Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Powerline Flood Retarding Structure Pinal County, AZ Draft Supplemental Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment endangered, proposed, and candidate species list for Pinal and Maricopa Counties was reviewed by Kimley-Horn’s qualified biologist to determine species potentially occurring in the project vicinity. Kimley-Horn’s qualified biologist reviewed this list and determined that no threatened, endangered species or their habitat would be potentially affected by a future proposed project. 6.1.3. Species of Concern The AGFD online review tool did list three “species of concern”: the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi), and pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) as occurring within 5 miles of the project area. The Tucson shovel-nosed snake was listed by the AGFD as occurring within the project area. The Tucson shovel-nosed snake is listed a candidate species by the USFWS. Candidate species are defined as “Species for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, proposed rules have not yet been issued because such actions are precluded at present by other listing activity”. None of these “species of concern” are federally listed species which typically require further analysis for federally funded projects. However, the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a species that maybe become listed in the near future and the western burrowing owl is protected under the migratory bird act. 6.2. Social Population and Demographics Existing Conditions Study The “Social Population and Demographics Existing Conditions Study” (Kimley-Horn, 2010) (SPDECS) was completed in preparation for the economic analysis for the PVR project. The purpose of this study is to document the existing social conditions, conduct a preliminary analysis of the data, discuss population and demographic characteristics and identify populations with the potential for disproportionate adverse impacts as part of Phase II of the PVR project. The boundaries of the study area for SPDECS are the eastern border of the modified easement area upstream of the FRSs on the east, US 60/Superstition Freeway alignment on the north, the East Maricopa Floodway on the west and the Ocotillo Road alignment on the south. 6.2.1. Social Environment The demographic composition of the study area was calculated using the decennial Census 2000 data sets from the United States Census Bureau (Census 2000). Census tracts (CT) and the block groups (BG) within these census tracts are large, relatively permanent, statistical subdivisions that do not cross county boundaries. For the purposes of the analysis, the demographic composition has been conducted to the block group level. The PVR FRSs SPDECS area lies within 15 CT containing 21 BG. The CTs and BGs extend beyond the SPDECS area, but not to an extent that the data represents demographic characteristics inconsistent of those strictly within the SPDECS area boundaries. Since the SPDECS area encompasses portions of multiple communities as well as unincorporated county land, data was collected for the Cities of Mesa, Gilbert and Apache Junction, the Town of Queen Creek, both Maricopa and Pinal Counties as well as the State of Arizona. This information was used for comparison purposes in the future analysis of impacts. The majority of the total population encompassing the PVR FRSs SPDECS area is White (Non- Hispanic) which comprises 86.9% of the population for all the CT/BGs. The total minority population for all the CT/BGs is 13.1% with the breakdown of racial and ethnic demographics as follows: Black or African American 1.4%; American Indian and Alaskan Native 1.0%; Asian USDA- NRCS January 2013 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 47
Powerline Flood Retarding Structure Pinal County, AZ Draft Supplemental Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment 1.2%; Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0.2%; Other 6.6%; Population of Two or More Races/Not Hispanic or Latino 2.8%.. The percentages of racial, ethnic and total minority populations appear to be consistent with those of the surrounding communities. (*Hispanic or Latino refers to ethnicity and is derived from the total population; ‘Hispanic or Latino’ is not classified as a separate race. The total minority population minus the Hispanic or Latino is 13.1%.) The median household income for the PVR FRSs SPDECS area is between $32,055 (CT 3.06, BG 1) and $101,124 (CT 4226.12, BG 2). This represents a slightly lower median income than the neighboring communities. However, the total number of households that are below the poverty level for the study area is less than that of the City of Gilbert, the community with the lowest number (and percentage) of households below the poverty level of those in the project vicinity. The Title VI Related Statutes minority populations vary by CT and BG but the total percentages for all the CT/BGs combined are as follows: Elderly 18.0%, Disabled 14.5% and Female Head of Household 5.9%. Both the total elderly and disabled populations within the SPDECS area have considerably higher percentages than both Maricopa County and the City of Gilbert. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations vary by CT and BG, but the total percentages for all the CT/BGs combined are 2.2% and are consistent with those of the surrounding communities. The existing population demographics were documented to identify the level or degree of total population densities and population densities for the minority groups encompassing the PVR FRSs SPDECS area. In compliance with Title VI and the related statutes, Executive Order 12898, and Executive Order 13166 the populations include racial/ethnic minorities, low-income, elderly, disabled, female head-of-household, and limited English proficiency populations. This data will be used to evaluate and compare impacts to these populations from the alternatives that are developed and analyzed for the project. The alternatives will not have significant impacts on these populations. 6.2.2. Community Cohesion Community cohesion refers to the aggregate relationship between the quality and quantity of residential interactions. This can be signified by the degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their neighborhood or community, their level of community participation, and the level to which members of the community interact socially with one another. Community cohesion can be affected by land use planning decisions. Factors associated with community cohesion include the walk-ability of a neighborhood, the level of security or safety within the neighborhood, the quality of public service, the availability of parks and social settings, the population demographics, and the level of neighborly interactions. Impacts to the communities within the PVR FRSs SPDECS area are anticipated to be minimal and may vary depending on the alternatives developed as part of the PVR FRSs Rehabilitation or Replacement Project in Phase II. 6.2.3. Displacement/Relocation The displacement of people and businesses is governed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The purpose of this Act is to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of individuals whose real property is acquired or who are USDA- NRCS January 2013 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 48
Page 1 and 2:
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN A
Page 3 and 4:
Powerline Flood Retarding Structure
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Signal Butte Rd Meridian Rd Ironwoo
Page 91:
POWERLINE FRS TYPICAL SECTION
Page 95 and 96:
Ironwood Rd Gantzel Rd Mountain Vie
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 22 Figure 21 - Conceptual Mu
Page 99 and 100:
K:\PHX_WaterResources\91131019\CADD
Page 101 and 102:
K:\PHX_WaterResources\91131019\CADD
Page 103 and 104:
Exhibit A-2 - Emergency Spillway Di
Page 105 and 106:
Price Price Price Dobson Alma Schoo
Page 107 and 108: Powerline Flood Retarding Structure
Page 157: Powerline Flood Retarding Structure
Page 169 and 170: Powerline, Vineyard Road and Ritten
Page 171: Powerline Flood Retarding Structure
show all

Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?