people don’t vandalize, become dangerous to other attract drug sellers and users. Public safety is paramount. Will there be entrance fees for locals?  I would like to know where the next meeting are please. Sorry but I’m not sure I want this. But I won’t know how things are going. How are you going to stop the drug trafficking? If you won’t to know what gos on out there please call me. I know all the L.P.O.P spots and the lay up and camp sites. I’m at home all day. Thanks.  It is discusting how your “Plan” was relatively unheard of to the people who use and own property in the vicinity of the affected areas! Public signs in affected area’s need to be posted so the affected public can be heard.  I would love to see the regional trail to be mixed use – off road, equestrian, and trail hiking. I am a homeower/landowner near the proposed area.  Having a county park approved by BLM adds certainty to what happens in current BLM managed property. This is a very good thing for neighbors and for Maricopa City.  Leave the land as is. Put county dollars to schools and teachers.  I think the size is too big to be used in the south and too close to homeowners. A lot of people will be against it being so close to homes. The northern half might work but camping is close too and homeowners may not like that. Big problem is the crime in area. Just inviting people in to dangerous area.  I amazed to hear this has been in works for 10 years. A very well kept secret. I use this area weekly and I do not want it made into a park. With what is proposed it will cost a lot of money March 31, 2016

(mine as a tax payer). I see no benefits as we already own this land and have access for no cost just avoid the drug runners. Need to know about future use of land in this area.  Protecting open space is always good. Regardless of the whining tonight. We need to secure BLM ground for county use.  Open space/Park facility will be important as area and county continues to grow. Recreation is always a concern for residents.  Environmental education focussed on Sonoran Desert is needed in Maricopa. This is also an area that Huhugam traveled and lived, so Native American culture could benefit from this park. I’m sure Ak-chin Community would help as well as support from the Gila River Community. History and Heritage are important to preserve when it is found.  South side of park needs to be a quite zone. Need to know what access routes are need to be contacted about status updates. What is the time line to start? What is the being done about the ill legals and drug trafficing? I want to be notifid about 30 day notice of comment.  It seems like the proposed plan is to include every facility activity that had even the slightest interest. I think it would make more sense to simply drop the low interest facilities and activities from the planning document.  No one can improve upon the desert. Its apeal is its wild and should be left in that state. The freedom to go or do what you like in the area proposed is the only reason I have stayed in Maricopa for 9 years. Adding hiking trails is the only plus I see from this un needed intrusion.  1. Safety of visitors is critical. Unless visitors will be safe to use campground trails park won’t be used. There are not enough police, rangers, medical personnel etc. in area. 2. Most residents of Hidden Valley do not want their taxes raised for thsi park. Hiking and horseback riding is already available. 3. Residents want their homes to remain quiet. We moved to a rural area for the peace and quiet and beauty of the area. Its a major concern that it remains quiet.  Who will protect all of the people out there. Just stay the ____ out of our backyard.  Great idea.  I feel all these options don’t do anything for people on park borders. You should question those people first. We moved there for space and no regulations.  We are so excited about this! Please complete trails, hiking, and shooting ASAP!  Can do all of these things as is for free. Leave it BLM. Why raise out taxes or charge us fees when we can do all these things now for free__ are you going to raise a small army to run the cartel out? Will the county be responsible for a persons death by a drug smuggler? The cartel “runs” this area I see and call them into the sheriff on a regular basis-- I live ¾ mile from the mountains--they are always there—please cant this park as it is and leave it as BLM for those of us that use it weekly.  Like idea of regional park. Would like to see west side of mtns utilized more and impact on current residents much smaller. Why go for populated areas when a perfectly good secluded area exists. What about safety? This is a known area for cartel drug runners—who will police to protect public? Will park rangers be needed?  Other comments continued:

1. It sounds like this is already a given. In the “comment form” online, there was no place to say this is a very dangerous idea and maybe not at all popular with current residents. People needed a “do not want” choice. 2. I’m surprised that the local homeowners weren’t sent mailers or otherwise notified like they would be for a zoning change. 3. Why should we be charged for something we now use for free? Eventually there will be a change. 4. How does someone become a member of stakeholder group? Current residents should be a HUGE part of that group! March 31, 2016

5. Notices should be mailed to all local residents w/in a mile of proposed park boundaries for any future meetings, studies, etc. This should be treated like any other zoning change. 6. Drug cartels own this land. Who will negotiate with them? Right now no one seems able to control this issue.

 I would like to see trails, but the camping sites and developed areas are not my choice. I think more developed areas w/trails and less developed sure would be more welcome than camp sites.

Pinal County Press Release

For Immediate Release Contact: Kent Taylor (520) 866-6910 May 16, 2016

Palo Verde Regional Park Public Open House #3

FLORENCE – Staff of the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department will hold the third public open house for the planning of Palo Verde Regional Park, a proposed regional park in western Pinal County. The open house will take place on Tuesday June 7, 2016 from 4:30 PM to 7:00 PM at the Central Arizona College Maricopa Campus 17945 N. Regent Dr. Building A- Room A-101, Maricopa, Arizona 85138. Residents of Pinal County, including the City of Maricopa, Hidden Valley and Thunderbird Farms are encouraged to attend, learn more about the project and provide input. The meeting will be an open house format with opportunity for residents to review and offer comments on four (4) alternative master plan concepts, including a no-build option. The proposed Palo Verde Regional Park comprises more than 20,000 acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land approximately 5 miles west of Maricopa, in the northwest area of Pinal County, stretching from Interstate 8 to the south and Highway 238 to the north. “Our basic objective is to create a Master Plan for this future regional park,” stated District 4 Supervisor Anthony Smith “The feedback I’ve received to date convinces me that security, low cost access and a slow thoughtful approach must be a constant theme and given priority within the plan. All opinions are welcomed and appreciated.” You can find related planning information for this project including a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the County website at: http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/OpenSpaceTrails/ParkTrailPlanning/Pages/PaloVerdePark.aspx This public open house is one of several public outreach events the County has had and will use to gather information about what services residents want for this Regional Park. For more information contact Kent Taylor at [email protected]. ### June 7, 2016 Palo Verde Regional Park Comment Form

Thank you for attending the third public meeting for the master planning project. Your comments will assist us as we move forward in the planning process. Four alternatives have been developed for your review and comments using the data analysis, inventory, recreation needs assessment, working group input and comments received at Public Meeting #1 and #2. The alternatives range from No Action, Minimal Change, Moderate Change, to Most Change.

1. ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION. This is the baseline for comparison to the other three alternatives. The No Action Alternative reflects authorized and legal conditions that are expected to continue to exist if the Palo Verde Regional Park is not adopted. It does not imply that existing unauthorized and illegal activities will continue, i.e., cutting of new trails for any use or travel off the recognized BLM trails network, destruction of the desert setting, shooting of TVs and dangerous items, trigger trash, dumping, and similar. Land management will continue to rest with the BLM, which can alter and/or end recreation activities as needed to protect the land and environment.

Comments: ______

______

2. ALTERNATIVE B – MINIMAL CHANGE. This Alternative includes core programs to meet the mission of the OS&T Department. It provides for minimal levels of recreation opportunities that might be found in an open space regional park. For this alternative, opportunities in addition to what now occur in the No Action Alternative include additional non-motorized trails, equestrian facilities, tent and RV semi-developed camp sites (no water or electric), group camping, family picnic area, and rifle range. No additional motorized trails will be developed and target shooting will be consolidated to a designated location.

What would you add or remove from this alternative? ______

______

Other Comments: ______

______

3. ALTERNATIVE C – MODERATE CHANGE. Alternative C builds on Alternative B by adding facilities that would benefit users seeking more varied recreation opportunities or services of both passive and active recreation types. These include an equestrian riding stable and arena, interpretive center, small amphitheater, playground, developed camp sites (with water and electric), shotgun range, archery range, archery field course, and shooting sports concession.

What would you add or remove from this alternative? ______

______

(continued on back) June 7, 2016 ______

______

Other Comments: ______

______

4. ALTERNATIVE D – MOST CHANGE. Alternative D builds on Alternative C by retaining nearly all of Alternative B and Alternative C opportunities and adds interpretive and barrier-free trails, large group picnic facilities, paintball field, and off-leash dog area. Motorized trails will be limited to a dedicated trails area between the Fresno Road Buffer and I-8 on authorized trails. Motorized trail use north of this area will be eliminated.

What would you add or remove from this alternative? ______

______

Other Comments: ______

______

5. PREFERENCE. Of the four alternatives presented, I would prefer (check one):

 Alternative A – No Action  Alternative C – Moderate Change  Alternative B – Minimal Change  Alternative D – Most Change

6. OTHER COMMENTS

______

Comments provided by (optional):

Name: ______

Address: ______

Contact (email or phone): ______Pinal County Press Release

For Immediate Release Contact: Kent Taylor (520) 866-6910 June 15, 2016

Public Input Sought on Proposed Palo Verde Park Alternatives

FLORENCE – The Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department is asking the public to review four alternatives for the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park.

The proposed Palo Verde Regional Park is over 20,000 acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land on the west side of Pinal County, stretching from Interstate 8 to the south and Highway 238 to the north.

“We’ve had three public meetings with various ideas for the park,” Kent Taylor, Pinal County Open Space and Trails Director said. “Thanks to the public input, data analysis, inventory of the assets of the park and recreational needs, we have come up with four alternatives that we want the public to comment on regarding the future of the proposed park.”

“Alternative A is a No Action Alternative,” stated Board of Supervisors Vice-Chairman Anthony Smith. “This is considered our baseline for comparison to the other alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, the Bureau of Land Management would continue land management of the property as it does today.”

To review the alternatives and leave comments for the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park go to: http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Pages/PublicNotices.aspx?ID=64 and complete the questionnaire. All replies must be received by Friday, July 15.

### PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0607_ 001 X 2016_0607_ 002 X 2016_0607_ 003 X 2016_0607_ 004 X 2016_0607_ 005 X 2016_0607_ 006 X 2016_0607_ 007 X 2016_0607_ 008 X 2016_0607_ 009 X 2016_0607_ 010 X 2016_0607_ 011 X 2016_0607_ 012 X 2016_0607_ 013 X 2016_0607_ 014 X 2016_0607_ 015 X 2016_0607_ 016 X Alt D ‐ Don't limit trail 2016_0607_ 017 X usage for OHVs. 2016_0607_ 018 X 2016_0607_ 019 X 2016_0607_ 020 X 2016_0607_ 021 X 2016_0607_ 022 X 2016_0607_ 023 X 2016_0607_ 024 X 2016_0607_ 025 X 2016_0607_ 026 X 2016_0607_ 027 X 2016_0607_ 028 X 2016_0607_ 029 X 2016_0607_ 030 X 2016_0607_ 031 X 2016_0607_ 032 X 2016_0607_ 033 X 2016_0607_ 034 X 2016_0607_ 035 X 2016_0607_ 036 X 2016_0607_ 037 X 2016_0607_ 038 X

Page 1 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0607_ 039 X 2016_0607_ 040 X 2016_0607_ 041 X 2016_0607_ 042 X 2016_0607_ 043 X 2016_0607_ 044 X 2016_0607_ 045 X 2016_0607_ 046 X 2016_0607_ 047 X 2016_0607_ 048 X 2016_0607_ 049 X 2016_0607_ 050 X 2016_0607_ 051 X 2016_0607_ 052 X 2016_0607_ 053 X 2016_0607_ 054 X 2016_0607_ 055 X 2016_0607_ 056 X 2016_0607_ 057 X 2016_0607_ 058 X 2016_0607_ 059 X 2016_0607_ 060 X 2016_0607_ 061 X 2016_0607_ 062 X 2016_0607_ 063 X 2016_0607_ 064 X 2016_0607_ 065 X 2016_0607_ 066 X 2016_0607_ 067 X 2016_0607_ 068 X 2016_0607_ 069 X 2016_0607_ 070 X 2016_0607_ 071 X 2016_0607_ 072 X 2016_0607_ 073 X 2016_0607_ 074 X 2016_0607_ 075 X Alt B ‐ Prefer no shooting 2016_0607_ 076 X range.

Page 2 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ Shooting only in NW corner. Hunting most 2016_0607_ 077 X southern area. Keep shooting away from houses. Alt B ‐ Move shooting to 2016_0607_ 078 X other side of mountain. Alt B ‐ Make noisy activities away from city and 2016_0607_ 079 X citizens. Place shooting and off roading on the west side of the mountains.

Alt B ‐ Shooting moved to other side of mountain or 2016_0607_ 080 X away from homes. Add ramadas to picnic areas. 2016_0607_ 081 X Alt B ‐ Concerned with animal habitat. There is a 2016_0607_ 082 X need to have management to protect the area, but minimal is always best. Alt B ‐ Provide barrier 2016_0607_ 083 X free/disabled access. 2016_0607_ 084 X 2016_0607_ 085 X 2016_0607_ 086 X 2016_0607_ 087 X 2016_0607_ 088 X Alt B ‐ More areas open to General ‐ Add activities to Alt C ‐ Move congregation Alt D ‐ Move congreation equestrian/multi‐use, the west side, leave east 2016_0607_ 089 X areas much farther from areas much farther from especially at the south end side undeveloped for homes. homes. of the park. homeowners privacy. 2016_0607_ 090 X 2016_0607_ 091 X

Page 3 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt C ‐ Add the elements from Alt C from the misc, 2016_0607_ 092 X camping, & picnic section from Alt D. 2016_0607_ 093 X 2016_0607_ 094 X Alt B ‐ Ensure target Alt C ‐ Limit motorized shooting is confined to an travel to the I‐8/Fresno Rd. area away from trails and 2016_0607_ 095 X corridor. Add competitive other facilities. Limit MTB track to the trails motorized travel to the I‐ plan. 8/Fresno Rd corridon.

Alt B ‐ Add the competitive 2016_0607_ 096 X track to this alternative. 2016_0607_ 097 X Alt C ‐ Focus on off roading 2016_0607_ 098 X and sport/target shooting. 2016_0607_ 099 X 2016_0607_ 100 X 2016_0607_ 101 X 2016_0607_ 102 X 2016_0607_ 103 X Alt B ‐ Remove RV Camping since there is minimal 2016_0607_ 104 X changes to existing land it would invite transient camps. 2016_0607_ 105 X 2016_0607_ 106 X 2016_0607_ 107 X 2016_0607_ 108 X 2016_0607_ 109 X 2016_0607_ 110 X 2016_0607_ 111 X 2016_0607_ 112 X

Page 4 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0607_ 113 X 2016_0607_ 114 X 2016_0607_ 115 X Alt D ‐ Provide more 2016_0607_ 116 X motorized trails, if possible. 2016_0607_ 117 X 2016_0607_ 118 X 2016_0607_ 119 X 2016_0607_ 120 X Alt D ‐ Remove motorized 2016_0607_ 121 X trail use ‐ north. Add a swimming pool. 2016_0607_ 122 X

Alt D ‐ Paintball field not necessary for a park. Ban shooting…restrict shooting 2016_0607_ 123 X range to a limited defined area. Include trails/facilities for mobiliti/challeged people.

2016_0607_ 124 X 2016_0607_ 125 X Alt D ‐ Remove paintball. General ‐ Can shooting Alt A ‐ Need more kid‐ Alt B ‐ Need more kid Alt D ‐ Remove all shooting 2016_0607_ 126 X range be confined to a friendly areas. friendly areas. sports except paintball. special area? 2016_0607_ 127 X Alt B ‐ Remove the RV 2016_0610_ 01 X sites. 2016_0614_ 01 X 2016_0614_ 02 X Alt A ‐ Fenced and Alt B ‐ Noisest activities Alt C ‐ Put off‐road 2016_0615_ 01 X Alt D ‐ No paintball. protected. away from residents. activities near I‐8 or 238. 2016_0615_ 02 X

Page 5 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0615_ 03 X 2016_0615_ 04 X Alt C ‐ Make sure gun 2016_0615_ 05 X range is big enough for everyone to use. 2016_0615_ 06 X Alt B ‐ No tent or RV 2016_0615_ 07 X camping sites needed. 2016_0615_ 08 X Note: Duplicate phone number, but different 2016_0615_ 09 X "vote." See 2016_0713_105. 2016_0615_ 10 X Alt D ‐ Remove paintball. 2016_0615_ 11 X 2016_0615_ 12 X 2016_0615_ 13 X 2016_0615_ 14 X Alt C ‐ Remove shotgun and shooting activities. 2016_0615_ 15 X Add large group picnic area. 2016_0615_ 16 X

Alt C ‐ Like amphitheater if multi‐purpose. I do not approve of shotgun range and if shooting sports 2016_0615_ 17 X concession means place for sale of guns. Archery safely positioned. How about a swimming pool? Or man made lake?

