Far West Projects

State Route 95: Interstate 40 to State Route 68

Frequently Asked Questions

What was underway when the study was stopped?

Reports that had been completed included a Realignment Study Feasibility Report, Corridor Development Report, Alternatives Selection Report, and Traffic Study Report. A Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was underway when the study was stopped. The Tier 1 Draft EIS would have assessed broad, corridor-wide impacts for identifying a preferred corridor. More detailed Tier 2 environmental studies to examine potential impacts of site-specific alignments were anticipated once funding to implement, operate, and maintain the proposed project were committed. When the project is reinitiated, environmental data would be updated and the analysis would be completed.

Why has the study been canceled?

ADOT determined that completing the Tier 1 EIS level of analysis to support a Record of Decision would exceed the funding currently allocated for the study. This decision considered the nature of the public and agency scoping comments and identification of emerging environmental resource concerns.

What is being done to close out the study that was underway?

ADOT has prepared a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Questionnaire and Checklist. The PEL checklist documents the status of the environmental studies, the agency and public coordination that has taken place, and the issues and concerns that have been identified. Completed reports as well as documents in development have been archived to facilitate the restarting of the study when funding is available. The PEL will facilitate re-initiation of the National Environmental Policy Act process when funding is available.

What was done with the scoping comments I provided?

In spring 2014, a newsletter was sent to more than 46,000 residents and businesses as well as members of the Fort Mojave Tribe to provide information on how the study was changing to a Tier 1 EIS and to request public comments. The comment form included in the newsletter also was posted to this website. Approximately 90 individuals submitted comments. The most frequently mentioned comment categories pertained to the purpose of and need for the realignment (37 comments) and the alternatives (24 supporting one or both of the two proposed corridors and 18 supporting the no-action alternative to not realign the highway). Other comment categories mentioned by 15 or more persons included traffic impacts, community impacts, economics and traffic operations.

The comments received and the inventory of the comments by category is being retained so they can be considered when studies are reinitiated. The information will provide a good baseline of the issues of concern so that these can be a priority when planning efforts are started again. Comments from the public and interested parties will be sought again because values and concerns change over time and new people will move into the communities that may be affected.