Comment EI-32179
Received or sent (printed as 9/19/2022)
In regards to the letter requesting comments that our office received from Danielle Gosselin, Director, Office of Environmental Analysis, dated September 1, 2022, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) has no comment on the Area of Potential Effects revisions, the adequacy of the Class III Cultural Resources Survey, OEA’s NRHP eligibility determinations, treatment recommendations, finding of adverse effect, or development of a Memorandum of Agreement as an appropriate Section 106 agreement document for the Union Pacific Railroad Company Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension Project (Surface Transportation Board Docket No. FD 36501). It appears that the rail alignment may impact the existing Rittenhouse Channel that is owned and maintained by the District. If so, a right of way use permit and a land right must be obtained from our office prior to any construction that impacts our project. Our right of way permit review will be conducted to ensure that the channel function remains fully intact and there is a clear understanding of future responsibilities for operation and maintenance of any facilities that may impact our channel. An engineering firm on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad submitted a general concept plan to the District and applied for a right of way use permit from our office in late September 2021. More detailed plans will be required before permitting decisions can be made. In addition to a right of way use permit and land right, a floodplain use permit from our office may also be necessary as the existing flood channel contains a delineated floodplain that may be impacted, and the District is responsible for floodplain reviews in the City of Mesa. Ed Raleigh Senior Engineering Advisor Flood Control District of Maricopa County (602)506-1501
Submitted by: Edward Raleigh · Flood Control District of Maricopa County · Phoenix, AZ
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-36501/comment/EI-32179 · back to the docket sheet