2016_0615_ 18 X 2016_0615_ 19 X 2016_0615_ 20a X 2016_0615_ 20b X

Page 6 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0616_ 01 X 2016_0616_ 02 X 2016_0616_ 03 X Alt D ‐ Prefer no motorized 2016_0616_ 04 X vehicles in park. 2016_0616_ 05 X Alt B ‐ Add 1 or 2 RV or 2016_0616_ 06 X camping sites with water and electricity. 2016_0616_ 07 X Alt D ‐ Off‐leash area. Like 2016_0616_ 08 X Alt B ‐ Include geocaching. paintball, but maybe too commercial. 2016_0616_ 09 X 2016_0616_ 10 X 2016_0616_ 11 X 2016_0616_ 12 X 2016_0616_ 13 X 2016_0616_ 14 X 2016_0616_ 15 X 2016_0616_ 16 X 2016_0616_ 17 X 2016_0616_ 18 X 2016_0616_ 19 X 2016_0616_ 20 X Alt B ‐ Add more areas for Alt C ‐ Add more areas for 2016_0616_ 21 X ATV trails. ATV trails. Alt B ‐ Shooting area away 2016_0616_ 22 X from homes. 2016_0616_ 23 X 2016_0616_ 24 X 2016_0616_ 25 X 2016_0617_ 01 X 2016_0617_ 02 X 2016_0617_ 03 X 2016_0617_ 04 X 2016_0617_ 05 X 2016_0617_ 06 X

Page 7 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0617_ 07 X 2016_0617_ 08 X 2016_0617_ 09 X 2016_0617_ 10 X 2016_0617_ 11 X General ‐ Add the BMX 2016_0617_ 12 X track. 2016_0617_ 13 X 2016_0617_ 14 X 2016_0617_ 15 X 2016_0617_ 16 X 2016_0617_ 17 X 2016_0617_ 18 X 2016_0617_ 19 X 2016_0617_ 20a X 2016_0617_ 20b X 2016_0617_ 21 X 2016_0618_ 01 X 2016_0618_ 02 X 2016_0618_ 03 X 2016_0618_ 04 X 2016_0618_ 05 X 2016_0618_ 06 X 2016_0618_ 07 X 2016_0618_ 08 X 2016_0618_ 09 X 2016_0618_ 10 X General ‐ Make road 2016_0618_ 11a X improvements leading into park General ‐ Make road 2016_0618_ 11b X improvements leading into park 2016_0618_ 12 X 2016_0619_ 01 X 2016_0619_ 02 X

Page 8 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ Would support RV sites to help pay for maintenance of park. 2016_0620_ 01 X Reasonable annual fee pass for improved areas only or reasonable pass, like Tonto pass. 2016_0620_ 02 X 2016_0620_ 03 X 2016_0620_ 04 X Alt B ‐ Add shooting sports options: shotgun, archery field course, concession. 2016_0621_ 01 X Add competitive track. Add RV camping. Add trailhead at Century Rd. 2016_0622_ 01 X 2016_0622_ 02 X Alt B ‐ Remove campsites, Alt C ‐ Concessionaires not 2016_0622_ 03 X make shooting area Alt D ‐ Off‐leash area needed. inclusive of current users. 2016_0623_ 01 X 2016_0623_ 02 X 2016_0623_ 03 X 2016_0623_ 04 X 2016_0623_ 05 X 2016_0623_ 06 X Alt B ‐ Should be motorized Alt D ‐ Off‐leash area. 2016_0624_ 01 X trails. Paintball a great addition. 2016_0624_ 02 X 2016_0624_ 03 X 2016_0624_ 04 X 2016_0624_ 05 X 2016_0624_ 06 X 2016_0624_ 07 X 2016_0625_ 01 X

Page 9 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0625_ 02 X 2016_0625_ 03 X Alt D ‐ Add restrooms and 2016_0626_ 01 X Alt B ‐ Add restrooms. Alt C ‐ Add restrooms. showers. 2016_0627_ 01 X 2016_0627_ 02 X 2016_0627_ 03 X 2016_0628_ 01 X 2016_0628_ 02 X 2016_0628_ 03 X 2016_0628_ 04 X 2016_0628_ 05 X 2016_0628_ 06 X 2016_0628_ 07 X 2016_0628_ 08 X 2016_0628_ 09 X Alt C ‐ Add equestrian trails 2016_0628_ 10 X and parking areas for trailers. 2016_0628_ 11 X 2016_0628_ 12 X 2016_0628_ 13 X 2016_0629_ 01 X Alt C ‐ Add equestrian 2016_0629_ 02 X arena. 2016_0629_ 03 X 2016_0629_ 04 X 2016_0629_ 05 X 2016_0630_ 01 X 2016_0630_ 02 X 2016_0701_ 01 X 2016_0701_ 02a X 2016_0701_ 02b X 2016_0701_ 03 X Alt B ‐ Add hunting, 2016_0701_ 04 X motorized trails, and shooting range.

Page 10 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ First bring basic 2016_0701_ 05 X roads and water systems up to standards. 2016_0702_ 01 X 2016_0702_ 02 X 2016_0702_ 03 X 2016_0703_ 01 X 2016_0703_ 02 X 2016_0704_ 01 X 2016_0704_ 02 X 2016_0705_ 01 X 2016_0705_ 02 X 2016_0705_ 03 X 2016_0705_ 04 X 2016_0705_ 05 X 2016_0705_ 06 X 2016_0706_ 01 X 2016_0706_ 02 X Alt C ‐ Remove shotgun 2016_0706_ 03 X range Alt D ‐ Consider noise from 2016_0707_ 01 X shooting area near camping, equestrian, etc. 2016_0707_ 02a X 2016_0707_ 02b X 2016_0707_ 03 X Alt D ‐ Separate equine and 2016_0707_ 04 X motorized uses. Alt B ‐ Limit future changes. Review park 2016_0707_ 05 X statistics in 10 years for financial impact and actual usage of area.

Page 11 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ Limit future changes. Review park 2016_0707_ 06 X statistics in 10 years for financial impact and actual usage of area. 2016_0707_ 07 X 2016_0708_ 01 X 2016_0708_ 02 X 2016_0708_ 03 X 2016_0708_ 04 X Alt B ‐ Keep noisy activities Alt D ‐ Add about a dozen 2016_0708_ 05 X away from existing or more RV hook‐ups. residences. Remove guns and ATVs. 2016_0708_ 06 X Alt B ‐ Keep shooting away 2016_0708_ 07 X from people's homes. Alt B ‐ Remove all shooting 2016_0708_ 08 X in the park. 2016_0708_ 09 X 2016_0709_ 01 X Alt C ‐ Eliminate shooting Alt D ‐ Eliminate paintball. 2016_0709_ 02 X areas. Eliminate off‐leash area. 2016_0709_ 03 X 2016_0709_ 04 X 2016_0709_ 05 X 2016_0709_ 06 X 2016_0709_ 07 X 2016_0709_ 08 X 2016_0709_ 09 X 2016_0709_ 10 X 2016_0709_ 11 X 2016_0709_ 12 X 2016_0709_ 13 X 2016_0709_ 14a X 2016_0709_ 14b X 2016_0709_ 15 X

Page 12 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments General ‐ Provide more 2016_0709_ 16 X freedom for ATVs. 2016_0709_ 17 X Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range. Alt B ‐ Prefer no RV sites 2016_0709_ 18 X and rifle range. 2016_0709_ 19 X Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range. 2016_0709_ 20 X 2016_0709_ 21 X 2016_0709_ 22 X General ‐ Provide off‐leash 2016_0709_ 23 X area and motorized trails. 2016_0709_ 24 X 2016_0709_ 25 X 2016_0709_ 26 X Alt D ‐ No paintball or off‐ General ‐ No paintball or 2016_0709_ 27 X leash area. off‐leash area. 2016_0709_ 28 X 2016_0710_ 01 X 2016_0710_ 02 X 2016_0710_ 03 X 2016_0710_ 04 X Alt C ‐ Include Alt D ‐ Add non‐ 2016_0710_ 05 X motorized/non‐motorized motorized/motorized option from Alt D. option from Alt D to Alt C. 2016_0710_ 06 X 2016_0710_ 07 X 2016_0710_ 08 X Alt B ‐ Add interpretive 2016_0710_ 09 X center and outdoor area for educational display. 2016_0710_ 10 X 2016_0710_ 11 X General ‐ Add disc golf. 2016_0710_ 12 X 2016_0710_ 13 X 2016_0710_ 14 X

Page 13 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0710_ 15 X Alt B ‐ Remove target 2016_0710_ 16 X shooting. 2016_0711_ 01 X Alt D ‐ Add disc golf. 2016_0711_ 02 X 2016_0711_ 03 X 2016_0711_ 04 X 2016_0711_ 05 X 2016_0711_ 06 X 2016_0711_ 07 X 2016_0711_ 08 X 2016_0711_ 09 X 2016_0711_ 10 X 2016_0711_ 11 X 2016_0711_ 12 X 2016_0711_ 13 X Alt C ‐ No equestrian stable, allow horses. No Alt B ‐ Do not make roads amphitheater or in Table Top Mtn. 2 wheel‐ 2016_0711_ 14 X playground. Concentrate drive. Do not add more shooting and archery in facilities at this site. one area, away from camp sites. 2016_0711_ 15 X 2016_0711_ 16 X 2016_0711_ 17 X 2016_0711_ 18 X Alt B ‐ Add disc golf. Alt C ‐ 2016_0711_ 19 X Add disc golf. 2016_0711_ 20 X 2016_0711_ 21 X Alt B ‐ Develop target shooting in more than one Alt C ‐ Remove riding location; where it is stable and arena, 2016_0711_ 22 X Alt D ‐ Provide paintball. currently being done. Don't developed camp sites, want to be restricted to shooting concession. use land.

Page 14 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ Add composting 2016_0711_ 23 X toilets and potable water. Provide trash receptacles. 2016_0711_ 24 X 2016_0711_ 25 X 2016_0711_ 26 X 2016_0711_ 27 X 2016_0711_ 28 X 2016_0711_ 29 X 2016_0711_ 30 X 2016_0711_ 31 X Alt C ‐ Shooting range and Alt D ‐ Remove paintball Alt B ‐ Add electric and archery in designated 2016_0711_ 32 X and off‐leash area, no water for camping. areas, remove shooting motorized trails. sports concession. Alt C ‐ Remove stable, shotgun, and shooting 2016_0711_ 33 X Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range. Alt D ‐ Paintball ‐ really? range, and sports concession. 2016_0711_ 34 X 2016_0711_ 35 X 2016_0711_ 36 X Alt B ‐ Add water. 2016_0711_ 37 X 2016_0712_ 01 X 2016_0712_ 02 X 2016_0712_ 03 X 2016_0712_ 04 X 2016_0712_ 05 X 2016_0712_ 06 X General ‐ Supports 2016_0712_ 07 X connections to Anza NHT. (Lengthy comment.) 2016_0712_ 08 X 2016_0712_ 09 X 2016_0712_ 10 X 2016_0712_ 11 X

Page 15 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0712_ 12 X 2016_0712_ 13 X 2016_0712_ 14 X 2016_0712_ 15 X Alt D ‐ The features with Alt B ‐ Develop more than this alternative, along with 2016_0712_ 16 X this alternative allows. Alt C ‐ Still not enough. other three alternatives Include features in Alt D. seems sufficient. 2016_0712_ 17 X 2016_0712_ 18 X 2016_0712_ 19 X 2016_0712_ 20 X 2016_0712_ 21 X 2016_0712_ 22 X 2016_0712_ 23 X 2016_0712_ 24 X 2016_0712_ 25 X 2016_0712_ 26 X 2016_0712_ 27 X 2016_0712_ 28 X 2016_0712_ 29 X Alt C ‐ Worry about 2016_0712_ 30 X motorized use and environment destruction. 2016_0712_ 31 X 2016_0712_ 32 X 2016_0712_ 33 X 2016_0712_ 34 X 2016_0712_ 35 X 2016_0712_ 36 X Note: Duplicate phone number for Maricopa 2016_0712_ 37 X Police Department, but different "vote." See 2016_0713_031. 2016_0712_ 38 X 2016_0712_ 39 X

Page 16 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0712_ 40 X 2016_0712_ 41 X 2016_0712_ 42 X 2016_0712_ 43 X 2016_0712_ 44 X 2016_0712_ 45 X 2016_0712_ 46 X Alt B ‐ Add water and electricity to som of the 2016_0712_ 47 X camping and picnic areas (or just water). 2016_0712_ 48 X 2016_0712_ 49 X 2016_0712_ 50 X 2016_0712_ 51 X 2016_0712_ 52 X 2016_0712_ 53 X 2016_0712_ 54 X 2016_0712_ 55 X 2016_0712_ 56 X 2016_0712_ 57 X 2016_0712_ 58 X 2016_0712_ 59 X 2016_0712_ 60 X 2016_0712_ 61 X 2016_0712_ 62 X 2016_0712_ 63 X 2016_0712_ 64 X 2016_0712_ 65 X 2016_0712_ 66 X 2016_0712_ 67 X 2016_0712_ 68 X 2016_0712_ 69 X 2016_0712_ 70 X 2016_0712_ 71 X 2016_0712_ 72 X 2016_0712_ 73 X 2016_0712_ 74 X 2016_0712_ 75 X

Page 17 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0712_ 76 X 2016_0712_ 77 X 2016_0712_ 78 X General ‐ A or B for this 2016_0712_ 79 X family. 2016_0712_ 80 X Alt C ‐ Remove interpretive center, small 2016_0712_ 81 X Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range. Alt D ‐ Remove paintball. amphitheater, shotgun range. 2016_0712_ 82 X 2016_0712_ 83 X 2016_0712_ 84 X 2016_0712_ 85 X 2016_0712_ 86 X 2016_0712_ 87 X 2016_0712_ 88 X 2016_0712_ 89 X Alt C ‐ Remove 2016_0712_ 90 X amphitheater and shotgun range. 2016_0712_ 91 X 2016_0712_ 92 X 2016_0712_ 93 X Alt B ‐ Add shotgun range, 2016_0712_ 94 X archery field, shooting sports concession. 2016_0712_ 95 X 2016_0712_ 96 X 2016_0713_ 001 X 2016_0713_ 002 X 2016_0713_ 003 X 2016_0713_ 004 X 2016_0713_ 005 X 2016_0713_ 006 X 2016_0713_ 007 X 2016_0713_ 008 X 2016_0713_ 009 X

Page 18 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0713_ 010 X 2016_0713_ 011 X 2016_0713_ 012 X 2016_0713_ 013 X 2016_0713_ 014 X 2016_0713_ 015 X Alt B ‐ Add riding stable 2016_0713_ 016 X and arena. 2016_0713_ 017 X 2016_0713_ 018 X 2016_0713_ 019 X 2016_0713_ 020 X 2016_0713_ 021 X 2016_0713_ 022 X Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range from B‐D. Add the 2016_0713_ 023 X motorized trails limitations from D. Alt D ‐ Paintball is an 2016_0713_ 024 X overreach. 2016_0713_ 025 X Alt D ‐ Would hate to see 2016_0713_ 026 X any motorized trails due to dust and noise. 2016_0713_ 027 X Alt B ‐ Add running water 2016_0713_ 028 X and some king of toilet. 2016_0713_ 029 X 2016_0713_ 030 X Note: Duplicate phone number for Maricopa 2016_0713_ 031 X Police Department, but different "vote." See 2016_0712_37. 2016_0713_ 032 X 2016_0713_ 033 X

Page 19 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt C ‐ Allow shotgun 2016_0713_ 034 X range. Do not allow rifle or pistol discharge. Alt B ‐ Add dog park, RV 2016_0713_ 035 X camping, trailhead at Century Road. 2016_0713_ 036 X 2016_0713_ 037 X 2016_0713_ 038 X 2016_0713_ 039 X 2016_0713_ 040 X General ‐ Reclaim and 2016_0713_ 041 X Maintain 2016_0713_ 042 X 2016_0713_ 043 X 2016_0713_ 044 X 2016_0713_ 045 X 2016_0713_ 046 X 2016_0713_ 047 X 2016_0713_ 048 X 2016_0713_ 049 X 2016_0713_ 050 X 2016_0713_ 051 X 2016_0713_ 052 X Alt D ‐ Off‐leash dog areas are problematic. (Comment implies that the 2016_0713_ 053 X whole park would be off‐ leash causing conflicts with hikers.) 2016_0713_ 054 X Alt B ‐ Paint ball course and 2016_0713_ 055 X off‐leash area (implies adding), water, no electric. 2016_0713_ 056 X 2016_0713_ 057 X 2016_0713_ 058 X 2016_0713_ 059 X

Page 20 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt C ‐ Remove playground. 2016_0713_ 060 X It would be nice to have covered ranges. 2016_0713_ 061 X 2016_0713_ 062 X 2016_0713_ 063 X 2016_0713_ 064 X 2016_0713_ 065 X 2016_0713_ 066 X 2016_0713_ 067 X 2016_0713_ 068 X 2016_0713_ 069 X 2016_0713_ 070 X 2016_0713_ 071 X 2016_0713_ 072 X 2016_0713_ 073 X Alt C ‐ Add western riding Alt D ‐ Add western riding General ‐ Separate options to stable. It would options to stable. It would motorized trails from 2016_0713_ 074 X be great to have trails for be great to have trails for equestrian center and experienced riders. experienced riders. trails. 2016_0713_ 075 X 2016_0713_ 076 X Alt D ‐ Provide ample 2016_0713_ 077 X parking options with ingress/egress. 2016_0713_ 078 X 2016_0713_ 079 X 2016_0713_ 080 X 2016_0713_ 081 X 2016_0713_ 082 X 2016_0713_ 083 X Alt C ‐ Remove shotgun 2016_0713_ 084 X range, and shooting sports concession.

Page 21 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt D ‐ Split motorized trail use on the east and west 2016_0713_ 085 X border, rather than north and south. 2016_0713_ 086 X 2016_0713_ 087 X 2016_0713_ 088 X 2016_0713_ 089 X 2016_0713_ 090 X 2016_0713_ 091 X 2016_0713_ 092 X Alt D ‐ Add disc golf and General ‐ Add disc golf and 2016_0713_ 093 X moutain biking. mountain biking. 2016_0713_ 094 X 2016_0713_ 095 X 2016_0713_ 096 X Alt D ‐ Add disc golf. 2016_0713_ 097 X 2016_0713_ 098 X 2016_0713_ 099 X 2016_0713_ 100 X 2016_0713_ 101 X General ‐ Disc golf is 2016_0713_ 102 X awesome! 2016_0713_ 103 X Alt C ‐ Add water access near vault toilets at the campground not hook ups. General ‐ This is my second Add 275 person group submission. I would like 2016_0713_ 104 X campsites with remodels this to supercede my other for scout packs. Consider submission. how Casa Grande set up their gun range.

Note: Duplicate phone 2016_0713_ 105 X number, but different "vote." See 2016_0615_09. 2016_0713_ 106 X 2016_0713_ 107 X

Page 22 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0713_ 108 X 2016_0713_ 109 X 2016_0713_ 110 X 2016_0713_ 111 X 2016_0713_ 112 X 2016_0713_ 113 X 2016_0713_ 114 X 2016_0713_ 115 X 2016_0713_ 116 X 2016_0713_ 117 X 2016_0713_ 118 X 2016_0713_ 119 X 2016_0713_ 120 X Alt B ‐ In favor of this alternative and only if 2016_0713_ 121 X usage fees are kept to a minimum. 2016_0713_ 122 X 2016_0713_ 123 X General ‐ Include motorized trails to create 2016_0713_ 124 X synergy with the proposed motorsports complex. Alt D ‐ Explain why the Alt B ‐ Clarify what amount Alt C ‐ Add staging facilities motorized trails north of 2016_0713_ 125 X of motorized trails will be for motorized recreation. this area must be retained. eliminated. 2016_0713_ 126 X Alt B ‐ Add water only, but Alt C ‐ Don't like C or D; too 2016_0713_ 127 X developed campsites. much development 2016_0713_ 128 X 2016_0713_ 129 X 2016_0713_ 130 X Alt B ‐ Add disc golf. General ‐ Very convenient 2016_0713_ 131 X to go out and shoot without a lot of control.

Page 23 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0713_ 132 X 2016_0713_ 133 X 2016_0713_ 134 X 2016_0713_ 135 X 2016_0713_ 136 X 2016_0713_ 137 X 2016_0713_ 138 X Alt D ‐ Add disc golf. 2016_0713_ 139 X 2016_0713_ 140 X 2016_0713_ 141 X Alt C ‐ No motorized trails or use. No equestrian 2016_0713_ 142 X riding stable and arena. Add off‐leash dog area. 2016_0713_ 143 X 2016_0713_ 144 X Note: Two surveys were compiled into one 2016_0713_ 145 X submittal. However, only the first one is counted here. 2016_0713_ 146 X 2016_0713_ 147 X 2016_0713_ 148 X 2016_0713_ 149 X 2016_0713_ 150 X 2016_0713_ 151 X General ‐ Needs more 2016_0713_ 152 X information to vote otherwise. 2016_0713_ 153 X 2016_0713_ 154 X Alt B ‐ Add water and electric to camping sites. Alt C ‐ Remove all Alt D ‐ Remove all 2016_0713_ 155 X Remove rifle range. Is it weapons. weapons. possible to build a man‐ made lake.

Page 24 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt D ‐ Add more 2016_0713_ 156 X motorized trails. 2016_0713_ 157 X 2016_0713_ 158 X 2016_0713_ 159 X 2016_0713_ 160 X 2016_0714_ 001 X 2016_0714_ 002 X 2016_0714_ 003 X 2016_0714_ 004 X 2016_0714_ 005 X 2016_0714_ 006 X 2016_0714_ 007 X 2016_0714_ 008 X 2016_0714_ 009 X 2016_0714_ 010 X 2016_0714_ 011 X 2016_0714_ 012 X 2016_0714_ 013 X 2016_0714_ 014 X 2016_0714_ 015 X 2016_0714_ 016 X 2016_0714_ 017 X 2016_0714_ 018 X 2016_0714_ 019 X

General ‐ Consider reduced fee for citizens within a certain distance. Consider 2016_0714_ 020 X reducing size; perhaps not extending as far south, removing concerns of some folks in that area.

Page 25 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt C ‐ Remove playground and amphitheater. 2016_0714_ 021 X Expanded firearm uses good. Add the large group picnic from Alt D. 2016_0714_ 022 X 2016_0714_ 023 X Alt C ‐ Remove water and electricity from camping Alt B ‐ More options for sites, shooting sports Alt D ‐ Remove this 2016_0714_ 024 X motorized trails. concessions, interpretive alternative. center, and playground. Add more ATV trails. Alt B ‐ Remove the rifle 2016_0714_ 025 X range. Alt B ‐ Remove the rifle 2016_0714_ 026 X range. 2016_0714_ 027 X 2016_0714_ 028 X Alt C ‐ Remove shotgun Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range Alt D ‐ Remove paintball range, archery range, and motorized trails; may and all motorized trails. 2016_0714_ 029 X archery field course, and be better to regulate it May be better to regulate shooting sports though. than totally eliminate. concession. 2016_0714_ 030 X 2016_0714_ 031 X 2016_0714_ 032 X 2016_0714_ 033 X 2016_0714_ 034 X 2016_0714_ 035 X 2016_0714_ 036 X 2016_0714_ 037 X Alt D ‐ Consider barrier 2016_0714_ 038 X free trials. 2016_0714_ 039 X 2016_0714_ 040 X

Page 26 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ Verify that alternative works, then add 2016_0714_ 041 X one or two features in following years. Alt B ‐ Consider water 2016_0714_ 042 X fountains in common areas. Alt D ‐ Bathrooms and shaded picnic areas important; quiet areas for 2016_0714_ 043 X picnicking away from shooting and motorized use. Dust in scenic areas. 2016_0714_ 044 X 2016_0714_ 045 X 2016_0714_ 046 X Alt D ‐ Paintball fields. Do Alt C ‐ Discusses recreation 2016_0714_ 047 X Alt B ‐ Would delete Alt B. not limit motorized trail needs in Gold Canyon. use. Alt B ‐ Pickle Ball Courts, Alt C ‐ Pickle Ball Courts, Alt D ‐ No motorized trails; General ‐ Silly has a lot of 2016_0714_ 048 X Tournaments, draw visitors Tournaments, draw visitors noise compromises potential. to the East Valley. to the East Valley. enjoyment. General ‐ Discusses Alt A ‐ Discusses recreation 2016_0714_ 049 X recreation at Silly at Silly Mountain. Mountain. 2016_0714_ 050 X 2016_0714_ 051 X 2016_0714_ 052 X 2016_0714_ 053 X 2016_0714_ 054 X 2016_0714_ 055 X 2016_0714_ 056 X 2016_0714_ 057 X 2016_0714_ 058 X Alt B ‐ No shooting in the 2016_0714_ 059 X park!!!!! 2016_0714_ 060 X

Page 27 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0714_ 061 X 2016_0714_ 062 X 2016_0714_ 063 X Alt B ‐ Add barrier free trail, consolidate 2016_0714_ 064 X motorized trails and use of firearms. 2016_0714_ 065 X 2016_0714_ 066 X 2016_0714_ 067 X 2016_0714_ 068 X 2016_0714_ 069 X Alt B ‐ Sound of gunfire disruptive to pristine environmental experience. 2016_0714_ 070 X General ‐ Road access is vital for seniors or handicapped, and safety and management. 2016_0714_ 071 X 2016_0714_ 072 X 2016_0714_ 073 X 2016_0714_ 074 X

Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range. Eliminate motorized use, or severly limit and locate away from camping and hiking trails. No ball fields, 2016_0714_ 075a X archery ranges, playgrounds, etc. Separate shooting facilities. Limit fencing to wildlife friendly fencing.

Page 28 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

Alt B ‐ Remove rifle range. Eliminate motorized use, or severly limit and locate away from camping and hiking trails. No ball fields, 2016_0714_ 075b X archery ranges, playgrounds, etc. Separate shooting facilities. Limit fencing to wildlife friendly fencing.

General ‐ Amenities in C and D difficult to develop 2016_0714_ 076 X here. Amphitheater, playgrounds, and on‐site stables are unnecessary.

2016_0714_ 077 X 2016_0714_ 078 X 2016_0714_ 079 X 2016_0714_ 080 X 2016_0714_ 081 X 2016_0714_ 082 X Alt C ‐ Gun range not 2016_0714_ 083 X needed. 2016_0714_ 084 X 2016_0714_ 085 X Alt B ‐ Shooting range not 2016_0714_ 086a X needed. Alt B ‐ Shooting range not 2016_0714_ 086b X needed. 2016_0714_ 087 X 2016_0714_ 088 X 2016_0714_ 089 X

Page 29 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments General ‐ I do not think Alt C ‐ Remove anthing to guns should be in the same 2016_0714_ 090 X Alt B ‐ No rifle range!! do with guns. park area as guns of any kind. 2016_0714_ 091 X Alt D ‐ Add a free public map at Avenza PDF Maps site. Cuts down on litter 2016_0714_ 092 X and gives public more visibility of what is ther and identify places where not allowed to travel. 2016_0714_ 093 X Alt D ‐ Question need for large playground. Emphasize bird/nature 2016_0714_ 094 X wathcing areas. Could do without motorized trail options. General ‐ Include doggie 2016_0714_ 095 X park. 2016_0714_ 096 X 2016_0714_ 097 X 2016_0714_ 098 X 2016_0714_ 099 X Alt C ‐ Remove shooting 2016_0714_ 100 X range or completely safe and enclosed. 2016_0714_ 101 X 2016_0714_ 102 X General ‐ Favorite way to use our tax money is for open space preservation, 2016_0715_ 001 X trails, parks, recreation, etc. etc. We favor doing it right. 2016_0715_ 002 X

Page 30 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt C ‐ Remove camp site, Alt D ‐ With comments shotgun range, and 2016_0715_ 003 X above plus off‐leash dog shooting sports area. No guns anywhere. concessions. 2016_0715_ 004 X 2016_0715_ 005 X Alt B ‐ Add off‐leash dog 2016_0715_ 006 X park. Alt B ‐ If having equestrian facilities, add dog park. 2016_0715_ 007 X Add archery range. Concerned about gun noise at picnic area. 2016_0715_ 008 X 2016_0715_ 009 X 2016_0715_ 010 X 2016_0715_ 011 X 2016_0715_ 012 X 2016_0715_ 013 X 2016_0715_ 014 X 2016_0715_ 015 X 2016_0715_ 016 X 2016_0715_ 017 X 2016_0715_ 018 X 2016_0715_ 019 X 2016_0715_ 020 X 2016_0715_ 021 X 2016_0715_ 022 X 2016_0715_ 023 X 2016_0715_ 024 X 2016_0715_ 025 X 2016_0715_ 026 X 2016_0715_ 027 X 2016_0715_ 028 X 2016_0715_ 029 X 2016_0715_ 030 X 2016_0715_ 031 X 2016_0715_ 032 X

Page 31 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0715_ 033 X 2016_0715_ 034 X 2016_0715_ 035 X 2016_0715_ 036 X 2016_0715_ 037 X 2016_0715_ 038 X 2016_0715_ 039 X 2016_0715_ 040 X 2016_0715_ 041 X 2016_0715_ 042 X 2016_0715_ 043 X 2016_0715_ 044 X 2016_0715_ 045 X 2016_0715_ 046 X 2016_0715_ 047 X Alt B ‐ Remove tent and RV facilities. Camping, picnic, 2016_0715_ 048 X rifle range. Add recreational dog parks. Alt B ‐ No shooting 2016_0715_ 049 X period!!! Alt D ‐ Maximize open space opportunities for 2016_0715_ 050 X recreation and environmental education as area is to grow. 2016_0715_ 051 X 2016_0715_ 052 X 2016_0715_ 053 X 2016_0715_ 054 X 2016_0715_ 055 X Alt A ‐ Would like to see an Alt B ‐ Would like to see an Alt C ‐ Don't support Alt D ‐ Off‐leash dog park is 2016_0715_ 056 X off‐leash dog park. off‐leash dog park shooting or archery sites. good. 2016_0715_ 057 X 2016_0715_ 058 X

Page 32 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Alt B ‐ If rifle is planned, Alt C ‐ Shotgun range to Alt D ‐ Some form of dust 2016_0715_ 059 X then should a pistol and include trap, skeet, and control would need to be shotgun trap ranges. sporting clays. implemented.

2016_0715_ 060 X Alt C ‐ Off‐leash dog area. 2016_0715_ 061 X 2016_0715_ 062 X 2016_0715_ 063 X Alt D ‐ Motorized trails 2016_0715_ 064 X need to be separate from hiking/biking. 2016_0715_ 065 X 2016_0715_ 066 X 2016_0715_ 067 X 2016_0715_ 068 X 2016_0715_ 069a X Alt B ‐ Dog park. 2016_0715_ 069b X Alt B ‐ Dog park. Alt C ‐ More mountain bike 2016_0715_ 070 X opportunities. 2016_0715_ 071 X 2016_0715_ 072 X

Alt D ‐ Remove paintball, rifle range, shotgun range, and shooting sports concession. Noise would be a detriment. ATV trails should be separate from 2016_0715_ 073 X other trails. General ‐ In favor of preserving open space with the exception of shooting sports, which are too noisy. ATV trails should be separate for other trail users.

2016_0715_ 074 X

Page 33 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments 2016_0715_ 075 X Alt B ‐ Motorized traffic 2016_0715_ 076 X should not be allowed. Alt D ‐ Would love to see 2016_0715_ 077 X General ‐ Dog park needed. dog park built. 2016_0715_ 078 X 2016_0715_ 079 X 2016_0715_ 080 X 2016_0715_ 081 X 2016_0715_ 082 X 2016_0715_ 083 X Alt C ‐ Additional moutain 2016_0715_ 084 X bike trail access. 2016_0715_ 085 X Alt C ‐ Would there be 2016_0715_ 086 X paved or packed dirt bike trails? I hope so. Alt B ‐ Add water, sewer, and electric hook‐ups and 2016_0715_ 087 X some primitive choices too. Consider an ultralight flight park. 2016_0715_ 088 X 2016_0715_ 089 X General ‐ Options C and D used by small percentage 2016_0715_ 090 X and have largest negative impact on nature. 2016_0715_ 091 X 2016_0715_ 092 X 2016_0715_ 093 X 2016_0715_ 094 X 2016_0715_ 095 X 2016_0715_ 096 X Alt D ‐ Include off‐leash 2016_0715_ 097 X dog park.

Page 34 of 35 PALO VERDE REGIONAL PARK Results of Alternatives Public Review June 7, 2016 through July 15, 2016 Comments Related to Revising the Alternative

A B D C

Change)

ve ti Change)

Action)

Selection

erna (Minimal (Most No Date Sequence Alternative (No Alternative Alt Change) Alternative (Moderate Alternative A Comments Alternative B Comments Alternative C Comments Alternative D Comments General Comments Note: Alt D selected for respondent based on 2016_0715_ 098 X activities requested in email, not via on‐line survey. Alt A ‐ Add more activities, 2016_0715_ 099 X Alt B ‐ Add more options. more camping areas. Alt B ‐ More camping and 2016_0715_ 100 X Alt A ‐ Needs more space. Alt C ‐ Add more options. activities. General ‐ "…because Alt D allows paintball and would 2016_0715_ 101 X leave hulls all over the area." General ‐ "…one thing 2016_0715_ 102 X most important is off‐leash for dogs." 252 140 177 275 1 29.8% 16.6% 20.9% 32.5% 0.1% 70.1%

Page 35 of 35 Pinal County Press Release

For Immediate Release Contact: Kent Taylor (520) 866-6910 October 11, 2016

Public Input Sought on Palo Verde Regional Park Draft Master Plan and Preferred Alternative FLORENCE – The Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department is asking the public to review and provide comment on the Palo Verde Regional Park Draft Master Plan and Preferred Alternative. Comments will be accepted through Friday, November 10, 2016. The proposed Palo Verde Regional Park is over 20,000 acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land on the west side of Pinal County, stretching from Interstate 8 to the south and Highway 238 to the north. “We’ve had tremendous public input throughout the planning process, including almost 850 comments related to the four alternatives presented to the public in July,” Kent Taylor, Pinal County Open Space and Trails Director said. “I am pleased that we have seen so much input from the public regarding Palo Verde Regional Park,” stated Board of Supervisors Vice-Chairman Anthony Smith. “The passion for different plans for the park has made this a good example of local residents taking an interest in what is happening around them. We continue working to come up with a plan that is realistic and favored by the residents of this county.” To review the Draft Master Plan and Preferred Alternative please go to: http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/Pages/PublicNotices.aspx?ID=74 Those wishing to comment on the proposals will be able to do so on that page. All replies must be received by Friday, November 10, 2016. ### Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

1 NO PARK! [A-2] 10/12/16 3:41 AM Email Received 2 Maricopa This is a huge waste of taxpayer money, The existing park in the area off of highway 84 has posted a loss 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey of money since its existence. The people that live in this area (I am less than a mile away from the Form proposed park) actually use the BLM Land as it is and do not want the "park". [A-2] The park will limit our use, add fee for use, and cause mass spending by the county with money they don't have(recent budget cuts). [D-1] So the county will have to increase taxes to pay for it. [D-2] Just to fence in this area (if they plan to control it) will cost millions or tens of millions of dollars. But the cartel smugglers will just cut up the fence anyway, [C-1] a neighbor just found (10/11/2016)smugglers back pack on power line road just west of where Whirly Bird Rd dead ends into what will become the east border of the southern section of this park. The smugglers use the mountain peaks as lookout posts / camps regularly and the Sherriff's Dept. has problems keeping them out and you want to put a campground in right below the peaks, are you ready for the lawsuits from injured robbed or worse campers. [D-4] In the strongest words possible do nothing, leave it alone as BLM land. [B-1] Don't waste tax payer money on something that will just lose money for years to come like the existing park "Jim Kortsen west Pinal park" near Ralson and highway 84. It will just put the county in a worse fiscal shape than it already is. [D-5]

3 Maricopa Equestrian, hiking, No park...... no build.....no fees.....no restrictions.....no tax increase..... no park. No build. [B-1] You need to 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey off road include the signatures for "NOnpark" on the petitions submitted as they are a no stance in the form of a Form comment & /so many various ways of "commenting" were used. Of course you left out the "people" who signed petition!! Count them.... count them all!!!! [B-2] 4 Maricopa Beside the fact that nobody has shown any evidence that Maricopa [A-3] can handle the financial burden 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey of such an endeavour, it puts our community at a higher crime risk. [D-4] The last thing we want is to Form draw in more strangers to a pleasant, peaceful area where we enjoy dark night skies [E-1] and a large variety of wildlife. [E-2] This will undoubtedly result in a higher tax for us, [D-2] in addition to whatever fees we might be charged to use what we already access for free! [D-1] This makes no sense to me, or any of my neighbors!! 5 Glendale Arizona horse Equestrians dont have alot of trais to use as we used to. This land is curently usable to all without much 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey council restriction, including to us equestrians. The park will saverly cut down eqiestrian access to the land and Form trails. [F-1] I would rather see the park NOT be created then to lose the ability to ride on the land. So in short i oppose the constructing of this park. My vote is NO. [F-2]

6 Maricopa No park, no build [B-1] 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey Form 7 Maricopa Equestrian After careful consideration, in line with our protecting Arizona equestrian lifestyle and rights, the AzHC 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey has taken a stance against Pinal proposed Palo Verde Park. It is not in the best interests of Arizona public Form land users, especially those of the equestrian user group. The AzHC is against any build or change to the current lands managed by BLM and want public lands to remain in the care and management of the BLM for public use. [F-1] [F-2]

November 22, 2016 Page 1 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

8 Maricopa Local Gina A I cannot STRESS this enough. Shooting, hunting and off road vehicles aka: "Noisy Activities" should be 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey Neighborhood placed on the west side of the Palo Verde Mtns. As far away as possible from current, long term Form Committee residences. [F-2] [F-3] I have lived next to an unauthorized recreational shooting area for many years now. It wasn't even here when we moved here, some 30yrs ago. It's absolutely horrible. The constant noise from shooting, as well as the noise (and dust, trash, traffic) from off road vehicles has degraded our quality of life greatly. Our safety seems threatened. These activities have grown over the years and the intrusion on our lives as become almost unbearable. We moved out here years ago to get away from the city noises. We moved here FOR the peace and quiet. This park can be the biggest blessing to our area or our worst nightmare. PLEASE HELP US !!! [C-7]

9 Casa Grande Having open space is a big part of why we moved to this part of Arizona. [F-5] If everything is going to 10/12/16 8:21 AM On-line Survey be for fee and designated areas only we can just move to the city. [D-1] You can't unpaved the desert- Form please don't try. Not everyone needs a path lined with matching stones to go hiking. Leave our desert alone! [F-5] 10 Maricopa Letting you know I am against you taking away the land from the way it is now. [A-5] [F-5] You are 10/12/16 9:00 AM On-line Survey opening up more danger a right of way for drug runners etc to travel with no control. Very bad decision Form on your part. [D-4] Please reconsider and listen to the people to whom use the land as it is. [B-1]

11 Maricopa No parks, no build, leave our deserts and free open space alone! [B-1] 10/12/16 9:00 AM On-line Survey Form 12 Maricopa No action [B-1] 10/12/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey Form 13 Maricopa Please leave the land exactly as it is now. No changes. [B-1] 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey Form 14 Maricopa I think this is a huge waste of money and resources. I go out frequently when the weather is nice and 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey seldom see anyone using the blm land. I will never pay to use it. We have all the activities we need now Form without having to pay a fee. [D-1] How are you going to provide safety for these visitors you are inviting? You know as well as I do that drug cartels and illegals use this corridor to gain access to the US. [D-4] Our streets are not of a quality for traffic. [E-3] When they built SAN Tan Park it cost millions of dollars. Where are you going to get millions of dollars for a park? By raising taxes?!! [D-2] You want to put in two golf courses. We already have one on 238 that doesn't pay for itself and Is always closing and there is golf at Fransico hotel and more in Casa Grande and Chandler. [A-4] You are going to put in camp sites. Who is going to primitive camp and pay for it! Lol. You have no sewer no water and no police or fire services. [C-2] Why do we need more airports? The ones we have aren't busy. Use them. [C-3] I think it's time our government start working responsibly for the people they have the privledge of governing. And it is a privledge. You can be voted out and as far as I'm concerned you do NOT have my vote. There is nothing good about this plan. Cathy Rogers and Carl Rogers

November 22, 2016 Page 2 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

15 Maricopa I would love to see a lake incorporated within this project for boating, fishing, beaching. It would be 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey wonderful not to have to travel 20 miles just to get out of town, and another 1 1/2 to get to the existing Form lakes. [C-4] Excited about the camping and horseback riding, and would love to have an archery arena as well. [C-5] This project would absolutely complete a sense of HOME living in Maricopa for the past 10 years, and finally having something close enough to us to be able to enjoy a pleasant day trip without having to leave @7:00 A.M on your days off. KUDOS

16 Gold Canyon Please do not develop Silly Mountain at U.S. 60 and Mountain View Road near Gold Canyon. This 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey mountain (butte) was close to being totally destroyed by off road vehicles. It is now just for hikers only; Form please keep it that way. Do not develop it at all, keep it natural. [A-9] 17 Maricopa The only concern I have is in regards to traffic around my home and the potential of increased property 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey taxes. I like the idea of using the land but want to make sure it is done in a way that benefits all residents. Form Also I would like to continue to use the area for UTV and quad usage. [F-2]

18 maricopa Maricopa Outdoor City of Maricopa I like Alternative C, good choice. [A-1] 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey Recreation and Form Environmental Educ

19 Maricopa working group We need to offer year passes . Riding out on a horse isn't always planed . Like other activities . So a year 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey pass would be a great way to have more people us the land . And not feel they couldn't afford the day Form pass every time they would like to go out . or not have the time to do it . [D-3]

20 Maricopa None None I think that this is another waste of Tax Payers money. [A-2] 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey Form 21 Maricopa I am absolutely against this ! [A-2] 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey Form 22 maricopa no to shooting area lets not reward bad shooting practices with a nice place to do the same [C-7] also we 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey need a nice camping keep folks near on vacation keep the money at home [C-2] Form 23 Maricopa Bad idea, scrap this plan.Why do you want to provide a good walking trail and water for the 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey undocumpeted people who would use it the most? [A-2] Form 24 Stanfield Equestrian Actually live in You all have done an awesome job of taking many, many individual ideas and thoughts and 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey Hidden Valley implementing them into a workable plan. There are things I wish weren't here, things I wish were, and Form other items I'm not 100% happy with, but overall, given the diversity and strong individuality of the many people who have contributed to this plan, I'm impressed in how well you've met the majority of people's needs and wants. [A-1] 25 Maricopa Open Space and The Palo Verde Recreation Area will be of benefit to our Pinal County citizens in every way, providing 10/18/16 7:50 AM On-line Survey Trails/ Maricopa the highest quality benefits for good mental and physical health. Pinal County will be known for excellent Form Area planning of our natural resources not only for todays' citizens, but also for our future generations. [A-1]

26 apache junction I am satisfied with the proposed Preferred Alternative plan for the Palo Verde Regional Park. [A-1] 10/18/16 12:00 PM On-line Survey Form

November 22, 2016 Page 3 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

27 Maricopa Friend of the I wholeheartedly support implementation of the Draft Plan and selection of Alternative C. The 10/22/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey Tonto Natl. Forest development of this park will expand the recreational opportunities in Pinal County, providing citizens Form with a slate of activities consistent with the interests of outdoor enthusiasts throughout the county. In so doing, access to this park will enhance property values and be a source of pride for the community. I congratulate all those who have worked so hard to get this project off the ground, despite a considerable amount of uninformed and sometimes aggressive opposition. I look forward to using the park. [A-1]

28 Maricopa At the northern park section secondary access west of Papago Butte, it appears that a hiking/equestrian 10/23/16 9:00 AM On-line Survey trailhead and an OHV staging are planned for the same location. OHV noise would be a potential safety Form concern for equestrian users. Suggest separation of the two areas. [C-6]

29 Chandler recreational I OPPOSE this plan. This general area of BLM has already had significant portions reserved for 10/23/16 10:00 PM On-line Survey shooter national park use and protection - namely the Sonoran Desert National Park, 500000 acres of which is Form adjacent to the land being proposed here and recently had significant restrictions for use. How many parks do we need? The answer is we don't need more private interests [A-10] divvying up land that should be open to all users regardless of whether they want to hike, OHV, or shoot. [A-5] There are a limited number of visitors that care to visit Sonora Desert Park, and this particular BLM land under concern here is already accessible to them. This is simply an attempt to push OHV and recreational shooters off BLM land. [F-2] There will be no improvements or capital to really improve anything. [D-2] Furthermore, the majority of the users of this land have been vastly more responsible for cleaning up shell casings and taking out garbage than in other areas (i.e. Sycamore creek). You have our attention, this will be a battle. [A-2]

30 Stanfield I gave you my mailing address, in case you mail anything. I live on Hidden Valley Rd & I am LESS than 1 10/24/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey mile from the BLM. I am FOR Alternate A(Yes Alternate A). The failure of Gina, Kent & Supervisor Form Smith failure to connect & deal with the Residents who live within 2 miles of the BLM. We still have issues with the BLM & you all. No one ever had a meeting with us in Hidden Valley. [A-6] Where are you all going to put cell towers? There is no coverage out there in case of getting lost or hurt. [A-7] A fence will not work to keep people in or out. Illegals will still be in the BLM & the people who live within the 2 miles from the BLM don't want them. [C-1] How many more Sherriff staffers will need to be hired to patrol the area outside the BLM 24/7? [D-4] Where are you going to put a Fire Station for the wild fires these people going to create? [A-1] How are you going to stop people riding there dirt bikes & quads outside the BLM? [D-4] A fence won't stop them. A fence can be cut & knocked down. [C-1] How are you going to stop people creating a campground & parking lot in the State Land at Meadow Green & Hidden Valley Rd's (south west corner). [A-9] The west side & south side but up against the BLM. Yes they will do it & they will cut the fence to gain access in. You all should have had a group of people from the area as part of the Stake Holders(people who live within 2 miles of the BLM). You all failed to do so. [A-8] We matter as much as the special interest groups that you all picked. We matter more because we will be impacted 24/7. Gina, Kent & Supervisor Smith, not one of you are going to be impacted at all. Do any of you all care. No, not one of you do. Don't forget, you all have a petition against this project. Again, I am FOR Alternate A. [A-2]

November 22, 2016 Page 4 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

31 San Tan Valley I have walked in the park often in the past 13 years. But, now I have been disabled with Parkinson 10/25/16 7:00 AM On-line Survey disease and need a walker to get around. So I haven't visited any parks recently. Is there a provision to Form make it possible for disabled folks to enjoy the Park? [F-6] 32 Maricopa I am very pleased that Alternative C appears to be the plan for this park. I was very concerned that a 10/26/16 3:00 PM On-line Survey small but vocal group of opponents would hurt the chances of this park moving forward. Pinal County Form needs this type of recreational alternative. Thanks to the many persons who worked so hard put forth this plan!!!! [A-1] 33 Maricopa We moved 18 miles out from Maricopa so we could have peace and quite with not a lot of traffic and 10/26/16 11:00 PM On-line Survey noise. Now they want to make a park less than one mile from our house. All the neighbors around here Form feel the same. [A-2] We can go on BLM land for free and do most of what we will be charged for in the future with the park. [D-1] This was all planned ahead without asking people for ideas before going gun hoe. We know several people who is for this park have land they want to sell. They will take the money and move on and leave the rest of us with the mess. [A-2]

34 Maricopa No park no build. [B-1] 10/27/16 5:00 PM On-line Survey Form 35 Apache Junction SALT I support any and all parks that create open space and preserve the DESERT. I support the preferred 10/28/16 8:00 PM On-line Survey Alternative plan. Please at any chance you have protect the desert and open space. We have too much Form development already. Thank you , {name redacted}. [A-1] 36 san tan valley salt Regional Parks are important to our future, with Maricopa expanding so rapidly, a natural "barrier" must 10/28/16 9:00 PM On-line Survey exist for people to escape the development,to recreate, and experience open spaces. [A-1] Form

37 Maricopa No Park,No Build [B-1] 10/31/16 12:00 PM On-line Survey Form 38 Gold Canyon We need more open spaces for all the winter visitors and new people moving into this area as it supports 11/1/16 11:00 PM On-line Survey our state and local economies. [A-1] These spaces should be handicapped accessible. Everyone cannot Form hike. [F-6] I support the Preferred Alternative. [A-1] 39 Maricopa n/a n/a Since there is going to be a shooting area within the park. There should be every attempt to suppress the 11/2/16 12:00 PM On-line Survey noise so not to ruin neighboring residences. If the Hidden Valley Road location for shooting is allowed, Form then a berm, trees, hours of use should be used to not interfere with the solitude and quiet of the surrounding area. Or it should be moved to an even more remote area within the park.It is very disturbing to hear all that noise constantly. I think people could sue for decreased home values. Every effort MUST be made to ensure the existing residences are NOT affected by this noisy activity. Thank you [C-7] 40 Maricopa No Park ... not the original plan and not the alternative. I do not want to see any public or BLM lands 11/2/16 12:00 PM On-line Survey made into a park of any kind. We have plenty of parks, plenty of ball fields, plenty of picnic areas. What Form we do not have enough of is true open space. [F-5] There is State Trust Land very near the proposed park. In addition, there is already a county park on Route 84 about 4 miles from I-8 complete with picnic tables and shelters and camping available. If people want to hike and enjoy nature they can do it on BLM land; [A-5] they do not need a park. And there are many other camping sites, ball fields, etc. [A-2]

November 22, 2016 Page 5 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

41 I've noticed on the most approved plan that you still have the shooters in the area about 3/8 mile south 11/2/16 1:31 PM Email Received of my house. I understand they are a powerful group. We're of an opinion that you are drastically underestimating the danger factors here. Without living close to this activity you cannot understand how callus and self serving some of these people are. Bullets fly over our home regularly. Trespassing is not a word in their vocabulary. Kids in the back yard mean nothing to them. Pinal Co. SO will do nothing for us. And I'm a cop! Your talking about hikers on the same mountain they use as a trash / backstop. On the weekends you can drive by and see 4x4s half way up that mountain shooting who knows where. Go drive to the west end of Farrel Rd from Hidden Valley Rd. That county gravel pit looks like a dump from all the debri they bring in to shoot at. Shotgun shells would be everywhere if several of us didn't pick up the trash and shells. [C-7] How can you have hikers and campers in that situation? [F-4] Bullets from automatic ar15s travel for well over a mile. Quail and dove seasons are another whole topic. Bombs go off over there at least once a month. Automatic weapons are common. I think you are asking for large amounts of trouble. I'm in Law Enforcement. I'm not a lunatic with an axe to grind. I like to shoot as well but the city boys drive out here and cause lots of problems. [C-7] thanks for your time {Name Redacted}.

42 Maricopa This is already public land. No improvements are neccesary. If the citizens of Maricopa think they need 11/2/16 2:00 PM On-line Survey more developed parks, the the city should acquire private land and develop that. [A-3] BLM land belongs Form to all the citizens of the U.S. and not just the people of Pinal County and the city of Maricopa, AZ. If some feel this land needs to be developed, then comments should gathered nationwide. not just locally Just because land is undeveloped and in its natural state doesn't mean it is being wasted as a recreational resource. [F-5] 43 maricopa I am against this plan. As someone who lives in this immediate area and enjoys the rural atmosphere I 11/3/16 2:01 AM On-line Survey don't want the noise, dust, influx of people, traffic moving into my peaceful part of the valley. I live near Form table top and fulcar and would almost be surrounded by this proposed park. I think most of the people in favor of this do not live in the area where the park is planned...it's not in their back yard. Those of us who live in the area should be given the strongest voice in this as this plan would impact the current residents more than anyone else. Please don't create this park in west maricopa. [A-2]

44 Apache Junction OS&T In order to comply with the BLM's recreation designation of semi-private motorized which includes a 11/5/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey Commission "moderate probability of solitude" I recommend that the Draft Alternative only allow motorized travel Form south of the dashed brown line which is approximately at Fresno Road. Since motorized travel is so loud, one would not be able to experience a feeling of solitude if motorized travel is allowed nearby. In order to protect the riparian area along the Vekol Wash motorized travel should never be allowed there. [F-7] 45 maricopa please do not move forward with any palo verde park plan. no management please [A-2] 11/5/16 12:00 PM On-line Survey Form 46 Phoenix IMBA I believe that growth of mountain biking and the continued addition of high quality trail systems in the 11/6/16 10:00 PM On-line Survey state of Arizona has led to increased tourism with a user group that is very committed to the upkeep and Form maintenance of the local trail systems, and are generally willing to travel farther than other groups to enjoy high quality trails. I support the option that includes maximum sustainable mountain bike access. I fully support the preferred alternative and wish to see the best possible access for mountain bikes. Thank you. [A-1]

November 22, 2016 Page 6 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

47 Tempe Pivot Cycles Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the Palo Verde Draft Master Plan report and 11/6/16 8:28 PM Email Received Preferred Alternative. Our goal for this current process in Pinal County is to see maximum sustainable mountain bike access for all riding abilities. Given the scale of the parcel in question at 22,000 acres and the proximity to large urban populations, we see that there are opportunities for: (1) Beginner level trails for children, new riders and families who wish to recreate together in a safe environment (2) Intermediate level trails for riders who wish to explore the terrain further on more challenging trails (3) Opportunities for longer loop trails (25 miles or more) for experienced riders who seek a wilder and more remote experience (4) Purpose built, bike optimized trails with features such as berms, rollers and rock ledges offering higher-level yet progressive technical challenge, which many riders seek (5) Event venues for mountain bike festivals, demo events and races, including the popular and growing Arizona High School Cycling League which offers competitive mountain bike racing opportunities to that age group We believe that growth of mountain biking and the continued addition of high quality trail systems in the state of Arizona has led to increased tourism with a user group that is very committed to the upkeep and maintenance of the local trail systems, and are generally willing to travel farther than other groups to enjoy high quality trails. We support the option that includes maximum sustainable mountain bike access. [A-1]

48 Maricopa Maricopa, AZ I am very concerned about what this park will cost the taxpayers of Pinal county. Leasing the land from 11/7/16 1:00 PM On-line Survey BLM, then developing, maintaining, policing, rescue and safety will add up. I have never seen one Form sentence from the county addressing anything about costs. Therefore, I am for the no Change option of the proposed park area. [A-2] 49 Phoenix NICA As a general trail user, for both hiking access and Mountain bike access, I would like to see this terrain 11/7/16 4:00 PM On-line Survey available for all levels of hikers and bikers. It would be great to see access available for Beginner riders, Form for short 6 mile trails, and intermediate riders who want tougher trail conditions, more features, and longer trails in the 12 to 25 mile range. Also having expert level trails with more features, jumps and drops is something I would enjoy as well. Expert level purpose built trails for the expert rider, ranging from 6 and 8 mile loops, to longer 25 mile trails as well. Having features and options like this would allow you to attract a wider range of riders, as well as families to the area. If you have options for different riders abilities you could also attract events from the local high schools NICA association, as well as other race organizers who could use the trails to promote your park as well as riding in general. [F- 1] NICA is an organization that is growing here in AZ, and it is providing activities for kids and pulling them off the couches and away from TV screens out on the trails. I've seen this with my own kids. I hope I can enjoy the trails you plan on providing us, and look forward to visiting the park soon. [A-1]

November 22, 2016 Page 7 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

50 Casa Grande 1. Reduce motorized to the southern boundary only. Too much motorized on this Preferred Alternative. 11/9/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey [F-7] 2. Add the additional Alternative Camping Location, so there will be an improved camping location Form in both the north and south quadrants of the park. [C-8] 3. I really like the Competetive Track, can serve as a wonderful event venue and potential revenue generator. Thank You! [A-1]

51 Maricopa I think the Draft Plan is well done and a fairly comprehensive document. I know some have expressed 11/9/16 2:00 PM On-line Survey interest about being able to conduct activities at night (hoese back riding, mtn biking, etc.) but I did not Form see that thought captured in the document. Perhaps that is a detail that will be addressed later done the road but I whated to make sure it got captured. [E-4] Also, I would like to make sure we evaluate the idea of a reduced fee for local residents (within a mile or two of the boundary). Seems like that might help offset the concerns of the residents who enjoy this area for free now. Thanks! [D-3]

52 Tempe I appreciate the public input process with this project. Upon following the progress of the Pinal County 11/9/16 5:00 PM On-line Survey Open Space & Trails Master Plan over the past decade and the progression of the regional park master Form planning process, I was surprised at the amount of infrastructure the public wants for this park. That being said, by the time the park "breaks ground", the population increase of the area will put more demands on access and management of this open space resource. Offering multi-varied recreational activities will be a tremendous asset to the residents in Western Pinal County. [A-1] My specific comments on the Draft Plan relate to the motorized trails affecting the passive recreational activities (hiking, equestrian, etc.). There is a section of motorized trails directly North of the Vekol Wash to the Papago Road alignment. Neighbors have concerns with their passive recreation in that area competing with motorized vehicles. Therefore, they would like that area to remain non-motorized. Also in the Draft, Northwest of Fulcar and Hidden Valley Roads, there is a Trailhead Facility that includes equestrian with a motorized vehicle staging area. Concern has been expressed from the Equestrian community regarding having both staged in the same area. Solution: If the motorized trails are eliminated from North of the Vekol Wash to the Papago Road alignment, than a non-motorized Trailhead Facility can be added in that area, making it a safer recreational experience for the passive recreational users. [F-7]

53 Maricopa Pinal County residents will appreciate and be grateful for such a well thought out area for recreating. 11/9/16 10:00 PM On-line Survey This is a positive move for our future generations. [A-1] Form 54 Maricopa Western Region For the last twenty-five years, I have enjoyed the beauty and mystery of the Palo Verde Mountains. I 11/9/16 10:00 PM On-line Survey Open Space & have enjoyed my adventures on foot, on horseback and by vehicle. I joined the Western Region Open Form Trails Committee Space & Trails Committee to preserve and share the area with future generations. Recently, there has been considerable public discussion over the best use of the area. A survey revealed an overwhelming positive response to the current Palo Verde Regional Park draft. It is my sincere wish that the draft be accepted by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors and be integrated into the Pinal County Master Plan. [A-1] 55 Maricopa Dusty Bunch (Rec. I feel that the park is the best way to protect, and preserve the designated area for future generations. [A- 11/10/16 7:00 AM On-line Survey Shooters) 1] I think that Alternative "C" would best serve all of the user groups that would eventually use the park. Form [B-3] 56 Phoenix Thank you for including Disc Golf into your plans! [A-1] 11/10/16 8:00 AM On-line Survey Form

November 22, 2016 Page 8 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Commenter's User Group (if Agency (if Comment (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment Source No. City (if provided) provided) provided)

57 Maricopa BLM land is already accessible and open to public use. Why try to open a park that would most likely 11/10/16 9:00 AM On-line Survey never pay for itself? Many people already use the area and would be reluctant to pay to use an area that Form they use now for the price of the taxes that we pay for to live in this great county and country of ours. [D- 1] I think the increased traffic would negatively impact the residents of the area, and locals that currently use it are overwhelming against any changes at all. My recommendation is for no action and quit wasting our tax money on studies. [A-2] 58 Maricopa 11/10/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey Form 59 Maricopa I'm a hunter and use the Box Canyon area off of Hidden Valley Rd. for sighting in my rifle and for 11/10/16 1:00 PM On-line Survey testing any new guns. The area needs to be better managed, so I like the idea of a managed shooting Form facility in that location. Engineering a sound barrier on the East side would be appreciated by local neighbors as well. [A-1] I also like the Barrier-Free Trails on the North-end of the Park. A lot of my friends, family and neighbors are getting older with physical problems that prevent them from walking in areas that are too difficult. They expressed to me that they'd like to see more Barrier-Free Trails in the park. [F-6] 60 Maricopa City of Maricopa This draft plan definitely states what I have witnessed as the general feelings of our community. It is 11/10/16 1:00 PM On-line Survey definitely heading in the right direction and I support proceeding. [A-1] The only missing piece is that I Form don't feel it captures the concerns shared regarding those that currently use the park area during evening hours during the summers for equestrian and 4 wheel vehicles. I think the document should capture that concern and request. [E-4] 61 Maricopa Maricopa General City of Maricopa I feel that we must move forward on this in order to preserve and protect this mountain area for future 11/10/16 1:00 PM On-line Survey Plan 2016 working generations, and I feel we must act now to avoid the land area being potentially misappropriated for Form group commercial uses. As this planning area grows in population, regional parks will become more precious and more important to future residents. [A-1] 62 Maricopa City of Maricopa I love the direction that it is moving. These amenities and preservation are crucial to the future of 11/10/16 2:00 PM On-line Survey Maricopa. Keep up the good work! [A-1] Form 63 Maricopa City of Maricopa, Our tour through the area last year showed the unauthorized use and vandalism in the area. With the 11/10/16 4:00 PM On-line Survey AZ extensive growth in Pinal County, having a planned recreational area will be a wonderful and structured Form way to meet the needs of our growing area. [A-1] 64 Maricopa As a land owner in both Thunderbird Farms and Hidden Valley, a regional park and recreational center 11/10/16 6:00 PM On-line Survey would breathe new life into this area. [A-1] My concerns however are as follows: that substandard Form construction done by non-union workers would lead to a dangerous and unsafe environment as well as workers not being paid the standard. [A-9] And the unwanted heavy influx of traffic that this park would encourage in our residential areas. The ingress and egress should be strictly 238 and I-8. You don't want me driving down your neighborhood streets, I don't want you driving down my neighborhood streets. [E- 5] 65 Tempe Arizona Disc Golf I am pleased to discover you are considering disc golf as an addition to your plan. I believe you will find 11/10/16 10:00 PM On-line Survey Club it very compatible with other users of the area. It is also worthy to mention that disc golf is one of the Form fastest growing sports across the nation, and it's inclusion in your plan is testament to the forward thinking that will make this regional use area relevant and successful. [A-1]

66 maricopa Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on this project. BLM is doing fine. Access is already free to the public. If 11/12/16 10:00 AM On-line Survey the park is formed, there will be fees and restrictions applied. [D-1] STOP NOW!! [A-2] Form

November 22, 2016 Page 9 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Public Comments Responses to Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Response Category Response No. A-1 General General comment that is for a regional park. A-2 General General comment that is against a regional park. A-3 General The Regional Park is a Pinal County project and not a City of Maricopa project. There are no references in the master plan to building golf courses. However, disc golf is included in the master plan, which is a uniquely different sport that is minimalist in nature. A-4 General Reference 6.1.8. The Regional Park will be a County-managed facility that will continue to be owned by the federal government (BLM), except for R&PP lease/patents of trailhead and campground sites. A-5 General Reference 2.1.1. To date, three public meetings have been advertised, published, and held at three different locations in western Pinal County to reach a broad constituency. Additionally, an email list A-6 General developed from information from interested citizens was used to broadcast meeting announcements. Reference 3.2 and 3.3. A-7 General As the population increases, the probability is very high that private cell phone providers will better serve the area. A-8 General The stakeholders included a broad group of individuals, including representatives in the Hidden Valley area. A-9 General Comment not applicable to this project or the scope of the master plan study. There are no private interests involved in the development of the master plan. Private interests (concessionaire) would only be involved to provide and/or operate a limited recreation service A-10 General not typically offered or managed by a municipal entity, i.e., challenge course, zip lines, or shooting range. A majority of respondents preferred Option D over Option A. Additionally, a greater than 7:3 majority of the respondents preferred an option to establish a Regional Park over the no action B-1 Alternatives alternative. Reference 3.3.2.5. The petition was a citizen effort outside of the identified and provided process to collect public input on the project, both "against" and "for." Without offering a simultaneous "for" petition, B-2 Alternatives a one-sided petition cannot be considered objective. B-3 Alternatives The Draft Preferred Alternative is derived predominantly from Option C. Fencing is yet to be determined, but is a possibility. Fencing decisions will be determined by the needs of the proposed uses, topography, resource protection and other important C-1 Facilities considerations. The typical type of fencing used in these applications is a four (4) strand barbed wire (wildlife friendly). Primitive (backcountry) camping is an activity that already exists and will continue. Primitive camping does not require development or infrastructure. Developed camping facilities will C-2 Facilities include water and electric and are proposed in the Regional Park. The Capital Improvement Program will identify Order of Magnitude costs to provide water, electricity, and septic sewer. Reference 6.2. There are no references in the master plan to full-scale airports. A remote controlled (RC) aircraft field was proposed in Alternative D, but was not carried forward to the Draft Preferred C-3 Facilities Alternative. Reference 6.2. The RC aircraft field will be added to opportunities that were eliminated from consideration. Reference. 6.1.7. C-4 Facilities A boating lake is not feasible. The desert setting of the Regional Park without a perennial water source would preclude the opportunity for a boating lake. C-5 Facilities Archery facilities are proposed in the Draft Preferred Alternative. Reference 6.2. C-6 Facilities The detailed design of each trailhead facility will be prepared with the separation of non-motorized and motorized uses in mind. Reference 3.3.3 and 4.18. All of the proposed Regional Park area is currently an "authorized shooting area" by the BLM (except within 1/4-mile of a residence). The preferred alternative identifies a single authorized location for shooting sports. This location is in a box canyon to minimize noise travel and in the area that is currently most frequented by target shooters. The facility will be staffed and C-7 Facilities maintained similar to other developed shooting ranges across the region. The nearest residence is 2/3-mile away and over a hill, and there are only seven residences within one mile of the proposed facility. Shooting, outside of hunting activities, will be prohibited in other areas of the Regional Park. The "Alternate Camping Location" label for the proposed camping area at Dune Shadow Road will be removed in order to allow further study of this area as the primary (if the north C-8 Facilities camping area is unable to be built in the planned location) or as a second camping facility in the Regional Park. Fee use areas will provide direct benefits and public facilities for what would otherwise not be provided to the public. Non-fee uses and non-developed access will continue to trails that are D-1 Fees/Costs currently authorized by BLM. Reference 4.15 and 6.2.1. The master plan will be phased over many years. An ever increasing population will allow for greater Capital Improvement Program opportunities county-wide, which could include D-2 Fees/Costs development of the Regional Park based on a larger quantity of taxpayers. Reference 2.1. D-3 Fees/Costs The development of a fee schedule will be determined by the Board of Supervisors in the future. Reference 6.2.1. D-4 Fees/Costs Law enforcement challenges are recognized. A law enforcement operation plan will be developed when the CMA is executed. Reference 6.2.3. A characteristic of a regional, state, or federal park system is that, to the extent possible, it often functions as a non-profit business enterprise. In order to provide basic services to the public, perform maintenance, and staff its operations, it strives to operate on revenues that it collects in the form of park entry to developed sites, camping, special use fees, and a percentage of D-5 Fees/Costs concessionaire revenues. The rationale behind recreation fees and other types of use fees is that those who use particular services and facilities should pay for a larger portion of the costs, rather than require other taxpayers who never use the amenities to pay the entire cost. Reference 5.2.

November 22, 2016 Page 10 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Responses to Comments Responses to Public Comments on Draft Master Plan Response Category Response No. E-1 Operations As a long-term management goal, the Regional Park will promote responsible public stewardship by all users, including dark-sky/night-sky viewing. Reference 6.3. As a long-term management goal, the Regional Park will provide continued wildlife habitat protection and improvement project opportunities. A short-term goal includes restoration of lost E-2 Operations environmental values, including vegetation and wildlife. Reference 6.3. As a long-term management goal, the Regional Park will maintain air quality standards, adhering to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing dust control. Reference 6.3. E-3 Operations Unpaved roadways that connect to the Regional Park are identified and will be addressed if used as a public access way. Reference 4.15 and 6.3. There is no intent in the master plan to limit recreation programs to only daytime use. "Day-use" as used by recreation managers is generally implied to mean not overnight. Therefore, E-4 Operations special night programs for stargazing, trail rides, or other night-time related activities would not be excluded from the regional park. Park operations and programs will be developed over time. Discussion on terminology and programming will be added to Section 5.2 and 6.2.1.

Access to the park will be by way of section line roads, which are typically accepted as the major roads within any rural area and where any increase in traffic will be focused to stay off E-5 Operations neighborhood or side streets. Because I-8 is a controlled access interstate, access off I-8 would not be permitted by ADOT. The Regional Park is separated from SR 238 by the railroad right- of-way. With other at-grade crossings existing in the vicinity, a new crossing of their right-of-way would not likely be permitted by the railroad due to safety concerns.

Open The master plan includes the future planning and development of additional trails including the short-term goal of route locating and construction of the Pinal County Regional Trail. F-1 Space/Trails Reference 6.3. Open Trail restrictions provided in the master plan will provide a contiguous non-motorized use area of the park for the separation, benefit, and safety of all. The master plan indicates no trail F-2 Space/Trails restrictions for equestrian or other uses of existing authorized activities outside the proposed non-motorized area. Reference 6.1.5. Open F-3 Locating facilities on the west side of the mountains is not feasible due to increased cost of infrastructure to support the facilities. Space/Trails Open The proposed camping area is more than one mile from the proposed shooting facility, which is within a canyon surrounded by higher terrain on three sides. No trails would be built within a F-4 Space/Trails line-of-sight of the shooting facility. Open In addition to benefitting those that live adjacent to the area, a major focus of the Regional Park is to protect the public land as open space for all citizens. Reference 2.1.1, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, F-5 Space/Trails 5.1, and 6.3. Open A discussion on barrier-free trails, which were proposed in Alternative D, will be added to the Draft Preferred Alternative. Reference 6.1.6 and 6.2. Additionally, the Draft Preferred F-6 Space/Trails Alternative Map indicates that barrier-free trails will be included. Reference Figure 6-5. Open The northern motorized area's southern boundary will be moved from north of Vekol Wash to the southern boundary of the northern contiguous area of the Regional Park. This is to F-7 Space/Trails provide a more defined boundary separating motorized and non-motorized uses in the northern are of the Regional Park.

November 22, 2016 Page 11 Palo Verde Master Plan Public Comments.xlsx: Responses to Comments Agency/Organization Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Agency/Organization Comment Summary (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment No. Source Comments Received Following Public Meeting #2 - Recreation Uses and Possible Locations, March 31, 3016 1A Tucson Electric Power Recreational areas for shooting sports. TEP prefers location to be at the Hidden Valley Road location, which is one mile away from their April 13, 2016 Letter transmission corridor. [A-1] 1B Tucson Electric Power Amateur rocket launch site. TEP requests activity to be two miles away from their transmission corridor. [A-3] April 13, 2016 Letter 1C Tucson Electric Power Trails. The roads used to maintain the transmission lines will need to retain motorized access. Trail access should not impair the use of their 330' April 13, 2016 Letter ROW. [D-1] 1D Tucson Electric Power Picnic and camping activity areas. Concern for wildfire damage to transmission lines. TEP prefers the designated camping areas to be two miles April 13, 2016 Letter from their transmission corridor. [A-1] 2A Pinal Partnership Support for implementing the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan. [A-1] May 20, 2016 Letter Comments Received Following Public Meeting #3 - Alternatives Review, June 7, 2016 3A Superstition Area Land Trust Supports the development of the regional park. [A-1] June 18, 2016 Letter (SALT) 4A Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Wildlife viewing and hunting. It is important to AGFD to continue these activities; as well as other activities that AGFD may undertake to July 13, 2016 Letter manage/meet wildlife objectives. [A-2] 4B Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Alternatives restrict certain types of recreational users. The plan should articulate how, why, and who will be restricted, enforcement, and public July 13, 2016 Letter education resources. [A-1] 4C Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Consideration for trail connections outside the park without restricting access. [A-1] July 13, 2016 Letter

4D Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Future land acquisition consideration. Re-evaluate diversity of users and need for consumptive and non-consumptive user recreation. Consider July 13, 2016 Letter the "Species of Economic and Recreation Importance." [B-1] [A-4] 4E Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Consideration for "Species of Concern." [A-4] July 13, 2016 Letter

4F Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Shooting sports in final alternative. Consider shotgun range, archery range, archery field course, and concessionaire. [A-2] July 13, 2016 Letter

4G Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Final alternative should not include: playground, developed campsites/RV, stable, and a riding arena. [C-1] Allow dispersed campsites and day July 13, 2016 Letter use to keep the naturalness intact for wildlife movement and hunting. [A-2] 5A Tucson Electric Power Trails. The roads used to maintain the transmission lines will need to retain motorized access. Trail access should not impair the use of their 330' July 18, 2016 Letter ROW. [D-1] 5B Tucson Electric Power Shooting sports. Location should be one mile from their transmission line. Notify TEP of any change in siting. Direct gunfire east, away from July 18, 2016 Letter their transmission line. [A-1] 5C Tucson Electric Power Picnic and camping activity areas. Concern for wildfire damage to transmission lines. Notify TEP of any change in siting. [A-1] July 18, 2016 Letter 5D Tucson Electric Power Amateur rocket launch site. TEP requests activity to be two miles away from their transmission corridor. [A-3] July 18, 2016 Letter Comments Received for the Draft Master Plan 6A Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Recreation shooting. Supports inclusion in the draft preferred alternative. Recommends shotgunning, long-range shooting (out to 1000 yards) October 31, 2016 Letter and dispersed shooting. [A-1] 6B Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Hunting. Requests hunting be recognized as an activity separate from recreational shooting. [A-2] October 31, 2016 Letter

6C Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Sensitive species. Recommends compliance be implemented for species that are likely to be present in the area. Not all species are necessarily October 31, 2016 Letter documented. [A-4] 6D Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Wildlife linkages. Include the Pinal County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment for consideration in narrative and map. [A-5] October 31, 2016 Letter

7A Thunderbird Arena Thunderbird Arena is in full support of Palo Verde Regional Park. [A-1] November 2016 Letter Community Council

November 22, 2016 Page 1 Palo Verde Master Plan Agency-Organization Comments.xlsx: Agency-Organization Comments Agency/Organization Comments on Draft Master Plan Comment Agency/Organization Comment Summary (with responses added in brackets [ ], see Response to Comments page) Comment Date Comment No. Source 8A International Mountain States a goal for five levels of mountain bike trails across the regional park. [A-2] [D-2] November 5, 2016 Letter Bicycling Assn. 8B International Mountain General support for the draft preferred alternative, which carries forward several features of Alternative C. [A-1] November 5, 2016 Letter Bicycling Assn. 8C International Mountain Encourages development of 20-40 miles of trails across the regional park in the five trail levels mentioned. [D-2] November 5, 2016 Letter Bicycling Assn. 9A International Mountain IMBA supports the draft preferred alternative. [A-1] November 23, 2016 Letter Bicycling Assn.

November 22, 2016 Page 2 Palo Verde Master Plan Agency-Organization Comments.xlsx: Agency-Organization Comments Responses to Agency/Organization Comments on Draft Master Plan Response Category Response No. A-1 General General comment. Will take under advisement, into consideration, or no response required. A-2 General The recreation activity is being considered for the master plan. A-3 General The recreation activity was not considered for the master plan. The master plan includes a discussion on species based on the AGFD Heritage Data Management System report at the time of the study, including Species of Greatest Conservation Need and A-4 General Species of Economic Importance. Impacts to specific species should be studied further at the time of future facility design. A-5 General The master plan includes the GIS shape file cells from the Pinal County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment and was cited as a reference in the master plan. The preferred alternative establishes the recreation uses that were most important to the public and identifies approximate access locations. Ultimate uses and configurations will occur during B-1 Alternatives programming for facility design. C-1 Fees/Costs Developed campsites will be an important revenue generating recreation activity to help defray operating and maintenance costs of the regional park. Open D-1 Only recreational use of existing authorized roads will be discontinued in the non-motorized area. Legal easements granted by BLM will not be affected. Space/Trails Open D-2 Trail planning, location, and development is beyond the scope of the master plan. The Capital Improvement Plan includes an estimate for approximately 35 miles of additional trails. Space/Trails

November 22, 2016 Page 3 Palo Verde Master Plan Agency-Organization Comments.xlsx: Responses to Comments

Tucson Electric Power Access Roads and the Proposed Palo Verde Park

(! TEP Substation MultiuseTrail 0 2 4 Miles Proposed Palo Verde Park ´ TEP Access Roads Transmission Line USA Topo Maps World Street Map Date: 4/13/2016

(! (!

(! (! (! (!

(! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

! (! (! ( (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (!

(!(!

(! (! (! (!(!

(! (!

(! (! (!

(!(!

(! This page intentionally left blank

May 20, 2016 Dear Pinal County Board of Supervisors, As you know, we are a partnership of public and private interests working to unite and serve the positive growth of Pinal County. Central to that partnership has been your role as county government and the close, productive, and invaluable working relationship we’ve enjoyed. Thank you for that. We have worked together in all major areas of interest from transportation to economic development to education to health to energy to water. Key among those interests is open space and trails. One of our most active committees is our Open Space and Trails Committee. Among many great things they do in Pinal County, their highest priority and most central focus has been assisting Pinal County in the implementation of the Open Space and Trails Master Plan that was adopted in 2007. A key element of this implementation is to work with BLM in working out win-win management agreements that allow BLM property to become part of Pinal County’s parks system. We would like to reaffirm our board level support for your Open Space and Trails Master Plan as well as support for our Open Space and Trails Committee and their mission on our behalf to assist you in the implementation of that plan. We recognize that with a plan of that scale, there will certainly be concerns and conflict along the way. Recently you have been out seeking public input on the Palo Verde Park portion of the plan. We understand there has been concern and opposition from local residents. We believe that local input at each of the park locations will be critical. For example, the San Tan Regional Park is very much the success it is today due to extensive and passionate local input and participation. Based on that, we would encourage the highest possible level of local engagement. Finding middle ground and solutions that satisfy a wide contingent of interests can be tough and time consuming. Although it isn’t our place to sort out the site specific details of discussion, compromise, and solution making, we do want offer our support for continuing the process, the goal of implementing a county wide Open Space and Trails Master Plan, and the tough but rewarding process of finding the right implementation. And, we especially want to express our support and appreciation for our committee who volunteers tirelessly on all of our behalf toward that goal. They have been and will continue to be a huge help in bringing people together and finding the right way forward in implementing the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan. Thank You, The Pinal Partnership Board of Directors Superstition Area Land Trust (SALT) Web: azsalt.org Email: [email protected]

Mr. Kent Taylor, Director Pinal County Open Space & Trails Department P.O. Box 2973 Florence, AZ 85132

To Whom It May Concern,

The Board of Directors of the Superstition Area Land Trust has reviewed the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department’s proposal for the development of the approximately 23,000-acre Palo Verde Regional Park in western Pinal County as outlined in the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan approved in 2007. We find that the proposal would accomplish many things, including - but not limited to - protection of significant desert ecosystems; providing a variety of quality outdoor recreation options for residents and visitors; connections to adjacent biological communities, including on the Sonoran Desert National Monument; linkages to several trail systems, including the Anza National Historic Trail; offering opportunities for environmental education and scientific study; conservation of critical riparian areas and biological corridors; and a chance to restore the integrity of plant and animal communities damaged by unregulated OHV and other activities historically occurring in the area. We also suggest that restoration of the damaged areas could contribute to dust abatement and reduction of air pollution by stabilization of heavily eroded sites.

Based upon these conclusions we fully support the development of this valuable Regional Park.

Sincerely,

Charlie Goff for the Superstition Area Land Trust Board of Directors [email protected]

July 13, 2016

Mr. Kent Taylor Pinal County Open Space and Trails, Director P.O. Box 2973 Florence, Arizona 85132

RE: Palo Verde Regional Park Alternative Descriptions and Comments

Dear Mr. Taylor,

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the alternative descriptions for the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park (Park) Master Plan (Plan). The Department appreciates the opportunity to continue to participate on the Stakeholders Working Group and as a member of the public during the open public meetings. The Department understands the need for regional parks as the growing population increases the demand for areas to recreate within Pinal County. It is also our understanding that the Bureau of Land Management will be administratively changing the use of the area to allow for Pinal County to take the lead in providing for all interpretive and outreach programs in the Park. This will happen through a Cooperative Recreation Management Agreement for the management and administration of the Park. This would also allow Pinal County to share in the potential collection and management of fees.

The Department maintains the public trust responsibility and jurisdictional authority under Arizona Revised Statute, Title 17 (§17-102 codifies state ownership of wildlife) to manage and regulates take of fish and wildlife within the state of Arizona irrespective of landownership, excepting those wildlife existing on tribal trust-status lands. This includes law enforcement authority. We continue to express interests in all land planning initiatives that may affect management of the State’s fish and wildlife resources and/or wildlife related recreation. The mission of the Department is to conserve Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations. We provide the following comments.

While the Department understands the need for the Park, the Plan should recognize that activities such as wildlife viewing and hunting are of overall recreational and economic importance to Pinal County. County parks and preserves play an important role for the public to have access within a reasonable proximity of Phoenix to enjoy all recreational opportunities that Arizona’s natural resources have to offer, without significantly impacting wildlife for future generations to

Palo Verde Regional Park Alternative Descriptions and Comments July 13, 2016 enjoy. It is important to the Department that these activities continue within the framework of future Parks master plans; as well as other activities the Department may undertake to manage and/or meet wildlife objectives, such as habitat enhancements like wildlife waters, or wildlife population management such as reintroductions or population augmentations.

The Plan in most alternatives restricts certain types of recreational users within certain areas of the Park. The Department understands the concerns of the Stakeholder Working Group; however, it should be clearly articulated within the Plan as to how, why and who will be restricted from using those areas, how this will be enforced and how the public will be able to discern this information, given its location and adjacent land ownership. In addition, the Plan should include a more detailed description of the signage: educational, enforcement and informational resources that will be made available to users groups, etc.

Consideration should be provided for the additional connecting trails outside of the park and how the park trails will connect to them without restricting access and how this will be dealt with in those areas where restrictions will be put in place within those alternatives. When discussing future acquisition of lands, a re-evaluation should be done due to the diversity of users and need for both consumptive and non-consumptive user recreation. The Species of Economic and Recreation Importance include:

• Gambel’s Quail • Mule Deer • Mexican Desert Bighorn Sheep • Band-tailed Pigeon • Mountain Lion • Javelina • White-winged Dove

The Department recommends consideration for species of concern; such as those listed as threatened, endangered or candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other sensitive species lists. A copy of the report generated through the Arizona Environmental Online Review Tool was sent previously, but a copy is also attached. The report contains links such as the Wildlife Compatible Fencing guidelines that should be incorporated into the Plan.

The alternatives as presented demonstrate a range from no action to allowing the most access and infrastructure for facilities. The Department recommends alternatives are combined into a final alternative to allow for a better balance of needs to include components of Alternative B (minimal change) and C (moderate change). Although, Alternative C builds on Alternative B, due to the demand and need in the area, recreational shooting should be an emphasis through a potential: shotgun range, archery range, archery field course, and shooting sports concession. This would improve the stewardship of the area and encourage safe and organized recreational shooting opportunities that are much needed in order to control the wildcat shooting and trigger trash that occurs in undesignated places. This final alternative should not include playgrounds, developed campsites, developed RV areas, stables and a riding arena; but should allow for the use of dispersed campsites and day use parking, keeping the naturalness intact for things such as wildlife movement corridors and hunting opportunities.

Palo Verde Regional Park Alternative Descriptions and Comments July 13, 2016

The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Plan. We look forward to future coordination as the planning effort proceeds. If you have any questions or information needs please contact me at 480-324-3550 or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Attachment

Cc: Laura Canaca, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor Jay Cook, Regional Supervisor, Mesa Gina D’Abella

Arizona Environmental Online Review Tool Report

Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission To conserve Arizona's diverse wildlife resources and manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations.

Project Name: Palo Verde Proposed Park

Project Description: Pinal County proposed regional park

Project Type: Recreation Areas, Trails and trail heads (parking, day-use, picnic areas, etc.), Construction of new facilities

Contact Person: kelly wolff-krauter

Organization: AZGFD

On Behalf Of: AZGFD

Project ID: HGIS-02466

Please review the entire report for project type and/or species recommendations for the location information entered. Please retain a copy for future reference.

Page 1 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Disclaimer:

1. This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that was entered. The report must be updated if the project study area, location, or the type of project changes. 2. This is a preliminary environmental screening tool. It is not a substitute for the potential knowledge gained by having a biologist conduct a field survey of the project area. This review is also not intended to replace environmental consultation (including federal consultation under the Endangered Species Act), land use permitting, or the Departments review of site-specific projects. 3. The Departments Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) data is not intended to include potential distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there. HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the Department. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Such surveys may reveal previously undocumented population of species of special concern. 4. HabiMap Arizona data, specifically Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) under our State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI), represent potential species distribution models for the State of Arizona which are subject to ongoing change, modification and refinement. The status of a wildlife resource can change quickly, and the availability of new data will necessitate a refined assessment.

Locations Accuracy Disclaimer: Project locations are assumed to be both precise and accurate for the purposes of environmental review. The creator/owner of the Project Review Report is solely responsible for the project location and thus the correctness of the Project Review Report content.

Page 2 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Recommendations Disclaimer:

1. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and wildlife resources, including those species listed in this report and those that may have not been documented within the project vicinity as well as other game and nongame wildlife. 2. Recommendations have been made by the Department, under authority of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 5 (Amusements and Sports), 17 (Game and Fish), and 28 (Transportation). 3. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or avoided by the recommendations generated from information submitted for your proposed project. These recommendations are preliminary in scope, designed to provide early considerations on all species of wildlife. 4. Making this information directly available does not substitute for the Department's review of project proposals, and should not decrease our opportunity to review and evaluate additional project information and/or new project proposals. 5. Further coordination with the Department requires the submittal of this Environmental Review Report with a cover letter and project plans or documentation that includes project narrative, acreage to be impacted, how construction or project activity(s) are to be accomplished, and project locality information (including site map). Once AGFD had received the information, please allow 30 days for completion of project reviews. Send requests to: Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000 Phone Number: (623) 236-7600 Fax Number: (623) 236-7366 Or [email protected] 6. Coordination may also be necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA). Site specific recommendations may be proposed during further NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected agencies

Page 3 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Page 4 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Page 5 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Page 6 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Special Status Species and Special Areas Documented within 3 Miles of Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Ak-Chin Indian Reservation Ak-Chin Indian Reservation Anaxyrus retiformis Sonoran Green Toad S 1B Antilocapra americana sonoriensis 10J area for Sonoran Pronghorn LE,XN Gastrophryne olivacea Western Narrow-mouthed Toad S 1C Gila Bend - Sierra Estrella Linkage Wildlife Corridor Design Gila River Indian Reservation Gila River Indian Reservation Gopherus morafkai Sonoran Desert Tortoise CCA S 1A

Note: Status code definitions can be found at http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/hdms_status_definitions.shtml.

Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted within Project Vicinity based on Predicted Range Models Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Aix sponsa Wood Duck 1B Ammospermophilus harrisii Harris' Antelope Squirrel 1B Anaxyrus retiformis Sonoran Green Toad S 1B Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit C* 1A Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BGA S 1B Aspidoscelis xanthonota Redback Whiptail SC S 1B Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S 1B Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern 1B Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk SC S 1B Castor canadensis American Beaver 1B Chilomeniscus stramineus Variable Sandsnake 1B Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western DPS) LT S 1A Colaptes chrysoides Gilded Flicker S 1B Coluber bilineatus Sonoran Whipsnake 1B Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat SC S S 1B Crotalus tigris Tiger Rattlesnake 1B Crotaphytus nebrius Sonoran Collared Lizard 1B Dipodomys spectabilis Banner-tailed Kangaroo Rat S 1B Euderma maculatum Spotted Bat SC S S 1B Eumops perotis californicus Greater Western Bonneted Bat SC S 1B Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl SC S S 1B Gopherus morafkai Sonoran Desert Tortoise CCA S 1A Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SC, S S 1A BGA Heloderma suspectum Gila Monster 1A Incilius alvarius Sonoran Desert Toad 1B

Page 7 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted within Project Vicinity based on Predicted Range Models Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Lasiurus blossevillii Western Red Bat S 1B Lasiurus xanthinus Western Yellow Bat S 1B Leptonycteris curasoae Lesser Long-nosed Bat LE 1A yerbabuenae Lepus alleni Antelope Jackrabbit 1B Lichanura trivirgata Rosy Boa SC 1B Macrotus californicus California Leaf-nosed Bat SC S 1B Melanerpes uropygialis Gila Woodpecker 1B Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow 1B Melozone aberti Abert's Towhee S 1B Micruroides euryxanthus Sonoran Coralsnake 1B Myotis velifer Cave Myotis SC S 1B Myotis yumanensis Yuma Myotis SC 1B Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed Free-tailed Bat 1B Ovis canadensis nelsoni Desert Bighorn Sheep 1B Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow 1B Perognathus amplus Arizona Pocket Mouse 1B Perognathus longimembris Little Pocket Mouse 1B Peucaea carpalis Rufous-winged Sparrow 1B Phrynosoma goodei Goode's Horned Lizard 1B Phrynosoma solare Regal Horned Lizard 1B Phyllorhynchus browni Saddled Leaf-nosed Snake 1B Progne subis hesperia Desert Purple Martin S 1B Rallus longirostris yumanensis Yuma Clapper Rail LE 1A Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler 1B Smilisca fodiens Lowland Burrowing Treefrog S 1B Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-tailed Bat 1B Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte's Thrasher 1B Troglodytes pacificus Pacific Wren 1B Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona Bell's Vireo 1B Vulpes macrotis Kit Fox 1B

Species of Economic and Recreation Importance Predicted within Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Callipepla gambelii Gambel's Quail Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer Ovis canadensis mexicana Mexican Desert Bighorn Sheep 1B Pecari tajacu Javelina Puma concolor Mountain Lion

Page 8 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Species of Economic and Recreation Importance Predicted within Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Zenaida asiatica White-winged Dove

Project Type: Recreation Areas, Trails and trail heads (parking, day-use, picnic areas, etc.), Construction of new facilities

Project Type Recommendations:

During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from accessing resources, finding mates, reduces gene flow, prevents wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have occurred, and ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases, streams and washes provide natural movement corridors for wildlife and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a large diversity of species, and should be contained within important wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions can be facilitated through improving designs of structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a variety of wildlife.

Minimize potential introduction or spread of exotic invasive species. Invasive species can be plants, animals (exotic snails), and other organisms (e.g., microbes), which may cause alteration to ecological functions or compete with or prey upon native species and can cause social impacts (e.g., livestock forage reduction, increase wildfire risk). The terms noxious weed or invasive plants are often used interchangeably. Precautions should be taken to wash all equipment utilized in the project activities before leaving the site. Arizona has noxious weed regulations (Arizona Revised Statutes, Rules R3-4-244 and R3-4-245). See Arizona Department of Agriculture website for restricted plants, https://agriculture.az.gov/. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has information regarding pest and invasive plant control methods including: pesticide, herbicide, biological control agents, and mechanical control, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. The Department regulates the importation, purchasing, and transportation of wildlife and fish (Restricted Live Wildlife), please refer to the hunting regulations for further information http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting_rules.shtml

Minimize impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat by staying on designated roads and trails, and by minimizing use during spring and summer breeding periods. Additional information concerning OHV use is located at http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/off_highway.shtml

The Department recommends that wildlife surveys are conducted to determine if noise-sensitive species occur within the project area. Avoidance or minimization measures could include conducting project activities outside of breeding seasons.

Based on the project type entered, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html).

Design culverts to minimize impacts to channel geometry, or design channel geometry (low flow, overbank, floodplains) and substrates to carry expected discharge using local drainages of appropriate size as templates. Reduce/minimize barriers to allow movement of amphibians or fish (e.g., eliminate falls). Also for terrestrial wildlife, washes and stream corridors often provide important corridors for movement. Overall culvert width, height, and length should be optimized for movement of the greatest number and diversity of species expected to utilize the passage. Culvert designs should consider moisture, light, and noise, while providing clear views at both ends to maximize utilization. For many species, fencing is an important design feature that can be utilized with culverts to funnel wildlife into these areas and minimize the potential for roadway collisions. Guidelines for culvert designs to facilitate wildlife passage can be found on the home page of this application at http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/guidelines.aspx.

Page 9 of 10 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_palo_verde_proposed_park_16434_16710.pdf Project ID: HGIS-02466 Review Date: 10/22/2015 09:03:39 AM

Development plans should provide for open natural space for wildlife movement, while also minimizing the potential for wildlife-human interactions through design features. Please contact Project Evaluation Program for more information on living with urban wildlife.

Vegetation restoration projects (including treatments of invasive or exotic species) should have a completed site- evaluation plan (identifying environmental conditions necessary to re-establish native vegetation), a revegetation plan (species, density, method of establishment), a short and long-term monitoring plan, including adaptive management guidelines to address needs for replacement vegetation.

Project Location and/or Species Recommendations:

HDMS records indicate that one or more listed, proposed, or candidate species or Critical Habitat (Designated or Proposed) have been documented in the vicinity of your project. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulatory authority over all federally listed species. Please contact USFWS Ecological Services Offices at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ or:

Phoenix Main Office Tucson Sub-Office Flagstaff Sub-Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd, Suite 103 201 N. Bonita Suite 141 SW Forest Science Complex Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85745 2500 S. Pine Knoll Dr. Phone: 602-242-0210 Phone: 520-670-6144 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Fax: 602-242-2513 Fax: 520-670-6155 Phone: 928-556-2157 Fax: 928-556-2121

HDMS records indicate that Sonoran Desert Tortoise have been documented within the vicinity of your project area. Please review the Tortoise Handling Guidelines found at: http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/pdfs/Tortoisehandlingguidelines.pdf

Analysis indicates that your project is located in the vicinity of an identified wildlife habitat linkage corridor. Project planning and implementation efforts should focus on maintaining adequate opportunities for wildlife permeability. For information pertaining to the linkage assessment and wildlife species that may be affected, please refer to: http://www.corridordesign.org/arizona. Please contact your local Arizona Game and Fish Department Regional Office for specific project recommendations: http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/agency_directory.shtml.

Tribal Lands are within the vicinity of your project area and may require further coordination. Please contact: Ak-Chin Indian Community Council 42507 W Peters & Nail Rd Maricopa, AZ 85239 (520) 568-2618 (520) 568-4566 (fax)

Tribal Lands are within the vicinity of your project area and may require further coordination. Please contact: Gila River Indian Community PO Box 97 Sacaton, AZ 85247 (520) 562-6000 (520) 562-6010 (fax)

Page 10 of 10

Attachment A

Tucson Electric Power Access Roads and the Proposed Palo Verde Park

(! TEP Substation MultiuseTrail 0 2 4 Miles Proposed Palo Verde Park ´ TEP Access Roads Transmission Line USA Topo Maps World Street Map Date: 4/13/2016

(! (!

(! (! (! (!

(! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

! (! (! ( (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (!

(!(!

(! (! (! (!(!

(! (!

(! (! (!

(!(!

(! This page intentionally left blank Attachment B Attachment B: TEP Transmission Corridor and Palo Verde Park Proposed Alternatives Hazard Assessment Low Risk=X: Moderate Risk=XX: High Risk =XXX

Proposed Recreation Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Minimal Change Alternative C: Moderate Change Alternative D: Most Change Trail (Non0Morotrized for Hikin/Running, Biking, and Equestrian X X X XX Trails (Motorized) X XX XX XX Equestrain X X X X Interpretive X X X X Picnic Area X X X X Camping X XX XXX XXX Shooting Sports XX XXX XXX XXX

Miscellaneous X X X X Comments Moderate risk is relative to hunting Moderat risk is relative to the Moderat risk is relative to the Moderate risk is relative to the motorized staging areas and tent motorized staging areas ; High risk is Interpretive Trails, and the sites ; High risk is relative to the relative to the group site, RV/Trailer Motorized staging areas, High dispersed shooting range for pistol Site and Camping, the dispersed risk is relative to the group site, and rifle shooting range for pistol and rifle RV/Trailer Site and Camping,the dispersed shooting range for pistol and rifle

October 31, 2016

Kent Taylor Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department PO Box 2973 Florence, Arizona 85132

RE: Draft Palo Verde Regional Park Cooperative Recreation Management Area Master Plan

Dear Mr. Taylor,

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the above titled project (Master Plan) for Pinal County (County). The Department has been involved in the discussions as a stakeholder throughout the process and appreciates the Counties incorporation of Department information into the Master Plan. We recognize this Master Plan as an outcome of the Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan (Pinal County 2007), as the Regional Park was identified for protection of open space. In addition, we understand such a plan is necessitated by the continued urban growth in western Pinal County. The Department provides the following comments for your consideration.

The Arizona Legislature has vested the Arizona Game and Fish Commission with the authority to enforce the State’s wildlife laws and to enact rules and policies for the management, preservation and harvest of wildlife A.R.S. 17-231(A)(2). The Department, by and through the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, has jurisdictional authority for management of the state's wildlife resources, as well as safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle recreation, for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future generations.

Recreational Shooting The Department supports the County’s incorporation of recreational shooting sports into all of the alternatives presented and, more specifically, the incorporation of the expanded opportunities for recreational shooting within the preferred alternative. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) has long supported and advocated for responsible and environmentally sound recreational shooting for the purpose of promoting marksmanship, public safety, hunter education, competition, and lawful hunting. It is the policy of the Commission to place a high priority on maintaining all wildlife-related outdoor recreational opportunities, including recreational shooting. Recreational shooting provides a safe and informal gateway, especially for youth,

P a g e | 2 to participate in formal shooting sports, and other outdoor recreational activities such as hunting. It is important to understand that recreational shooting comes in many different forms and all forms of recreational shooting should be incorporated in the Master Plan including: shot gunning, long range shooting (out to 1000 yards) and dispersed shooting. We understand the need to consider a multitude of different uses across the area and would like to discuss and make recommendations as to how to best incorporate shooting sports facilities and dispersed shooting within the Master Plan.

Hunting The Department requests hunting be recognized as an activity separate from recreational shooting in the Master Plan. Hunting is currently a known activity in the area, primarily in the back country areas away from any facilities currently existing and should remain an excepted activity across the park into the future for the recreating public. A.R.S. 17-231 A.3 provides the Department’s Commission powers and duties to manage and conserve wildlife in Arizona by establishing hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribes the manner and methods which may be used in taking wildlife. In addition, A.R.S. Title 17-309 states that it is unlawful for a person to discharge a firearm while hunting within ¼ mile of an occupied building. There are also further regulations under Commission Rule R12-4-321 that could limit hunting or trapping within ¼ mile of developed picnic areas, developed campgrounds, shooting ranges etc.

Sensitive Species The study area includes suitable habitat for several species that are likely to be present in or adjacent to the study area. A number of these species are recognized by the Department as Species of Greatest Conservation Need and/or Species of Economic Importance. The Department may not have documented occurrences on these species; however, does have data from survey efforts on some and has modeled suitable habitat for others. In particular, the Western shovel-nosed snake is known to occur ~5 miles from the project study area. It should be recognized that while the Department receives information from survey efforts to identify locations of species, the lack of data does not necessarily indicate nonoccurrence. For example, the Western shovel-nosed snake has only recently started to be surveyed as opposed to other species and not all areas have been surveyed. There is suitable habitat for the snake within the study area. The Department recommends the same compliance be implemented similar to the burrowing owl and desert tortoise.

Wildlife Linkages The Department appreciates the incorporation of the Arizona Missing Linkages (NAU et. Al 2008) identifying wildlife linkages within the study area; however, inclusion of the Pinal County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment (Assessment) (AGFD 2013) should also be considered both in the narrative and in the map. This Assessment identifies 5 additional linkage areas within the study area. Keeping these areas undeveloped and buffered by the identified quiet areas to facilitate continued movement by wildlife species throughout the area is vital.

P a g e | 3

The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the development of this Master Plan and looks forward to continuing to work with Pinal County on these efforts across the county. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Tyler Raspiller, [email protected] or 480-297-4018.

Sincerely,

Jay Cook Regional Supervisor, Mesa

Cc: Jay Cook, Regional Supervisor, Mesa Laura Canaca, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor

v ;

Thunderbird Arena Community Council

12365 N Ralston Rd Maricopa AZ85139 Email [email protected]

To Pinal County Open Space And Trails. Care of KentTaylor .

Thunderbird arena is in full support of Palo Verde Regional Park We would like to see our way of life handed down to many generation .With the ability to do the Activities that many do here in Pinal county such as Ride a horse ,off road vehicles, Shooting sports, Hiking, And just enjoy the open space. We feel that it will help make it safe for all to do the things they love

Nncerely, V , -s; IlL '''f'> "'-.Q -e c- -\.<:-""Vv4--- ;. V·P/~Lvv~ Srt~ ~~ 4..Crv~~-r~ Thunderbird ArenaCommumty Council

November 5th, 2016

Mr. Kent Taylor Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department P.O. Box 2973 Florence, AZ 85132

Re: Palo Verde Regional Park Cooperative Recreation Management Area Master Plan

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Please accept these comments from the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) regarding the Palo Verde Regional Park Cooperative Recreation Management Area Master Plan. We have been involved in this and other planning processes with Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department for the past two years and we are pleased with the consideration that mountain bike trail access has been given during these processes.

Founded in 1988, IMBA leads the national and worldwide mountain bicycling communities through a network of 80,000 individual supporters, 750 Chapters and supporting organizations, and 600 dealer members. Our mission is to ‘create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences’. IMBA teaches sustainable trail building techniques and has become a leader in trail design, construction, and maintenance. We encourage responsible riding, volunteer trail work, and cooperation among trail user groups and land managers. Each year, IMBA members and clubs conduct more than one million hours of volunteer stewardship on public lands and are some of the best assistants to federal, state, and local land managers. As a quiet human powered form of recreation, bicycles have impacts on natural lands that are comparable to any human activity. Unmanaged recreation always has the potential to create adverse impacts on the environment. However, thoughtful management can avoid those effects while still allowing the public to experience these environments.

Our conservation focus

On a practical level our conservation efforts are focused on developing sustainable trails, the genesis of which begins with working with land managers to locate trails correctly, in order to mitigate any potential social and environmental conflicts. In terms of trail layout, we design trails at a grade resulting in minimal erosion; these bench-cut trails follow hillside contours, rather than the steepest path down a hillside, the result is that rainwater sheets across the tread and users are concentrated on the trail surface, minimizing trail widening.

On a policy level, we work with federal, state, county, and municipal agencies across the USA and around the world, and with the local, national and international conservation community to ensure that mountain bike access is given high priority on public land. We believe that it is critical for our community and the public to protect the places where we ride and recreate. Therefore, we seek to reinforce to these partners that mountain bike access and land protection is most successful if accounted for at an early stage in land use planning processes.

Our goal for the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park

Our goal for this current process in Pinal County is to see maximum sustainable mountain bike access for all riding abilities. Given the scale of the parcel in question at 22,000 acres and the proximity to large urban populations, we see that there are opportunities for:

(1) Beginner level trails for children, new riders and families who wish to recreate together in a safe environment (2) Intermediate level trails for riders who wish to explore the terrain further on more challenging trails (3) Opportunities for longer loop trails (25 miles or more) for experienced riders who seek a wilder and more remote experience (4) Purpose built, bike optimized trails with features such as berms, rollers and rock ledges offering higher-level yet progressive technical challenge, which many riders seek (5) Event venues for mountain bike festivals, demo events and races, including the popular and growing Arizona High School Cycling League which offers competitive mountain bike racing opportunities to that age group

Given the large and diverse populations in the Phoenix-metropolitan area, we understand that all of these demographics are represented in relatively close proximity to the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park.

Comments on the Draft Master Plan

In your Draft Master Plan we concur with your statement that “Although there is an abundance of open spaces and public lands across Pinal County that could attract seasonal and year-round visitors, there are a very limited number of developed municipal and county recreation facilities. Disproportionate to its population, Pinal County provides very few recreation facilities”. We see this current planning process as a vital step in addressing this challenge. With this need reinforced in the 2003 Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), which established that there is a need for more park space in Pinal County.

We appreciate that your have developed four alternatives using the data gathered from on-the-ground inventories and public input sessions and have used this information to develop those alternatives ranging from: Alternative A - No Action to progressively increasing levels of passive and active recreation opportunities and supporting facility development for Alternatives B, C, and D. Additionally, Alternatives B, C, and D proposed options to separate non-motorized and motorized trail uses.

We understand that the Draft Preferred Alternative is a mix of various opportunities and management actions, representing a middle ground of the public’s wide range of opinions and preferences. We appreciate that the Draft Preferred Alternative carries forward many of the elements of Alternative C, which calls for Moderate Change to the parcel in question. These elements include: non-motorized trail uses (hiking, running, and biking, and equestrian); motorized trail uses on authorized trails; equestrian facilities; interpretive uses, including an interpretive center, a small amphitheater, wildlife viewing and bird watching, and photography; family picnic areas and playgrounds; camping uses; and shooting sports. We are aware that Alternative C includes what you have identified as ‘Active Core Programs’, which includes recreation activities that: entail direct participation in an organized activity or event, such as an equestrian ride or a bicycle race. We appreciate that these have been carried forward into the Draft Preferred Alternative, as we stated above (among other items) that event facilities would be critical components of this park.

In terms of mileage of trails, we understand that detailed trail planning has yet to be initiated, with only conceptual trail alignments being depicted on Figure 6.3 (Alternative C) and Figure 6.5 (Preferred Alternative). When the time comes for more detailed trail planning and design, we encourage a ‘purpose built’ and ‘think big’ approach in terms of trail quality and quantity, especially on a 22,000 acre parcel in close proximity to the 12th largest metropolitan area in the nation. At any given trailhead, a network of 20-40 miles could be developed in keeping with the five trail and facility types which we outlined above. We recommend that this mileage of trail is developed at several points within the park, extending from trailhead and/or camping facilities. This mileage would be achievable as this is a relatively blank canvas, where professional trail designers could employ the best practices in their field, maximizing the trail mileage and utilizing the terrain for a variety of sustainable trail types.

We wish to emphasize another point, hopefully without sounding pedantic. The current symbol on your draft maps for multi-use trails (foot traffic, equestrians, and mountain bikers) only has a hiker and equestrian depicted on the logo. Although it is a small detail, we would recommend that this symbol is amended to include a bicycle, in order to avoid any misinterpretation of allowed trail uses as we get further into the trail planning process.

As it is currently written, IMBA supports the Draft Preferred Alternative. We believe that it represents a tremendous opportunity for trail based recreation in the Phoenix metropolitan area, specifically for mountain bike access. We also appreciate that there is a natural resource interpretation and education component to the Draft Preferred Alternative, along with the provision of camping facilities.

Mr. Taylor, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this process, we truly appreciate your work in managing our public lands for the health and wellness of this generation and generations to come. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding IMBAs position on this planning process.

Sincerely,

Patrick Kell Southwest and Alaska Regional Director International Mountain Bicycling Association (p) 802-371-9033 (e) [email protected]

November 23rd, 2016

Pinal County Commissioners Pinal County Open Space & Trails P.O. Box 2973 Florence, AZ 85132

To Whom It May Concern,

Please accept this letter of support from the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) regarding the Palo Verde Regional Park Cooperative Recreation Management Area Master Plan. We have been involved in this and other planning processes with Pinal County Open Space and Trails Department for the past two years and we are pleased with the consideration that land protection and mountain bike trail access has been given during these processes.

We have reviewed the Pinal County Open Space and Trails proposal for the development of the approximately 23,000-acre Palo Verde Regional Park in western Pinal County. We see that the proposal will lead to the protection of a significant parcel of Sonoran desert landscape, while providing sustainable trail access for mountain bike riders, trail runners, hikers and equestrians. We support Pinal County in providing this outdoor recreation access for visitors to the region and to neighbors in the communities adjacent to and accessible from the proposed park. We support the development of professionally designed and purpose built trails on the parcel, the genesis of which begins with working with land managers to locate trails correctly, in order to mitigate any potential social and environmental conflicts. In terms of trail layout, we support designing trails at a grade resulting in minimal erosion; these bench-cut trails follow hillside contours, rather than the steepest path down a hillside, the result is that rainwater sheets across the tread and users are concentrated on the trail surface, minimizing trail widening. We see that trails built in this manner can provide a valuable recreational experience to a broad range of users and abilities, while appealing to our core constituents, mountain bikers.

As it is currently written, IMBA supports the Draft Preferred Alternative for Palo Verde Regional Park. We believe that it represents a tremendous opportunity for trail based recreation in the Phoenix metropolitan area, specifically for mountain bike access. We also appreciate that there is a natural resource interpretation and education component to the Draft Preferred Alternative, along with the provision of camping facilities, all of which we feel will lead to an optimal user experience.

Sincerely,

Patrick Kell IMBA Southwest and Alaska Regional Director 802-371-9033 [email protected]

nvironmental oncerns rganization, Inc. E C O a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation

November 22, 2016

Kent Taylor, Director Pinal County Open Space & Trails Dept. P.O. Box 2973 Florence, AZ 85132

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Environmental Concerns Organization, Inc. (ECO, Inc.) supports the Palo Verde Regional Park Cooperative Recreational Management Area Master Plan (PVMP). ECO, Inc. participated in the initial public planning meetings for the Pinal County Open Space & Trails (OS&T) master planning process and has continued our engagement following the OS&T Master Plan’s adoption in 2007, because it aligns with our nonprofit mission of promoting environmental stewardship and supporting sustainable community development projects in Pinal County.

Pinal County’s population has increased by more than 250,000 people over the past 20 years and population growth projections estimate an increase of more than 220,000 in the next 20 years. During public planning meetings in Pinal County, wherein ECO, Inc. participated over the past 20 years, residents and stakeholders repeatedly voiced their concern for preserving and protecting Pinal County’s open space resources (view-sheds, wildlife, natural drainage & riparian corridors, etc.) as the county develops.

Pinal County’s Open Space & Trails Master Plan is a long-range planning document that provides for passive and active recreational opportunities, while conserving our existing natural resources. The Palo Verde Mountains and the Vekol Wash watershed in western Pinal County was identified as an important open space area for preservation in the OS&T Master Plan. The proposed PVMP reflects the public’s quality of life values shared during numerous community outreach and public input planning meetings – a major accomplishment for Pinal County!

ECO, Inc. sincerely appreciates Pinal County’s comprehensive considerations during the facilitation of the PVRP master planning process. The PVRP’s approval by the Board of Supervisors will contribute to the critical importance of managing the designated recreational activities therein and preserving our county’s open space resources for future generations.

Respectfully,

Gina D’Abella, Executive Director

Phone: (480) 456-6324 e-mail: [email protected]

December 11, 2016

Pinal County Commissioners Pinal County Open Space and Trails PO Box 2973

Florence, AZ 85132

As the equestrian representative on the American Trails Board of Directors http://www.americantrails.org/ee/ and the author of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and USDA Forest Service publication “The Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds,” I have reviewed the proposal and want to send my support for the Palo Verde Regional Park Cooperative Recreation Management Area Master Plan.

This plan is very supportive of open space preservation and provides vitally important access to the equestrians residing th roughout Pinal County and Arizona’s other counties, and the many national equestrian visitors who enjoy and often spend many months residing and recreating in the Pinal County area.

The environmental protection of open space depends on the quality of the planning and design of the trails, trailheads and campgrounds that provide public access to the open space. Without a well-planned, designed and constructed trail system, the public can wander with abandon and directly disrupt wildlife corridors, damage protected vegetation, create “social trails” that invite destructive impacts such as soil erosion, breaking through the protective “desert veneer” that helps hold soils from wind erosion that can contribute to dust storms, and displace surface soils that invite rainwater destruction. Additionally, open space without trails or signage invites users to roam anywhere, potentially risking getting lost and creating unnecessary search and rescue operations, and inviting possible injury in remote or

unsafe open space areas.

I am providing a link to my publication: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publication s/07232816/index.cfm This 300-page book was written under contract with the federal government and serves as the federal guidebook for the planning, design, and construction elements of equestrian trails and trailheads. This resource guide has been revie wed and approved by 35 national land management agencies and equestrian organizations, including the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, American Trails, and the American Horse Council. The guidebook provides very detailed information to be incorporated in the design of all non- motorized trails planned for equestrian use, and the guidelines also support the successful design elements for shared use for all non-motorized recreational trail users, such as trail hikers, trail runners, and mountain bikers.

I support the Draft Preferred Alternative for Palo Verde Regional Park and the recreational opportunities it provides to the entire Pinal County and surrounding counties’ trail-based residents and recreationists. The educational and interpretive elements of the Draft Preferred Alternative add important value and benefits to the general public and recreational users. The camping opportunities in the Palo Verde Regional Park further also add a broad scope of user experiences to Pinal County’s and Arizona’s residents and visitors.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide my comments.

Jan Hancock Principal Hancock Resources LLC 602-252-8387 or 877-727-7117 th [email protected] 805 North 4 Avenue - Suite 703  Phoenix, AZ 85003-1306 Telephone: 602-252-8387 or 877-727-7117  Fax: 602-253-2789  E-mail: [email protected]@aol.com www.HancockResources.com

APPENDIX B MEDIA CLIPPINGS

Pinal County eyes new regional park on west side of county - ABC15 Arizona Page 1 of 1

KNXV WEATHER TRAFFIC ALL SECTIONS

89° Pinal County eyes new regional park on west side of county BY: Associated Press POSTED: 4:45 AM, Nov 19, 2015 TAG: coolidge | florence | southern arizona

FLORENCE, AZ - Pinal County may provide south-central Arizona with a new regional park.

The county Open Space and Trails Department on Dec. 10 will hold a public open house to present information on the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park and to gather public input.

The proposed park would consist of over 31 square miles of mostly federal Bureau of Land Management land on the county's far west side.

The land is located between Interstate 8 on the south and State Route 238 on the north.

The Dec. 10 open house will be held at the county's Public Works Hidden Valley Yard in Maricopa.

Want more savings? See ALL ads this week

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-central-southern-az/florence/pinal-county-eyes-new-re... 10/7/2016 Pinal County eyes new regional park on west side of county - Washington Times Page 1 of 6

Home (/) / News () Pinal County eyes new regional park on west side of county

] + C 8

By - Associated Press Thursday, November 19, 2015

FLORENCE, Ariz. (AP) - Pinal County may provide south-central Arizona with a new regional park.

The county Open Space and Trails Department on Dec. 10 will hold a public open house to present information on the proposed Palo Verde Regional Park and to gather public input.